Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know, first of all, a couple of important facts. One, the statement of administration policy is here, and it states that they support the bill. It gets into the question of $700 million, and one of the things it says is, ``Nevertheless, should Congress seek to add additional contingent emergency funds for fiscal year 2002, the proper place for consideration of this funding is in the context of the pending emergency supplemental.'' I am perfectly willing if the conference committee on the supplemental appropriations bill would take the $700 million. We could get it to the agencies faster than having it in the 2003 bill because I know the gentleman's concern is that the Forest Service and the BLM are running out of money. Yes, they can do transfers, but it means that all of their other programs suffer because of that. So we are trying to get this money out there, and I have never been so frustrated. Maybe somebody could tell Mr. Daniels that there is fire in the West and we need this help.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Could we see it? We cannot even see it over here.

Mr. DICKS. Should we not be debating that amendment?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention to the Members that there is $700 million added to this bill for firefighting. That may not be enough to make up for the difference in what is needed because of the tremendous fires we have had in the West. In fact, we have heard that number may now be over a billion that is needed, and this is a 2002 supplemental. This is not part of the 2003 bill, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can, of course, speak on this better than I, but my judgment is this should be added to the 2002 supplemental, the regular supplemental, and if it were, we would obviously take it out in conference, but we need to get this money passed. The problem we have is that the administration, Forest Service, the BLM need this money. If they do not get it, they will have to borrow from other accounts within the departments, and it will completely disrupt the way they do their business. So we have to be very careful here that we do not completely disrupt the way the Forest Service and the BLM operate because they have many other significant responsibilities. This is the least we should be doing. We should be doing more, and I cannot imagine why the Office of Management and Budget does not understand that there is a problem out there that needs to be solved, and it is mystifying that they have not made a formal budget request when there is this kind of need out in the West.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the bill today but understand that the Committee on Rules has chosen not to protect the language that has just been mentioned on the Florida Everglades restoration project. It is my hope that the language remains in the bill and that the language is ultimately adopted. I would say that this certainly could have an impact on the committee's judgments in the future about the funding levels for this project if, in fact, this language is stricken. I just say that to give everyone fair warning. The project is one of the most important environmental projects this subcommittee has ever undertaken, but we are at a critical juncture. The chairman and I feel very strongly that the Secretary of Interior has an equal voice, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Water Management District. We have appropriated over a billion dollars in this bill over the course of the project and believe that this language ensures that. I strongly support this year's bill and sincerely hope that the committee's guidance is maintained. I also wanted to mention that in the question of the National Endowment for the Arts, we will have an amendment today. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and I and others are cosponsoring this amendment at a time when our economy is under great stress. I think it is very interesting to point out to the membership that there was a very comprehensive economic study done about arts and economic prosperity, and the figure here is that the total economic impact of the arts in our country is $134 billion, and it provides, I think, 4.27 million jobs, and at a time when our economy is hurt, I think we ought to remember that this sector is growing and is very vibrant. One of the reasons for it is the fact that this Congress has stayed with this program and added critical funding. Also, I would like to point out to my colleagues that a couple of years ago we had had a big fight over CARA, and myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment creating a conservation trust fund, and at that time, the total spending in the country on conservation was $752 million if we added together the money in the Interior bill and the money in the Commerce-Justice-State bill. I want to report to my colleagues that in this bill, there is $1.44 billion for these conservation categories, and also, there will be significant additional funding over in the Commerce-Justice-State portion which takes us up to $1.92 billion. So I think we have kept our commitment to the House that we would fund these programs in a more substantial way and including one program, the West Coast Salmon Recovery Initiative, and I want all Members of the House to know that I was out testing the waters this weekend, and the recovery initiative is doing quite well. I disagree with my colleague. I think we should move ahead, pass the rule, and I hope that nobody will object to these important Everglades provisions.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the substance of what the gentleman said. This year I went down to Florida, visited the Everglades, met with the top officials because this is a major program for our subcommittee and for the country, as the gentleman points out quite properly. And I completely concur with the gentleman that we should have the Secretary of the Interior as an equal player, and we need to have this Florida water modification program moved forward in order to get water back into the Everglades and into the Florida Bay. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to tell the gentleman I am very sympathetic to what he has to say and I appreciate him yielding.