Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. We thank the chairman for his hard work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, the letter sent to the Committee on Armed Services by Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz is as follows: Deputy Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC, Nov. 5, 2003. The Hon. John Warner, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you again for your consideration of the Department of Defense's proposal to lease 100 KC-767A aircraft. As you know, there has been a vigorous debate on the best way to get this program started. Your most recent amendment would allow the Air Force to lease no more than 20 of the 100 tankers. The Air Force has developed a proposal to implement that arrangement, and I hope that you will find it acceptable. Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the critical need for new air-refueling tankers and the constraints on our budget. As reflected in the enclosed chart, we intend to lease the initial 20 aircraft and then buy aircraft at a steady rate of 11 to 13 aircraft per year until delivery of the 100th. We commit to add $2.4B, in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2008 through 2010, to the funding profile for the original proposal to lease 100 aircraft. We also will add $1.4B in FY 2012 to 2013. The combination of these added funds achieves an immediate start to the program and allows us to purchase the last 80 aircraft at time of delivery. I appreciate the support that you have provided in the past and look forward to working with you in the future. If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. A similar letter has been sent to the chairmen and ranking minority members of each of the defense committees. Sincerely, Paul Wolfowitz.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 30 seconds.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I wanted to say something to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense. The gentleman served as a chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, and FEMA was under my colleague's jurisdiction. When FEMA has an expenditure it gets reimbursed. In our situation, with the Forest Service and the BLM, they take money from all of the accounts of the agency, go spend it fighting the fires, and then we do not reimburse it completely. It is not automatic. It has to be appropriated, and we do not do it as completely as we should. I think the FEMA example is a better way to go.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and his staff. We had a very cooperative working relationship on this conference committee. I am pleased that we have very substantial funding in this bill for firefighting. I see my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), whose district has been ravaged by these forest fires recently; and I know he has been working hard to make sure that the forest service and the BLM have adequate resources to deal with these issues. I want to also mention that we had a nice vote here on the House floor to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Both of those increased this year, $6.7 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; and I want to thank the chairman for his efforts on that in our conference committee. We have had questions on privatization studies, as we have been debating all afternoon. I think the provision that we worked out in this bill is a good one and will protect government workers. As was mentioned by the chairman, we had a very low figure in the House bill for lands and water conservation for acquisition of Federal lands for our Federal agencies. That number came up in conference committee. I, of course, with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we were two of the authors, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) of the conservation spending amendment, we are disappointed that we have not been able to keep that funding level where it should have been under the agreement that was reached in 2000. But one of our problems is with the budget resolution; our committee has gotten a very low allocation; and the strategy of the majority has been to try to take care of the Forest Service, the Park Service the Fish and Wildlife Service, the major agencies and that is understandable, though I regret that we cannot do more on the Conservation Trust Fund. So I think all in all this is a good bill. We are going to have a little debate here on other matters. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to end the debate on our side by saying I strongly support the conference agreement, and I hope Members will vote for the conference agreement. I appreciate the comments made here tonight. We are going to work hard to resolve the problems on the trust account issues. We will work with the authorizers. The chairman and Mr. Rahall are acting in very good faith. I know there has been a hearing, and they are going to have another hearing. We need a solution to this problem, and I pledge tonight to my constituents back in the State of Washington that I will work tirelessly for a solution to this problem, so we can do justice to the holders of these accounts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, and the gentleman, I think, mentioned this, this was a bipartisan agreement, by the way. This was not something that was just done by myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This was something that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) was involved in and Mr. Byrd was involved in. So it had both House and the other body working together on this alternative, and so this was a bipartisan agreement. That is why it hurts me deeply that we have not been able to keep this up. But budget levels have been so ridiculously low for the Interior, our allocation, that it has been almost impossible. The committee has made some very difficult choices, but I am completely in concurrence. I think their commitment was made. We should stay with it. We should get back to it, and, hopefully, we will at some point in the future. But I have to concur with the gentleman that we are $500 million below where we were supposed to be under the agreement.