Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) on this amendment, that this really does cry out for compromise. We have had some of the most bitter environmental battles in the Pacific Northwest over the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, salmon, and in most of these instances we have been able to sit down and work out a compromise on these important issues. What happened last year, and there may be a multitude of reasons, the death of these fish, I think, caused a tremendous impact not only in the Northwest but across the country; and we have a scientific study that will look into and give us the reasons for the loss of this fish. But the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Blumenauer) amendment I think is an attempt to try and deal with the basic underlying issue, that is, the allocation of water. We have the same problems in the State of Washington. We have to work out agreements between farmers and fishermen. And we work on these things, and it is not easy to accomplish. But the last thing we need to do is to end the dialogue. I heard my friends, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), say they were prepared to enter into a dialogue. I think there ought to be a dialogue with the Members and the agencies. But the one thing you have to do with situations like this is to rely on science. This cannot be done on emotion. We just heard a very emotional appeal. This has to be done on good science.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) to respond to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this to the gentleman because I have the greatest respect for him, but it says here, ``Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 1 percent.'' So it takes every line item and reduces it by 1 percent. That means $23 million comes out of firefighting. I do not think that is what the gentleman intended because I have the greatest regard for him, but this is why we should vote against this amendment because of its unintended consequence because the language says one thing and the discussion and description of the amendment says another.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Colorado, but I think in this case this amendment is ill-advised. First of all, on the issue of how much it would affect, it would take $196 million out of this bill, a bill that is already inadequate in many respects. We get right to the first two items, conservation spending, which has already been devastated, would be cut $10 million, and then right here on the issue that is so important out in the West, wildfire funding would be cut $23 million. The administration is up here with an emergency supplemental asking for well over $200 million to add to this. How could we cut $23 million out of wildfire spending in this across-the-board meat axe approach? If you are going to have an amendment to reduce spending, I think you are better served in picking out the items you want to make reductions in. Maybe some of them would be over 1 percent. But to cut wildfire funding is just not responsible in the situation we find ourselves in. In fact, the agencies under this bill have had money borrowed from them to pay for the 2002 fire season that the administration has not even requested the funding to put back into place. So to compound that problem with another cut of $23 million to me is just not responsible. And then you get over to the Bureau of Land Management and there is another $7 million for BLM fire that would be cut. So you have got $23 million in wildfire funding and another $7 million in BLM fire funding, and then you get to the Forest Service and it is $16 million, another $16 million. Or maybe it is the two of those together is $23 million. I think that is correct. The point is taking that kind of money out of this bill is just not right and it is going to go to conference. The House and the Senate are going to get back together. There is going to be a 302 allocation and we are going to fund the bill at the end of the day at the level that we have gotten an allocation for. I think this is just a waste of time and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) was the person who was really the driving force behind the creation of the rec demo program. I think it has done enormous good, particularly in our parks areas. I think the chairman of the authorizing committee has given us appropriate promises that they will deal with this issue. I think we should defeat the amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, and I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has also been concerned about this. We appreciate his efforts and will do our best to help.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add my own personal concern here, particularly with the Forest Service and the Park Service, because the way the funding for these studies were done violates the reprogramming agreements that the Committee on Appropriations has with the agencies. This has been called to their attention by the committee with the chairman's leadership. I think it is very crucial that we protect the integrity of the reprogramming process so that agencies are just not taking money and going out and doing these studies without getting the prior approval of the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment to strike the language carried in our bill with broad committee support. The bipartisan language related to competitive sourcing was well- though out and should remain in our bill. Congress must ensure that our agencies are not spending untold millions of dollars related to outsourcing activities without any defined plan from the administration about what the goals are and how much money they intend to spend. I am deeply concerned about the loosely defined policy and believe that the committee was well within its bounds to simply ask for a ``pause'' until we can better understand the parameters of the policy. The Chairman and I were extremely surprised to learn that agencies within the jurisdiction of our Subcommittee were spending, or were planning to spend, millions of dollars on competitive sourcing without