Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First of all, working together on a bipartisan basis for the first time, we cut nearly $15 billion from the Obama budget request in 2011 for defense, and we did it on a very careful basis. This amendment would add another $56 billion to that cut. It would do damage to all of our acquisition programs. It would threaten the people in Iraq and Afghanistan and our efforts to conduct the global war on terrorism. So, again, I hope that on a very strong bipartisan basis we can reject this amendment.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker opposes an amendment that would further cut defense spending.
Share
More from Norman D. Dicks
Would you explain--you say here you have these two brigades, except pursuant to article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Could you explain what the impact of this is, the treaty commitments here?
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.
It says: None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be available to continue the deployment beyond fiscal year 2013 of the 170th Infantry Brigade in Baumholder and the 172nd Infantry Brigade in Grafenwoehr, except pursuant to article…
This has been a subject I've been very interested in as former chairman of the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee where we have to fund the efforts for firefighting, which are very massive. I have tried to work with the Defense…