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing for consideration of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. Although there are certainly things that I would have done differently, I am generally pleased with the process this year and am glad that we have the opportunity to bring this bill to the floor as a freestanding measure. I supported the conference agreement and am particularly pleased it included the additional $400 million added by the other body for emergency wildland fire costs. The House voted overwhelmingly to have the money included in the final conference report, and we were successful in providing it. Other levels in the bill are far lower than I would have hoped, particularly levels for conservation spending. Under the Conservation Trust Fund law established in 2000, this bill should have funded conservation programs at $1.56 billion for the Interior part of the bill. Unfortunately, this bill falls roughly $500 million short of that level. The impact of this cut will be felt nationwide. Funding is reduced for State and Federal land and water conservation fund, historic preservation, park and refuge construction, endangered species work, and forest legacy project. It means projects all over the country will not be done this year. The agreement does provide small increases for other important programs that I am extremely pleased about. The National Endowment for the Arts receives a $5 million increase over last year, and that was a direct result of the Slaughter-Dicks amendment that added $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities that was voted on overwhelmingly by the House. And the Tribal College Program receives an additional $10 million. My colleague from the other body, the ranking Democratic member, Mr. Dorgan, is to be given a pat on the back for his efforts on this matter. The agreement also addresses the issue of competitive outsourcing with a compromise that I think is responsible. I want to again thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and his staff for their work on this bill, his first, and urge my colleagues to support both the rule for the conference report and the conference report itself. I want to go back on the issue of funding for firefighting just for a moment. I am deeply concerned about the process that we have today, the way we fund the efforts to deal with forest fires in our country. What we do is we in essence appropriate some of the money, but then give the agencies the ability, the Forest Service and the BLM, to borrow money from other accounts in order to fund all of the money that is necessary for fighting the fires. And then we do not replenish the amount of money necessary. In 2003, I think we were short a couple of hundred million dollars in terms of replenishing the money necessary to make up the funding that was borrowed. Now, with FEMA, we do not do it that way. We just give FEMA the money, and they draw it down and then we replenish it; and this is what I think we should do. We have got to come up with a new way of funding firefighting in this country. It is not acceptable. The other problem we have is we have old, antiquated equipment. We have a whole group of airplanes that are 40-plus years old that we are using for firefighting. And according to the staff on the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, we are losing lives because we are using this old equipment. So I would urge that next year we make this a priority, that we have a committee investigation. I am going to talk to the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) on the Subcommittee on Defense and the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) on the Subcommittee on Interior. We have to get some new equipment for these firefighters. It is outrageous that we are sending them out with these old airplanes and not replacing them. The planes that we use now are, I think, C-130s that are in some cases over 40 years old. I just had a chance to fly in a few of these over in Iraq; and I want my colleagues to know, I would not want to be fighting fires in these old planes. So we have a lot of work to do, and I hope even in this supplemental, because of the situation in California. I understand the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee in the other body is considering an amendment to add money for additional funds for firefighting for the Forest Service and for the BLM. That should be done. We should not go in and start this year and start borrowing immediately on the 2004 money in order to fund these fires in California. Now, I understand that $500 million was added in FEMA; and definitely, there is a requirement here for $100 million-plus for the Forest Service and the BLM. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I am going to vote for this bill; but we have additional things that need to be done in the supplemental or in the omnibus. So this is an important matter. I know there is a lot of controversy on the agreement on how we are going to deal with these trust accounts, and I just want to say, I am concerned about the potential liability here to the country and to the Congress if we do not come up with a settlement here. The authorizing committees have promised us over and over again that they are going to deal with this issue. Well, they have had one hearing. The pace of their activity is not what I would call brisk. They need to get busy here. They made commitments to the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and myself that they were going to get busy on this issue. Well, they need to do it. That is not just in the House; it is also in the other body. They have to get busy, because this is a crisis that is affecting the Department of the Interior, and it is going to affect tribal programs and mean less funding for our tribes because of this if we do not come up with an answer. So we have some work to do.