Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman is absolutely accurate on this point. We would almost be better off if we took away the borrowing authority, because then they would have to put up the money. We would be like FEMA in that situation. Then they would have to put up the money, because we could not leave here without taking care of this problem. Now what we do is let them borrow the money from the Forest Service, from BLM, ruin their other programs, put the agency in total chaos, and then, on top of that, we do not pay the money back. This is not good.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleagues, I had a chance last night to meet Mike Brown, who is the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, which used to be FEMA, and I asked him a couple of questions about this problem. First of all, he said they will have to start shutting down offices all over the country, I think it was by August 8, if we do not get this money. I also asked him can they borrow the money from other accounts? No. They do not have a way of doing this like the Forest Service and the Department of Interior. The BLM does; they can borrow money from other accounts. EPR, Emergency Preparedness and Response, does not have that authority. So we have to appropriate this money. That is why all of a sudden this supplemental reemerged because it became very clear we could not, in good conscience, doing our jobs, leave here without appropriating the money for FEMA. We have got disasters all over this country, as we speak, that require this funding. And as I said, I wish we had taken care of fire fighting; I wish we had taken care of AmeriCorps. But at least we have to take care of this. It would be totally irresponsible, and I hope in the other body they will also understand that they have got to pass this as well, though I know there is concern over there about this coming at the last moment. In my mind, this has to be done. And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I want to associate myself with his remarks and the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I must say, I worry about the Interior Appropriations, an across-the- board cut like this, especially since it would affect forest fire fighting. It would also affect forest health. Those would both be cut. And all of the other accounts would be cut at a time when we are going to have to borrow money from those accounts to fight the fires of this year, because we do not have enough money in the budget to do that. So I would say to everyone here, I think that the prudent thing to do, since we do not know all of the consequences of the amendment, and we know that a number of them are bad, and it is the last two months of the year, is to defeat the Toomey amendment and pass the supplemental. The President of the United States happens to be the person, by the way, who is asking for this money, and he did not ask that it be offset. And this OMB has been as tough on spending as any in modern history. So they want it as an emergency. They do not want to see their programs cut any further. So I think, with the risk to fire fighting across this country, we should defeat the Toomey amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The one concern I have in the Toomey amendment which is yet to be offered, since it was not printed in the Record as it was supposed to be, but, anyway, in the Toomey amendment, we are going to have an across-the-board cut. One of the items that was not exempted was fire fighting. We are already not getting the supplemental funding for fire fighting that was promised in this bill. Last year they borrowed money from all the accounts to fund the fire fighting. That is what we are going to have to wind up doing again. But then on top of that, we are going to have to have an across- the-board cut. I am told this would be 7 or $8 million out of the fire fighting funds. I know you can defer it if the President does this and that. All I am saying is, I do not think this amendment is very well thought out, I do not like across-the-board amendments normally; and so I hope that this will at least be thought about as we get into the debate on this supplemental.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. I am pleased that the House is taking quick action to address the critical shortfalls facing the Director of Emergency Preparedness and Response, the entity we used to know as FEMA. In fact, I was speaking with the new Under Secretary, Mike Brown, just last night, who informed me that EPR will have to close regional offices within 2 weeks if funding is not approved. So I strongly support the approval of this money. However, there are other important programs that will have to start closing down in August if funds are not approved immediately. As was mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York, Teach for America, there are 2,700 people in this country who were signed up for Teach for America. They would be trained in August and start working in September. So obviously if we do not appropriate the money now, we appropriate the money in September, it is going to completely disrupt this program, which has been so important for helping kids in school who need special training and special help. These young people all across this country who think that they are going to have a contract are not going to have one because we have failed to act here in the House of Representatives. We tried to offer this amendment in committee to add $100 million for this important program, and on a straight party-line vote it was voted down. We certainly can do this now if we can defeat the previous question. We