Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) concerning INS fee collections.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to come to the floor today in support of H.R. 3994, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. I believe it is critical that we fulfill the commitment made by the President and by the Congress to provide significant resources to help the nation of Afghanistan rebuild after more than 20 years of war. After winning World War II, President Truman and the Congress took a bold step, committing enormous U.S. resources to help the nations of Europe rebuild after the devastation of total war. The Marshall Plan, as it is known, was not politically popular at the time--it languished in Congress for several months and passed through the other body with just a one-vote margin. But I believe nearly everyone today would argue that it was the right thing to do--for Europe, for the United States and the entire world. Many of my colleagues decry Federal spending on foreign aid, arguing that it is a misappropriation of money that could be better spend domestically. But foreign aid was the genius of the Marshall plan-- targeted investments to rebuild the economies of nations devastated by war, poverty, famine, and disease. The continuing importance of foreign aid is underscored by the extreme need for such help now in Afghanistan. Afghan rebels, with significant financial and military support from the United States, succeeded in throwing off the yoke of Soviet occupation. Once finished, however, U.S. support evaporated. Perhaps we thought our work was done or that Afghanistan was too far away from the U.S. to be of any real concern once the Soviets had limped home. But we learned last September that our work had not been completed. And we learned that Afghanistan, despite its perceived isolation, could certainly cause us harm. Clearly, there is a need for a continued U.S. presence to help Afghanistan rebuild its economy, establish a stable government, and encourage participation in the international community. Such spending is an important investment we can make to try to prevent a repeat of September 11. But is this need exclusive to Afghanistan? Even if we are completely successful in Afghanistan, reconstructing that nation and eliminating the terrorist presence, we can be sure that these terrorist organizations will reappear somewhere. How can we best deal with this threat? Strengthening and re-equipping our military, shoring up our borders and improving domestic security are certainly parts of the solution, but an equally important component is foreign aid. By helping other nations establish stable democratic governments and market economies, they will join us in the fight against terrorism. I think most would agree that it would have been far cheaper to have appropriated the financial and technical assistance to Afghanistan 15 years ago to help them create a free nation than it has been to deal with the attacks on September 11 and their aftermath. I also believe that it is in our best financial interest to increase our foreign aid commitments and help struggling nations today rather than wait for them to deteriorate to the point where we are forced into military intervention.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend we are celebrating the Centennial of Fort Worden in Port Townsend, Washington, and I would like to take this opportunity to mark this occasion here in the House of Representatives. Fort Worden is a wonderful piece of our nation's history, first established on May 14, 1902 as part of a series of installations designed to provide protection along Puget Sound waters for the important naval Shipyard in Bremerton. It was named for Admiral John L. Worden, who was the commander of the battleship Monitor in the famous Civil War battle with the Confederate ship Merrimac. The Fort was later designated as the headquarters for the harbor defenses for Puget Sound, and it was fortified with heavy gun batteries and defensive structures. During World War II, the Fort served as home to the Army's 14th Coast Artillery Regiment and the Washington National Guard's 248th Regiment. Fort Worden's military role diminished in the 1940's, and it was decommissioned as an active military post in 1953, though various limited Navy and Army functions continued for some years after. It later served as home to a Treatment Center for juvenile delinquents, operated by the State of Washington, before it was finally acquired by the State and turned into a State Park in 1973. The old Fort buildings have been transformed into a Conference Center, and the site offers ample opportunity for recreation and camping. Having been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it now serves as one of the most picturesque and stately locations in the State of Washington. In fact, I am sure many of my colleagues can recall the views of the Fort's classic old white buildings in the feature movie ``An Officer and a Gentleman,'' as Fort Worden served as the film's backdrop in 1981. Today, Fort Worden remains a gathering place for people from across the Pacific Northwest to come for educational, cultural and arts programs, as well as recreational activities. It is a link to our past; a reminder of the state's very early role in the defense of our nation. I am proud that Fort Worden will be a partner with the Library of Congress on the Veterans History Project, honoring America's war veterans. And I am proud that so much of the military history of the Fort has been preserved, including the Commanding Officers Quarters Museum and the Pacific Coast Artillery Museum. On the 100th Birthday of Fort Worden, I believe it is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the historical significance of this facility and its ongoing role in the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)--its 4,200 volunteers and Department of Defense (DOD) staff--in celebrating 30 years of service to this Nation. The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) was established in 1972, the year the United States ended the Selective Service System and established an all-volunteer military force. DOD realized that support from employers and communities would be instrumental in maintaining Reserve component membership. ESGR was created to obtain employer and community support for the National Guard and Reserve and to promote the role of Reserve forces in the national defense. ESGR has lived up to the task and accomplished much more. Since 1972, with the help of the Advertising Council, Inc., ESGR has benefited from nearly $1 billion in pro bono advertising reaching the six million employers with one or more employees in the United States. Employers have, in turn, signed ESGR Statements of Support, publicly committing to support the National Guard and Reserve. The former Chairman of the Board and CEO of General Motors, Mr. James H. Roche signed the first Statement of Support in the Office of the Secretary of Defense on December 13, 1972. The next day, President Richard Nixon signed a