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I was honored last month to attend the annual Nancy Hanks Lecture at the Kennedy Center, an annual tribute to the memory of the woman who served as the Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts from 1969 to 1977. Each year a prominent American is asked to deliver personal remarks about the importance of the arts in public policy, and it was a great pleasure this year to hear from the accomplished actor, Robert Redford, who delivered a poignant, funny and meaningful address about the importance of supporting creativity and artistic development in our Nation. I am very pleased to bring his remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the House of Representatives. Remarks of Robert Redford I've been coming to Washington, D.C. for the past 30 years, either filming here, as was the case in All the President's Men, or for lobbying efforts on behalf of issues relating to the environment, energy, human rights and art. In the beginning, it was a heady experience to be in the halls of power surrounded by history and event, feeling what it is like to be an integral part of a democracy--particularly if you were fortunate enough to move someone on an important issue. In time, you experience changes in political climates, different attitudes and priorities. The strength of the system that controls decisions and compromises became clear over time, and expectations of success had to be tendered with failure relating to these realities. But still, you feel fortunate to have access to the ears that made decisions. Even though you knew that celebrity was maybe a door opener, it nonetheless cuts both ways in politics. Like the time I was on the Presidential campaign trail and speaking to thousands of kids on a college campus about the importance of their vote and environmental issues. In the roar of their connection with what I was saying, I thought for a moment ``I'm really getting through here!'' Then I walked off stage and immediately a reporter stuck a microphone in my face and said, ``Who do you think is better looking, you or Dan Quayle? So, just when you might be feeling your oats, reality has a way of sneaking up and putting it all in perspective. But as a citizen and an artist, I try to remember that it is a right and a responsibility to be able to partake in the process of democracy. I'm here today because of my belief that art is a great translator of that which is both familiar and unfamiliar and that it is through art that we can come to know ourselves and others. To me, the vitality and insight which art brings to civil society is more important now than ever. I grew up in a time when democracy was taken for granted since it was drummed into our minds as a fundamental definition of America and why it was great. I was shaped by WW II and a time when we were all united in its purpose-- unlike conflicts of today. Because times were tough, and my family financial resources slim, we didn't have fancy toys or luxuries and had to be creative in inventing worlds of our own. My imagination was my most valuable commodity and thankfully it became a life force for me at a very young age. I saw the world around me not only as it was. I saw the world around me as it could be. Art and the imagination that gave it life became my closest companions. Before anyone was much interested in what I had to say, they were interested in what I created. As a kid, I remember sketching everything in sight. My parents and their friends played cards and I began drawing them as a group, individual faces and the like. Then I moved under the table and began sketching their feet at which point I think everyone started to worry. Even though they thought I was a bit weird, I got attention and encouragement for my ``art'' at a young age. While I was a poor student academically, I shined in sports and in art and my third grade teacher was next to recognize that art was a legitimate means of expression for me as I struggled with more traditional approaches. I remember she had me come to the front of the room and draw a story on this big pad of newsprint on an easel. I think we were studying English and she used it as a basis to make a point. The whole class seemed to get it and all learned a little about sentence structure and storytelling in ways that engaged and made sense. I didn't know what ``it'' was that they got, but it sure felt good. My teacher's encouragement of my artistic tendencies continued, making me realize art. was something legitimate to pursue and that it was integral to how I was finding my way in this world and making sense of things. If not for this, I may have taken a path that wasn't as fulfilling and productive. That's the main reason I'm here, to pay tribute to the work that so many of you do every day, to keep art alive in schools and in communities all across the country. Being in this hall tonight prompted me to remember some of the writings of President John F. Kennedy. I became reacquainted with a speech he gave in 1963 at Amherst College where he paid tribute to the American poet Robert Frost, and reflected on the value of the arts to a society. It was less than a month before his assassination. ``I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America, which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens.''