The amendment would prohibit the use of funds to take any action to dis-establish the Joint Forces Command. In FY 2010, Secretary of Defense Gates recommended dis-establishing the Joint Forces Command, and included this as part of his efficiencies initiatives in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. On January 6, 2011, President Obama issued an official memorandum accepting the recommendations of Secretary Gates and of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, and approved dis-establishment of Joint Forces Command. The Department of Defense expects to save at least $240 million annually by dis-establishing the command. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retains responsibility for promoting joint operations and essential functions. The resources needed to perform these functions will be assigned to other organizations in Hampton Roads and the Navy support activity in Norfolk, Virginia. All told, DOD estimates that about 50 percent of the current level of effort will remain in the Norfolk, Virginia area.
Norman D. Dicks: “The amendment would prohibit the use of funds to take any action to dis-establish the Joint Forces Command. In FY 2010…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the implications of dis-establishing the Joint Forces Command and budgetary considerations.
Share
More from Norman D. Dicks
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
You don't need thousands of these weapons. A couple hundred, frankly, could take out Iran and almost any country you can imagine. So, again, we can't afford to do everything. We are in an era where we're dealing with terrorists, and we…
I reclaim my time. The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Washington has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Regaining my time, just for a second, I worked to convert the B-2 bomber from a nuclear weapon carrier to a conventional carrier. Do you know why a conventional bomber is, I think, more of a deterrent than a nuclear bomber? Because with a…