coming to the Committee through the normal budget process to tell us how they intended to pay for it. Recently we learned that the Forest Service had already committed $10 million on these studies despite the fact that they are still owed $372 million in un-repaid forest-fire borrowing from 2002. The agency also admits that their budget for the National Fire Plan is insufficient, making borrowing more likely each season. For the life of me I simply cannot understand how the Forest Service could find the money to study outsourcing when they clearly don't have the money to fight forest fires without raiding other accounts. Adding to this, neither the Forest Service nor the National Park Service has come to the Committee for a formal reprogramming. Instead, the agencies apparently moved forward on this on their own. I am deeply troubled that the Park Service would undertake this effort without prior approval from Congress, especially since their own budget estimates suggest that these studies would cost $3,000 per FTE. Last month, Mt. Rainier National Park in Washington State was featured in an article in the Washington Post regarding outsourcing. The article detailed a memo that was sent to parks in the West from the Director's office that warned of budget cuts to pay for anti-terrorism policing and consultants to study outsourcing. Cuts that meant several projects that were ready to go in these parks would not happen this year. Administrators at Mt. Rainier had been instructed to absorb a 40% cut in their repair budget, which obviously meant several projects would not happen. I have been a member of this Subcommittee for 27 years. I am intimately aware of the backlog of maintenance on our public lands--and particularly our parks. Yet here we see money being literally pulled back from the field--money that Congress appropriated and directed how it would be spent--going towards consultants. As soon as I finished the article, I called Park Service Director Fran Mainella personally. I was able to get an agreement with her that this money would in fact not be pulled from Rainier--but I'm not convinced that other parks are not in some jeopardy. I understand the agencies seem to be caught in the middle of a larger issue between the Office of Management and Budget which is pushing hard on outsourcing, and the Congress which is understandably concerned about the policy. This is precisely why we need this language. We have got to have a better understanding of the goals and costs of outsourcing. Only then can we make a rational decision about how--or if--to proceed.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, would it not be better to have a discussion on the point of order first before we get a time agreement, whether we should debate this for 20 minutes?

Mr. DICKS. Was water temperature here an issue?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). (Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will make one final comment. No Member has worked harder to increase funding for firefighting in these bills than I have. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and I have made this one of our very highest priorities and included a $335 million increase over the current year for firefighting programs. In addition, we have worked with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) to ensure that additional funds for the current fire season are included in the emergency supplemental bill which we hope to conference this week. So what I would suggest to the gentleman is that he should join us in opposing the Hefley amendment that would take another cut out of firefighting. But let us all oppose the Tancredo amendment for this meat-ax approach to the endowment.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. This would take $57 million out of the National Endowment for the Arts. I think that is a big mistake. We are going to work on these fire issues. The chairman and the committee have added funds for that purpose. We have money coming up in the emergency supplemental. So I think this amendment is not warranted and should be strongly opposed.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman that I commend him on his effort and diligence in this effort. Regardless how the amendment works, we are going to continue to work to try to find a solution to this problem, and I appreciate his leadership and effort.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the committee, for an observation.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman a question. We talked about several things today, as the gentleman mentioned, and several times the chairman promised that we were going to have prompt legislative action by the Committee on Resources to deal with some of these problems. Since this was blocked a few years ago because of the regulations, is there any interest in the Committee on Resources to take up this issue so it does not wind in the Committee on Appropriations? Is there any desire to try to help resolve this?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this issue, and we will certainly work with him. Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. We support scientifically credible science. We do not support people who go out with some kind of a vendetta. I just think we should not try to make this so vitriolic. I have been through what has happened in the Northwest. There is one thing I learned, if it is not scientifically credible or legally defensible, you are not going to go very far. So if one thinks these plans are going to hold up once you get the Endangered Species Act in place, Members are making a big mistake. It is better to do these things scientifically credible in the first instance.

Mr. DICKS. Again, I just think it is important for us to understand why we are coming here with this limitation is because of the failure, frankly, of the administration to take into account the concerns that have been expressed by the Congress, by the scientists, by the outside groups, and I just think it is a terrible mistake, and I urge strong support for the Udall amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.