--John F. Kennedy. To me, art, in all its forms, is the purest reflection of the most diverse aspects of us as individuals, as communities, as nations and as cultures. It's art that feeds and nurtures the soul of a society; provokes thought; inspires critical thinking; and fosters understanding of things foreign to our own immediate world. In the end, art plays a primary role in encouraging healthy tolerance of diversity in any culture. In times like these--in this very hour--more of this kind of encouragement would serve us well. Joseph Campbell felt that a society without mythology was doomed. I feel the same way about the role that art can play in a society's sustainable future. On the surface, it may not have the weight of the SEC, the Dept. of Defense, or Social Security and other programs that may be easier to quantify. But it is still a part of the whole. More importantly, it exemplifies one of our great, maybe our greatest critical luxuries--freedom of expression. Throughout the 80s and into the 90s, battles over free expression were furious and frequent. On the one side, the perception that art was undermining the moral fabric of our society began to stick and took on a life of its own and it became the order of the day. When the moralistic posturing gave way to the rationale to cut funding, for a time it was the political value of attacking the arts that increased significantly in stature. By falsely positioning the debate as one of morals and money, these forces hoped to use fear to obscure the real truth--0the value of art to every community--and fear is a very dangerous platform to work off of. I wondered then, why aren't they going after tabloid media or corporate greed with such a vengeance? Why isn't there the same fervor about the dismal state of literacy in our schools, the AIDS epidemic, or homeless men, women and children? Why is the zeal not pointed at the virtual flood of guns and drugs into our nation's streets, or pollution into our air and water and the resulting public health implications? When has a painting ever instigated the destruction of a culture? Is a song or a play, a painting or a photograph that much of a threat to our nation's well being? That notion seems particularly absurd in light of the larger threats we are currently facing. Luckily the collective voice against this trend won out, and of course, the political winds changed substantially. And, while the cultural wars may have subsided, they still rear their ugly head too frequently. But there's more than one way to strangle the arts and today, funding cuts being discussed all across this country at all levels of government could paint a truly devastating picture when all is said and done. As most of you know all too well, when the economy is in as bad a shape as it is now, art becomes the ``throw-away.'' Art and art education becomes the funding cut they feel won't have a tangible effect. In other words, it's the cut from which they think nobody will suffer and they think nobody will notice its absence. Well that's not true. It may take a while to get it, but society at large will suffer and I believe, society at large will ultimately notice. Government support for the arts is not the frivolous give- away that some would have you believe. It's a good investment and it is sound economic development. Art and public policy is good business. Let's look at the financial stake government has in the arts. The non-profit arts world is roughly a $134 billion a year industry, employing millions. It generates nearly $81 billion in spending by those who partake in its cultural offerings and is responsible for some $24 billion in taxes going back to federal, state and local governments annually And, this doesn't take into consideration the impact the non-profit sector has as the training ground for writers, musicians, actors, dancers, painters, photographers, filmmakers and the like. It doesn't take into consideration the ultimate effect these people and their work have on a thriving multi-billion dollar private sector. So, supporting the arts is good business and the numbers bear this out. It's also good public policy. A study by the Justice Dept., Americans for the Arts and the NEA demonstrated that arts programs helped at-risk-youth stay out of trouble, perform better in school and improve how they felt about themselves and their future. How do you put a price on that? Yet, President Bush recommended virtually no increase for arts grants administered by the NEA. President Bush also recommended terminating funding of the Arts in Education program, which is administered through the Dept. of Education. State legislatures all across the country are making substantial cuts. Several states proposed wiping out their entire state budget for the arts. Are these federal and state governments missing something in turning their backs on the arts? You bet they are. We need people in office who will have a vision for our country that goes beyond the next election. We need people in office who understand that encouraging creative pursuit could be critical to any number of sectors, from the next great technological idea to the next historic medical discovery. How do you put a price on that? Creativity is made all the more special because it is a great intangible. It can come from the most unlikely places and from those that might not fit the ``traditional'' model of the artist. Creativity is inherent in all great endeavors whether traditionally artistic or not. It is creativity that must continue to be nurtured if we hope to reap the benefits of the many great minds we don't yet know. How do you put a price on that? Yes there are pressing needs all around us. But completely ceasing to fund the arts is sadly shortsighted in any economy. Governments have to find a way to remain in the mix of resources for the arts and the private sector-- corporations, foundations and individuals--they all need to find ways to help fill the gap during these tough times such as we're in now. And that includes my industry, which benefits greatly from a vital and thriving artistic force. When one thinks of