can add this $100 million and take care of FEMA, take care of AmeriCorp and send the bill to the Senate. Frankly, as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Interior, I am worried about the money for forest fires. Again, we are not putting up the money for the forest fires either. Now we use the old adage, well, we can borrow the money and then pay it back. But they have not paid back the money from the last year that they have borrowed. I was pleased that the administration requested, I think, $289 million, maybe it was $320 when you add BLM and Forest Service together; but that money is not in here. I just had a conversation with the distinguished chairman in the other body on the interior appropriations, and he is very concerned about the fact that we do not have the forest fire money in here as well. So I understand that the problem with FEMA is very urgent, but these other issues are also important. So I wish we could do a broader supplemental and deal with them. I hope that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to have an amendment that will deal with the problem of AmeriCorp. I just hate to see, if we are going to solve this thing in September anyway, why screw up the entire program and not get it done now when we have an opportunity to. There are 224 Members of the House who have signed a letter, a majority, Democrats and Republicans, in favor of adding the $100 million. I am told the President now has changed his mind and he is in favor of it. So if everybody wants to do it, why not do it?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move strike the last word so that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) could enter into a colloquy with our distinguished chairman.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), so that he may control and yield that time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this amendment. There was a very important letter written on May 20, 2003, by George B. Hartzog, National Park Service director, 1964 to 1972; Nathaniel Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, 1971 to 1976; Russ Dickenson, National Park Service director, 1980 to 1985; Denis Galvin, National Park Service deputy director, 1985 to 1989, 1998 to 2002; Roger Kennedy, National Park Service director, 1993 to 1997; Robert Stanton, National Park Service director, 1997 to 2001; Michael Finley, Yellowstone National Park superintendent, 1994 to 2001; and Robert D. Barbee, Yellowstone National Park superintendent, 1983 to 1994. This letter is to Secretary Norton. It says: ``It has been our privilege collectively to serve nine Presidents as stewards of America's national parks. For each of us, this experience underscored the pride and joy that Americans feel for their common heritage and their desire to have national parks vigorously preserved for their grandchildren. In this spirit, we write to you about a final decision that is before you regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. There can be no doubt that this decision is a defining moment for America's national parks. The choice over snowmobile use in Yellowstone is a choice between upholding the founding principle of our national parks, stewardship on behalf of all visitors and future generations, or catering to a special interest in a manner that would damage Yellowstone's resources and threaten public health. ``The latter choice would set an entirely new course for America's national parks. It is our deep hope as this issue now moves to your final review that you will ensure the highest protection for Yellowstone. To do otherwise would be a radical departure from the Interior Department's stewardship mission. Yellowstone is an irreplaceable national treasure, a symbol of our country and a gathering place where Americans feel justifiably proud that our country led the world by establishing its first national park. ``A decision made on behalf of the snowmobile industry and not for Yellowstone's environment and general public would be wrong. ``On many occasions President Bush has made laudable pledges that members of his administration will always be fully accountable to the public. In keeping with this, we are mindful of your assertions regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone. They are as important today as they were when you made them. ``Two years ago the Interior Department directed that a supplemental'' EIS ``be undertaken so that additional information and wider public involvement could be brought to bear in making the best possible decision about Yellowstone's future. The Department asserted that this information would be essential to a sound decision. ``On the basis of the new data, the National Park Service verified that phasing out snowmobile use would provide the best protection of Yellowstone's environment and the health of employees and visitors. The study concluded that ending snowmobile use while providing visitors access on snowcoaches `best preserves the unique historic, cultural, and natural resources associated with Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks' and would `attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation and risk of health and safety.' Final Supplemental'' EIS ``February, 2003. ``We hope that you will now embrace the central conclusion of a study that your Department asserted to the American people would shape a better decision. To ignore its conclusion would clearly be to accept avoidable risks to health and safety, a narrower range of beneficial uses, and weaker preservation of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. ``Your department also called for wider public involvement, and