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I, too, congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member, for the outstanding job they have done in crafting this bill. I have enjoyed serving on the Subcommittee on Military Construction and the Subcommittee on Defense; and I feel very proud of the fact that today these two bills are going to pass the House overwhelmingly, and it is because of the good work of not only these two subcommittees, but the good work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the staff. We have outstanding staff on the Committee on Appropriations, particularly on military construction and defense. They should be commended for their good work. They work very effectively with the Members. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what has been said here. This is a bill that directly affects quality of life. In my area in the State of Washington, we have Fort Lewis where Army transformation is occurring. In this bill, there is a new barracks facility replaced at Fort Lewis. Also a new barracks facility at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and many other items of great importance. Over the years, I have always believed if we keep these bases modern and updated and give the sailors and the civilian workers a quality place to work, it will certainly help us with retention of both our military personnel and our good civilian workers. I wanted to rise and strongly urge passage of the rule and passage of this bill. This is a good bill which has been worked out on a purely bipartisan basis. I too commend the chairman and the ranking member for their diligence in going all over the world to look at these facilities and to be able to give the members of the committee their best advice on what needs to be done at these facilities. We have to remember, we still have kids in Korea. I have been there many times. We have worked hard to fix those facilities; but there is still work to be done at these bases around the world, and we need to continue to do it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the FY03 Defense Appropriations Act, and I want to thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha for putting together a great defense bill. This bill will substantially improve the lives of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the U.S. armed services as they carry on the nation's defense. I particularly want to make note of the Committee's work to fully fund the conversion of the Trident submarine into an SSGN conventional strike platform. Last year, Chairman Lewis, Mr. Murtha and our entire subcommittee added over $300 million to the FY02 Defense bill to get this program started. Today's bill includes $907 million to refuel and convert two Tridents into SSGNs. This bill also takes the first step in realizing the Air Force's vision for a common Widebody Aircraft to use for Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance. It includes $596 million to purchase and outfit one 767 aircraft as the first Air Force Multimission Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A). I also want to commend the Committee for including $10 million to fund a new medical technology, Remote Acoustic Hemostatis, which can be used by field medics to stop traumatic bleeding on the battlefield. In my home district, we lost a fine soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Chapman of Ft. Lewis, in Afghanistan due to catastrophic bleeding. I believe this technology will let us prevent this kind of death in a few years. As good as this bill is, Mr. Chairman, it does include one glaring weakness. The committee struck the best balance for meeting our defense obligations that it could given the top line constraints imposed by the Budget Committee and the Republican leadership. However, it barely begins to address what I call the Crisis in Procurement. The committee's recommendation of $70,285,272,000 for defense procurement is an increase of $9,420,324,000 over the amount approved for fiscal year 2002, and it is an increase of $3,065,238,000 over the President's budget request. However, despite the committee's best efforts, it has not changed the fundamental fact that the Defense Department procurement budget is in crisis. Numerous reputable studies performed in the last several years have affirmed this growing crisis. Even the most conservative analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office has found that the procurement budget needs to be increased to at least $94 billion in order to sustain the military force structure that has now been ratified in the Quadrennial Defense Review. Other credible outside studies have reached estimates of over $120 billion. DOD's own studies on procurement needs, performed by the individual Services and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, show a requirement for $100-110 billion. The Navy has testified to Congress that it faces a procurement shortfall of $10 billion a year, and CBO estimates that including the Marine Corps this shortfall is $12 billion. The Air Force has told Congress of a shortfall of $14 billion, and the Army has a shortfall estimated by CBO at $5 billion a year. The effects of this crisis are all too visible in the procurement programs and in the condition of military equipment and service maintenance budget. The cost and length of individual procurement programs have reached absurdity as buy quantities are reduced to minimum levels driving up unit costs. Drawn out procurement programs mean that average equipment ages are increasing rapidly. The average age of Air Force aircraft has increased by 24 percent in the last decade. Navy aircraft average age has increased 21 percent since 1990. The average age of Army helicopters has increased 12 percent since 1990. These increases have occurred even as force structure is reduced and the oldest equipment is retired. Furthermore, the current rate of procurement of Navy ships will lead to a fleet of only 230 ships by 2030. The impact on operation and maintenance budgets is severe. The number of maintenance hours required for each aircraft flying hour is skyrocketing. For example, the Air Force had a 293 percent increase in the number of maintenance hours per flying hour on the F-15E from 1992 to 1999. The Navy experienced a 227 percent increase in the number of maintenance hours per flying hour on the F-14 in the same period. The direct effect is a dramatic increase in the Air Force budget for flying hours, more than 45 percent above inflation in the last five years. And the Navy's cost of Aviation Depot Level Repairables increased 68 percent between 1996 and 1999. The President's proposed $48 billion increase for defense spending contained only a $7.6 billion increase for procurement. That means that despite the crisis in procurement spending, if