Hollywood, art isn't necessarily the first thing to come to mind. Some would say it is often anti-art. No. It's first a business. But it is a business that cannot exist without creative talent in every facet of the making of its product. So, in the end, the challenge to create art still rests squarely on the artist not the industry. As in any medium, sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail. But we succeed often enough to create films that inspire, expose, transform and provoke, amuse, entertain and even teach. Just as all other arts did at the moment of their own conception, cinema transformed the world. For good or for bad, it is a universal communicator on a global platform. Film is an indigenous American art form even though it's always been a struggle to have it taken seriously as an art form. But we can't deny that business has significantly infiltrated the practice of art in general, and in particular film. The constant talk of grosses--dollars and cents as the benchmark of a film's worth--is very debilitating to the body of serious film discussion and appreciation. And after all, where would the business of film be without art as its seed. While mine is a somewhat solid industry, it will be important in the years to come for it to embrace risks as readily as it does sure things. It must make sure that freedom of artistic expression is honored and nurtured across a broad spectrum. I believe strongly that keeping diversity alive in my industry will keep the industry alive. For example, the Sundance Institute is a step toward making sure diverse voices and the creative energy they bring with them are given an opportunity to grow and evolve. Those who come to the Sundance labs to make films and those who come to the Festival, to show films really are a microcosm of the kind of diverse voices which our industry needs to continue to support and nurture if it wants to maintain itself. They are also the kind of voices that will join in characterizing us to the rest of the world in the years to come. It's all connected. Even after two decades, Sundance continues to be a community work in progress, success and failure simultaneously evident, treating failure as a step toward growth, rather than the destruction of a vision. I look at the Sundance Film Festival and the innovative hustle demonstrated by scores of young filmmakers to bring their vision to the screen. They haven't curled up and died because they can't get government backing for their projects. Somehow they find a way. But I'm sure if I took a quick poll, I'd find that most of them found art, found their voice, in neighborhood, community and school arts programs. That's where they began the dance with the wonders of creativity. By the way, I started the Sundance Institute with a grant from the NEA when many others were skeptical of the idea's potential and ultimate worth. I will always be grateful to the NEA for believing in us at the time. It was instrumental in getting us started. It wasn't just the seed funding, but the seal of approval that gave the idea impetus. What most of you know that maybe others don't is that out there right now is some kid with a great song in their head we've yet to hear or a novel in their heart that has yet to be written. There's someone out there that hasn't picked up a paintbrush yet but has a masterpiece on the horizon. There's a kid out there who hasn't picked up a camera yet but could end up making a memorable film of their time. What most of you know that others might not as clearly see, is that the nurturing of creativity comes into play in everything from world diplomacy to world economics, business endeavors to social endeavors and everything in between. It is creativity that gives all of it the nuance that often makes the difference. In all its forms, art plays a critical role in finding our way as people and as a culture. As President Kennedy said that day in Amherst: ``I see little more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist. If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.'' We hear the word freedom bandied about a lot these days. It's a sacred concept. How fortunate we are to have it. How viscerally we need to feel the commitment to protect it. To be able to be part of a freedom of expression that allows us to tell stories of our choice in the uniqueness of our own voices as citizens and as artists is not to be taken lightly. To be able to freely voice dissent in our hearts or in our art is something to protect at all costs. But then, the glory of art is that it can, not only survive change, it can inspire change. It is for all these reasons that it behooves governments to sustain an environment that enables, supports and nurtures the free and creative expression of its citizenry. I have great hope for the future of art and thus civil society as I look out over this room, and imagine the collective power, the collective voice that will not cower in the face of budget slashing critics, and will not surrender its advocacy for art and free expression. My hope comes from not only those gathered here tonight, but from the efforts of grassroots, state and national organizations; young artists I meet at Sundance film labs; inner-city elementary school kids who are learning to play music and write poetry; the literary and theater programs in prisons; and traveling exhibitions to rural communities all across the country. Thank you to the co-sponsors of this evening. To Americans for the Arts my gratitude for your tireless and effective advocacy on behalf of art and all that comes with that. You truly make a difference and we're all the better for it. And to the Film Foundation a recognition and respect for the important work you do to inspire young artists through education and for protecting and restoring some of the greatest films of all time and thus enabling the diverse perspective of it all to live on. Lastly, it is an honor to pay tribute to the memory and the contribution of Nancy Hanks whom I knew and remember fondly. Nancy Hanks had a profoundly gifted perspective on cultural policy in the United States, that being access to the arts. Her legacy is the success of many of your programs; the creative mastery of many of the artists here tonight; and the commitment to freedom of expression that we collectively embrace. The life she lived really meant something. So we go forth from here tonight to continue to try to enlighten those who dismiss the arts as unnecessary, irrelevant or dangerous. And we do so not only in the memory of Nancy Hanks, but in the name of the active and deserving imagination of every American child.