the call was unquestionably answered. More Americans submitted comments to the National Park Service than the agency has received on any single issue in its 87-year history. While the volume of comment was unprecedented, its reflection of public opinion was consistent with previous comment periods over the past several years. By a four-to-one margin, Americans urged you to give Yellowstone the best possible protection and said they believe, as the National Park Service has confirmed, that this means replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches. We hope after calling for public comment, you will heed, not ignore, what the public has told you. ``Clearly we are in economic and budgetary times that require us to be scrupulous with every tax dollar. This is another reason why we urge you to adopt a phaseout of snowmobile use. Your study demonstrated that continuing snowmobile use in Yellowstone would result not only in higher levels of air and noise pollution, harm to wildlife, and risks for employee and visitor health; it would also cost taxpayers $1.3 million more each year than replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches. Surely you will not ask the American taxpayer to pay more for less protection, an annual transfer payment to the snowmobile industry subsidizing ongoing damage to Yellowstone. ``We would be remiss if we did not emphasize one final point. Yellowstone's wintertime struggles with pollution, noise, and traffic congestion fit into a larger context. Throughout the National Park System we have been striving for years to develop more efficient transportation systems so that the visitor's national park experience can be defined by each park's special attributes and not by negative aspects of traffic that most visitors hope to leave at home. ``Zion National Park is an excellent example of the success and popularity of this strategy. Where automobile traffic had clogged Zion's once quiet canyons and the visitors' experience were being defined by noise, exhaust, and frustrations finding parking, the Park Service substituted shuttle bus access. This change boosted gateway business, earned accolades from visitors who today are enjoying a better park experience, and reduced impacts to Zion's resources. ``In Yellowstone the supplemental study that you requested has demonstrated that replacing snowmobiles with an efficient system of snowcoaches would bring similar benefits. In fact, with wildlife under stress from Yellowstone's deep snows, frigid temperatures, and employees and visitors breathing snowmobile fumes often trapped by the park's inversions, the benefits of reducing traffic and emissions would be even greater than they have been in Zion. ``In summary, we join as former public stewards of America's national parks in urging you to place Yellowstone National Park back on a path that gives the highest priority to protecting its natural qualities for today's visitors and future generations. To do otherwise would ignore sound science, the public will, and responsibility to taxpayers; and, worst of all, it would erode a precious gift that this country gave itself and the world, a gift that will only become more valuable to our Nation as our population grows.'' So if these eight people representing a cross-section of our American political life who have served in the parks on a bipartisan basis over the last 40 years can come together, certainly I hope that our House can come together tonight in support of the Holt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. No, it is not. That was condemned by everybody on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. First of all, with all due respect, the forest plans do not have a lot to do with the funding that is necessary to deal with the important issues the gentleman is talking about. We are for trying to fund the programs that will improve forest health and allow us to deal with these fires. Our committee has appropriated a considerable amount of money, but having a good scientifically credible plan is crucial. It is not status quo. This is the kind of creative change that we have to have, and that is why I support the Udall amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows I would never support that kind of science under any circumstances.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is what concerns me here. We have been through the Endangered Species Act, the listing of these species. If we are now going to wipe the scientists out as we develop these forest plans and not take into account their input, we are just going to open ourselves up again to additional listings under the Endangered Species Act. The one thing I found in the Northwest was we had to base our decisions on science, science, science. They had to be scientifically credible, legally defensible. I worry that without public input, without scientific input, letting the agencies do what they want in the name of expediency, that we are going to wind up with a lot of additional listings and then a lot of additional requirements to set aside acres for protection. We are going to get into the same mess we were in before. Because if we do not rely on science, if we do not do what is scientifically credible and legally defensible, I see us getting into worse shape than we are already in. That is what bothers me about what the administration has done. None of us like the fact that it takes 9 years or whatever amount of time, but that is because the administration, whoever is in charge, has not promptly dealt with these issues; and the concerns that are expressed by these scientists is that in 2000, during the Clinton administration, there