the committee had accepted the President's budget recommendation, growth in procurement funds for fiscal year 2003 would have been slower than the growth in the overall defense budget. The fiscal year 2003 budget request follows the first Bush defense budget in which procurement was actually lower than the last defense budget of the Clinton Administration. More important, the size of the shortfall in procurement funding is more than 4 times the increase proposed for procurement in the President's FY03 budget. The credibility of studies by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CBO and the other higher estimates are strongly reinforced by a consideration of the historical patterns of defense spending. The current budget for procurement is less than half what it was at the peak of the Reagan years in 1985 when considered in constant dollars. Operations and maintenance spending, on the other hand, now exceeds the peak of the Reagan years even though our military force structure is about one third smaller. As a result, procurement, which was 25 percent of the defense budget in 1980 under President Carter, and 34 percent in 1985, is now only 19 percent of the budget. This historically low level is inadequate for sustaining our current force structure, let alone for transforming the military into a 21st Century fighting force. There remains one more chance this year to begin addressing the crisis in procurement when the Department of Defense requests and the committee considers the $10 billion contingency fund for FY03. This fund must begin the process of modernizing our oldest military equipment. The longer we delay in facing up to this problem, the greater the cost of the solution and the more severe the crisis in both condition and quantity of the systems that we ask our military to use in our nation's defense. We owe it to our men and women in uniform and to the entire nation to step up to this crisis in procurement and commit ourselves to provide the sustained level of resources that will solve it. Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has made a very important case here. The Airborne Laser program is one I have followed closely. I think it is on the verge of being tested, and I just want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who I think is the most knowledgeable person in the Congress on these issues, for the good work that he has done over the years in following these issues. We do not want to do anything to slow down this first test on the airborne laser so we can find out that it will work. In fact, last year I urged the committee to put money in so we would not let the test be delayed. So I urge the committee to adopt the Spratt amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if we all remember last year, the supplemental was delayed and delayed and delayed; and finally it got up here very, very late. In fact, I introduced a supplemental to try to encourage one to be set up by the administration. It is my understanding that this supplemental this year was delayed for 2 weeks because of the battle between the Department of Defense and OMB over this funding for the Guard and Reserve. So I would just say that the delay has been more on the side of the administration, its inability to get the supplemental up here on time. I think Congress has a right to debate this issue fully, particularly because of the extraneous matters that were added into this bill which should not have been here and were not here when it left the Committee on Appropriations. But to try and say that somehow we have delayed this unreasonably is just flat out wrong.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of my concern. I want to first of all compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the committee for adding $750 million on this issue of mobilization of the Guard and Reserve. I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his earlier statement. As of yesterday, May 22, a total of 81,403 Guard and Reserve personnel were currently called up on active duty. The President's request for Guard and Reserve mobilization funding in this supplemental was so inadequate that DOD has begun planning to demobilize 14,500 Guard and Reserve personnel. This funding reduction was imposed by OMB. It was not requested by the Department of Defense. In fact, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on March 13 issued a memorandum which reads in part: The entire force is facing the adverse results of high- paced OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO. We are extending the assignment of thousands and thousands of Guard and Reserves who have been called away from homes and normal employment to serve on active duty. And finally, we are past the point where the Department can, without an unbelievably compelling reason, make additional commitments. Despite the stresses Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld described so eloquently which are on the Armed Forces today, OMB would have us demobilize 14,500 guardsmen, increasing exponentially the burden on the active duty force. The Committee on Appropriations, as I mentioned, added $790 million to try and avert this disastrous demobilization. I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was accepted earlier. I just raise this because when we look at a whole series of items in this supplemental and we see that OMB has intervened to reduce the funding for the Department of Energy, for the Department of Transportation, I mean, here are people coming in with their best estimates of what is needed to do this job, and the money is not winding up in the budget. This is after the President has pledged to all of us and to the American people that the money will not be an obstacle for Homeland Security. Obviously, we have to be concerned about unnecessary or unwise spending. But in my mind, if we are talking about protecting our forces, if we are talking about having an adequate military force, and the Department of Defense is telling us that they may have to add to the active duty force, if we are going to have to add to the active duty force, why are we in the midst of a demobilization of our Guard and Reserve forces when they are doing an outstanding job? I just think this is another example of this budget being not adequate to deal with this problem. I worry about my good friend, Tom Ridge, who I think is trying to do a good job. He is hampered by not having an agency around him. I think that the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and others which creates a new, independent agency is also essential here. We also have to support the Coast Guard. So I rise today in concern that we are not doing enough here on homeland security. We have gone through a disastrous attack on September 11. I hope it does not take another disastrous attack on the country, which many are today warning us of, before we get serious about creating an agency, about supporting the Guard and Reserve, and about doing what is necessary to make all of this work for our country. We have a lot of catching up to do, because we have not focused on homeland security for years because we thought we were completely secure. Where we have done a great job in many other areas and have CINCs all around the world, we are in the midst of creating a CINC for the United States and for Canada and Alaska, the Northern Command. I just want to join my colleagues here in raising these issues. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has talked about this. The Guard and Reserve play an incredibly important role in our country, and they are needed, I think, today. I just hate to see OMB continuing to intervene and somehow getting the support of the administration to undercut the decisions that Mr. Rumsfeld and the Department want to make. We saw this last year on the supplemental, we saw it on the overall request for the 2003 budget. I just hope somebody down at the White House will bring them under control and support what the Department of Defense is asking for.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for getting up and making this statement. I think the rhetoric here has been inaccurate on both sides of the aisle. A gentleman from California on your side of the aisle just got up a few minutes ago and said that Democrats were stealing the money out of the Social Security trust fund when the Democrats controlled the House. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Shaw has explained this in a way that I think is accurate for the American people. I do not think any of us should be in the business of trying to misinform senior citizens. I do not think it works. I think senior citizens are smart enough to know that it is not accurate. We ought to be honest about how Social Security is funded amongst ourselves and in the debate on the floor. I commend the gentleman for his willingness to correct the record.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, because it robs the Department of Defense of $13.2 billion that was requested by the President. I must say that I am surprised and frankly feel let down by my colleagues and good friends on the other side of the aisle, many of whom have in the past stood shoulder to shoulder with me in calling for more defense spending. This rule includes a so-called ``deeming'' provision which says that the House shall consider the Budget Resolution to have passed a conference committee just as it passed the House. Doing so weakens national security because the budget resolution made two incredible raids on the Defense budget, reducing the money available to be appropriated for Defense by $13.2 billion. First, the Budget Resolution reduced the Budget Authority available for defense by $10 billion by eliminating the contingency fund requested by the Department of Defense. I share some of the Budget Committee's concerns that this request was vague, but Congress is more than capable of working with the Department to determine how that funding can best be used, and no serious defense observer believes that the Department of Defense will not need this $10 billion, and even more, for its operations in FY03. This rule today puts that funding off limits. Second, the Budget Resolution reduced the Budget Authority available for Defense by $3.2 billion which had been set aside by the Department of Defense for civilian health care accrual. The Budget Committee doesn't support doing this accrual accounting change, but taking the money away from the Department of Defense is the wrong answer. We have seen a consistent pattern in recent years of underestimating the costs in the Defense Health Program and many Operations and Maintenance accounts. The $3.2 billion included for civilian accrual costs should be maintained as a hedge against cost escalations in these accounts. In addition to being $13.2 billion below the President's Request for defense, this resolution puts us as much as $6.9 billion under the Defense Authorization bill the House approved just a few weeks ago. That bill maintained the $3.2 billion originally requested for civilian accrual and it allocated $3.7 billion of the contingency fund to high priority operational items. We should reject this rule Mr. Speaker, and allow the Appropriations Committee to bring to the floor a Defense Appropriations bill that is at least equal to the President's request, a request which is already $40 billion below what is required in procurement alone. That's not just according to me, that is the testimony given by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee this year.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen very much for engaging in the colloquy.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2002 Commerce Justice State appropriations bill authorizes the Attorney General to charge and collect a $3 fee per individual for immigration inspection and preinspection activities related to commercial ships. It is my understanding that it was not the intent of this provision to levy additional costs on regularized commuter ferry traffic between foreign countries and the United States and that it was this concern that led the committee to include an exemption for ferries operating on the Great Lakes between Canada and the United States in the legislation. I would like to bring to the committee's attention another region of the United States that I believe should be provided an exemption from this fee. Several passenger ferries operate between Washington State and Canada carrying passengers, cars and freight daily between the two countries. The new fee would significantly increase ferry ticket prices charged to commuters and businesses. It had been my intent to offer an amendment to this bill exempting certain ferry vessels from this fee. However, the committee has indicated that it would prefer to deal with this issue comprehensively in the fiscal year 2003 Commerce Justice State appropriations bill. I would like to ask the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from New York if my understanding accurately reflects their intention.

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