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will further yield, General Petraeus was up there explaining, opening these schools, getting people back to work, helping to train the police, selecting the local mayor, selecting the governor of the province. All these things are being done, and what they need in order to continue to do this is resources for reconstruction, and I think one of the things that I fought hard for in the bill was to make sure that the commanders are given some flexibility to be able to do some of these things because they are like the local mayors. They are out there in those provinces working on these issues, and his point over and over again, it is directly related to the security of our troops and the coalition troops. If we do these things and build a relationship with the Iraqis, it is going to make it easier to protect our kids. That is why I think it is so crucial that we keep this package together, and that is why I think the money for reconstruction is just as crucial for security purposes as the other funding.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the other Members who joined us on this trip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who are also the subcommittee chairs on the House Committee on Appropriations. We had an outstanding group. It was a tough trip. We flew into Amman, Jordan, and the next morning went in on a C-130, an old C-130, I think it was a 1962 vintage, and landed in a kind of military landing at Baghdad International Airport. We had a chance then to be briefed by Mr. Bremer's people. Mr. Bremer had actually briefed us here in the country. General Sanchez gave us a good rundown on what was going on. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) mentioned, we went south to look at an area where somewhere between 300,000 and 1 million Iraqis had been murdered. And it was a very sobering experience. And we actually talked to people who had witnessed with their own eyes the killing of these people. The next day we went north to Mosul, met with General Petraeus, had a chance to see his good work with the 101st Airborne. And we also visited a hospital that day and a power plant, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) had just mentioned. And in all these instances, we were stunned to see how run down the facilities were in the country. Saddam Hussein had spent his money on palaces and on the military and had let his country deteriorate. We had a chance to talk to a number of Iraqis, and, also, we had to recognize that there was a major security problem and one that we have to continue to deal with. There has been a lot of debate here in the Congress in both bodies about loans versus grants, but the consensus of our group, the 17 Members that made this trip, was that we came away feeling that if we were going to set an example for the rest of the world, we have to step up here because the security of our troops are directly related to the ability to get this moving, to get the electric energy producing at a higher rate, to restore the oil producing facilities. All of this depends on an investment by the United States. And Iraq already has $100 billion of debt to other countries. And it was run up by Saddam Hussein. And reparations are being demanded by other countries including Bahrain and Kuwait. In the Committee on Appropriations, we had an overwhelming majority in favor of not only funding the military operations both in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to do the economic work that is so essential to build the trust with the Iraqi people. And it is interesting when you talk to and read some of the articles, the reason that these people are cooperating with the United States is they see the fact that we are there trying to help their country. Up in the north, for example, Saddam Hussein's two sons were captured by a tip from a person who had been working and cooperating with the 101st Airborne with General Petraeus' people. And I believe that if we can continue to build this relationship and work with these people, we can get this security situation under control. Clearly, that is not the case as we speak here today. The security situation is still very dangerous inside the country. We had a chance to be briefed on the improvised explosive devices, the other tactics being used by the people who are part of the former Baath Party, former members of Saddam's regime. There may be, who knows, 5,000, 10,000 of these people still opposed to the United States and to our coalition; and we need to have a good effort there with our intelligence community and with our Special Forces to go after those people inside the country. Again, it is the cooperation of the Iraqi people in giving us tips, letting us know who the bad guys are, letting us know where the safe houses are where these people are being protected by others. And I believe if we are going to be successful and we get our children home, if we are going to get them home in the near future, we have to build this relationship, and we have to help them develop their country, develop their democracy. And then they in turn can help us resolve the security