was scientific input; and then we get the new administration, they walk away from science. All I think it is going to do is lead us back into trouble, back into more listings; and I do not see how that does anybody any good. It is the listings that cause the economic disruption and the problems in the communities. It is better to do these plans credibly, take the time, use the science and make sure we get something that can be sustained in the courts because, at some point, the biologist is going to be taken into court. He is going to be put on the stand, and he is going to say and the lawyers are going to ask, if this scientifically credible? The minute he says no, the judge is going to enjoin the plan. It is not going to do any good. By not using the credible science in the first place, trying to slip around this, I think we are making a terrible mistake, and I think we will be back here shortly saying we have got to redo this because it simply did not work.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to engage the gentleman from New Mexico, the sponsor of the amendment, in a couple of questions. First of all, one of the assertions here that bothers me the most, having lived through the spotted owl issue in the Pacific Northwest, is that there seems to be an indication here that science is not favored in the development of this rule. We have a group of scientists who write to the USDA Forest Service planning rule saying as scientists with expertise and conservation, biology and fish and wildlife management, we are writing to express our concern over the proposed National Forest Management Act, and they go on. We request that you reinstate the 2000 rule that received very thoughtful input by scientists and the public. We would like to respond as specifically to three assertions underlying the proposed 2002 rule change that, on examination, turned out to be false. One, that monitoring an assessment of the species level cost too much. It seems that if we are going to have multiple use and if we are going to protect the forests, that one of the things that has to be done under any circumstance is monitoring an assessment of the condition of the species. What would the gentleman have to say about that?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and commend the gentleman for his attention to the important issue of forest health and the protection of our public lands. The amendment applies to U.S. Forest Service managed lands which support 17 percent of Federally endangered and threatened species. In November, 2002, the Bush administration proposed a radical and sweeping rewrite of the forest policy that has governed the Nation since shortly after passage of the National Forest Management Act, NFMA, in 1976. The changes would eliminate or seriously weaken vital safeguards for 155 national forests in the United States and that were put in place by the Reagan administration. I served under President Reagan, and I can tell you in this one case I was very pleased that he used science in order to make a determination on these forests plans. Now the Bush administration, however, attempts to allow forest plans to be exempted from the analysis of their environmental impacts as required by NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. It seeks to do away with the rule that requires the Forest Service to maintain native species of wildlife in each national forest. The proposed regulations try to make surveying wildlife merely optional. In addition, the draft would reduce the role of scientists and monitoring in forest planning. Extensive requirements for independent scientific review and consultation in the development of forest plans would be eliminated and replaced with optional provisions of including scientists in the process. The effect of these regulations would be to virtually eliminate scientific review of forest plans. Public participation is greatly restricted in the forest planning process. The rule would discount petitions, cards and other methods citizens use to contact their government. Also, this plan would halt the appeals process allowed under current rules. The Udall amendment would limit the Bush administration reductions to the National Forest Management Act. The new regulations are the wrong policy to maintain and preserve our national forests. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the Udall amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, that I have great respect for the gentleman who offered this amendment. I know he is dedicated on the issue of firefighting. As the chairman mentioned, however, we have added a significant amount of money and there will be a supplemental on the floor next week of $289 million for fire as well. And I just think that we have taken this land acquisition part of the Forest Service budget down from $132 million to about $29 million, and this would be another $19 million. You could not even run a program out of this. And if they need the money, they probably could borrow it anyway. So I would argue that this is not an appropriate offset. I would urge the gentleman to consider adding this to the supplemental. If he wants to add additional money to the supplemental to reimburse the government for the money it borrowed from a lot of these accounts, the supplemental is coming up next week. This should be emergency. If the gentleman was offering it as an emergency measure, not taking an offset out of land acquisition, I could support it; but I cannot support the amendment as it is currently drafted. Mr. Chairman, I hope these suggestions are beneficial.

Mr. DICKS

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