issues. We are training police as we speak. We are training people to be able to go back into their own militia so they can defend and protect their own country. So I think that we are making a significant amount of progress. Ambassador Bremer is doing a good job, but he needs the resources. And also if we are going to ask the rest of the world to make grants, the Japanese, the Germans, the Brits, how can we do that if we are going to say we are going to loan them the money? Frankly, there is no one to loan the money to at this point. And I would doubt that they could repay the money under any circumstance. So it would be a grant, but we would be making a very nondirect and dishonest statement to the American people. Again, I said I wanted to commend the chairman and all the Members who went. We had a chance to see what is happening there. I recommend to the Members of the House to go and see for themselves. We are making progress. Security is still an issue; but things are getting better, and they are certainly moving in the right direction. And we need the support of the funding for the troops and to reconstruct Iraq.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I think one thing that since we have gotten back on this trip and having a chance to reflect on it, and I appreciate the gentleman's very kind remarks, and I think the analogy of the Marshall Plan is a good one to think about in the context, but it is becoming clearer, the administration, I think, is working hard at the U.N. to bring other countries in. We need some partners in this operation to pay part of the cost, to share part of the burden, because it is, in fact, a U.N. resolution that we were enforcing when the United States went into Iraq, and I believe it is now time for the United States to reach out to the rest of the world and to bring the rest of the world into this operation. We may still have to lead it militarily, but on economic development, on moving the country forward, providing assistance, I think this is the time when that needs to happen.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am having a hard time hearing over here.

Mr. DICKS. Again, we heard the same thing, and again I want to say my own personal thanks to all those who have served in the military operation. I had a chance to go over right before the war with the chairman and then with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and to go again to see the success of the military operation, but again, I want to emphasize, we have got to continue to work on this security issue, to help protect the young men and women. Many of us have been to the various hospitals to see the wounded. It makes one's heart break that we did not have some of the equipment necessary at the right time to protect them. Now, we have put the money in the budget. We have beaten on the Defense Department to get it out there, and I think they are doing a much better job, but this was a very revealing trip, and I think we are doing the right thing, but we have got to continue to stay with it, bring in our international allies and get this job done, and if we do it right, it could be a great success.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This motion would instruct the conferees to agree to the additional $400 million of emergency firefighting funds in the Senate version of the fiscal year 2004 interior appropriations. These funds are desperately needed to repay the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service accounts that have been emptied to fight forest fires during the current fiscal year. We need this additional money. In fact, the agencies estimate that we need $171 million more than was provided by the Senate. The decision of Chairman Burns in the Senate to add an additional $400 million was in response to new agency estimates that show a shortfall of $860 million for fire. While the other body's amount does not fully address the problem, it would go a long way towards repaying the construction and land acquisition accounts of these agencies that have been pillaged, all because the administration did not request enough to fight fires. My colleagues from the West understand this problem all too well, but I hope everyone is aware that other areas beyond the West face similar fire risks from record low rainfall. The National Fire Center reports that as of today, more than 3.1 million acres have burned. Nineteen large fires are still burning, affecting more than 350,000 acres. The Forest Service and the BLM have already spent the money; they had no choice. But unlike other agencies, FEMA, for example, that get reimbursed, the Forest Service and BLM are forced to cancel construction projects, land acquisition, reforestation programs in our national forests, endangered species work, processing of grazing fees, and many other activities. These agencies simply cannot function and cannot do the work Congress directs them to do if year after year their accounts are drained for fires that we already know will occur, and if Congress does not reimburse these accounts. In 2002, the Forest Service and BLM spent nearly $1.2 billion fighting fires. The administration requested repayment of $825 million, leaving $334 million still owed to the Forest Service and the BLM. This borrowing is over the amounts that Congress had previously appropriated. This cannot happen again and again. These cuts have real impacts and, in some cases, only compound the problems we have in our forests if the agencies do not have the money to do the thinnings and fuel-load reduction work that is necessary to avoid fire risk in the first place. We all know this money is needed and that it is needed now. The conference should agree to the additional $400 million added by the Senate. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. So when this comes back up, I have to be here to ask for a recorded vote?