Statement of Support covering all Federal civilian employees. Since the inception of this program, Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and President George W. Bush have all signed Statements of Support, along with hundreds of thousands of employers, including Dell Computer Corporation, Xerox, the Society for Human Resource Management and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. To date, over 300,000 employers have signed statements of support. Additionally, the strategic alliance formed in 1998 between ESGR and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce resulted in more than 1,200 chambers of commerce nationwide signing a Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve. ESGR offers Ombudsman services designed to provide information to employers and Reservists regarding their rights and responsibilities under the law, and to resolve conflicts through informal mediation. These services operate in cooperation with the Department of Labor. ESGR volunteers in 54 U.S. states and territories contribute thousands of hours of effort representing millions of dollars of volunteer service in support of ESGR programs, its services, and the men and women of our nation's Reserve forces. Mr. Speaker, the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve is smart government in action. The small ESGR staff in Arlington, VA, under the direction of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, provides guidance and support to a network of 4,200 volunteer business, civic, and community leaders. ESGR educates employers on their rights and obligations under the law and recognize employers who actively support employee participation in the Guard and Reserve. ESGR also educates members of the National Guard and Reserve in regards to their rights and responsibilities to the value of their employers support. Committees can be found in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. With the end of the cold war, the Reserve components have been called with increasing frequency. During the Gulf War in 1990-1991, more than 250,000 Reserve component members were called to active duty to support military operations in the Persian Gulf. Since the start of Operation Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom, more than 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops have been activated and are playing a critical role. Mr. Speaker, thousands of employers, local and state government officials, Active and Reserve component leaders, and military members from across the nation and around the world request ESGR's employer support expertise on a daily basis. When Guardsmen and Reservists return home following mobilization, ESGR committee members are there to provide information and support services to those in need. The U.S. Congress passed the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, (USERRA) of 1994, and updated it in 1996. This law completely revised the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act of 1940. USERRA articulates the rights and responsibilities of Guard and Reserve members with regard to job protection and explains employer rights under federal law. ESGR helps employers and Reservists understand this law and helps them informally resolve any employment conflicts that may arise. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to congratulate ESGR and its 54 ESGR committees on their 30 years of service and commend this network of over 4,200 volunteer patriots for their time and talent. They are serving their country and maintaining the much needed support of our employers and communities for the Guard and Reserve. Through the efforts of agencies like ESGR, we can call on our Reserve forces to answer our nation's call without the fear of job loss.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a longtime friend and a great American, Mr. Clifford C. LaPlante. Cliff is about to retire after more than 50 years of dedicated service to our country and to the defense and aerospace community. Born and raised in upstate New York, Cliff began his most distinguished career in the aeronautical arena with the U.S. Air Force during the Korean War. An acquisition specialist, Cliff dedicated himself to ensuring that American forces were equipped with the most capable equipment that American industry could provide. As we hear in the media about the critical roles of Air Force systems such as the C-5 Galaxy and the KC-135 aerial refueling fleet, I would point out to my colleagues that these systems were developed and deployed under the watchful eye of Cliff LaPlante. As an Air Force legislative affairs officer, Cliff became well known to the members of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. He quickly became an asset to members and staff alike for his concise and timely responses to the many questions that arose during consideration of Defense department budget requests. The reputation Cliff developed as a trusted and admired member of the Air Force reflect great credit on himself as well as the U.S. Air Force. My personal association with Cliff began in 1970 when Cliff decided to forego a much-deserved promotion to full Colonel in favor of joining The Boeing Company as its first full time liaison representative to the Congress. During his eight years with Boeing, Cliff continued the fine legislative work he had begun with the Air Force and he became involved in many vital defense programs such as the AWACS, the Airborne Command Post and the KC-135 re-engining program. In 1979, Cliff began the General Electric Company chapter of his career, which has lasted twenty-three years. Cliff continued to build on the legislative work he began during his tenures with the Air Force and Boeing and was at the very center of the major defense issues of the day. Cliff distinguished himself with his role in the KC-135 re- engining program and during ``The Great Engine War'' where GE competed, and won, a place for its F110 engine on the F-16. American business schools now view ``The Great Engine War'' as a classic case study on how defense procurement should be done. Now, after more than 50 years of dedicated service to his country, the Congress and the aerospace community, Cliff is about to retire from GE and will begin what is perhaps his most noble endeavor. Together with his wife, Cecilia, Cliff has established a charitable foundation, ``Children Come First,'' that is dedicated to helping underprivileged children in Peru. Those of us who have worked with Cliff know that he will bring the same spirit and vigor that has exemplified his past undertakings to his foundation and that he will certainly continue to ``Bring Good Things to Life'' for underprivileged kids. Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all my colleagues in the House who have known and worked with Cliff over the years when I say we will miss him but wish him well in the next chapter of his fascinating career.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the chairman and my colleague, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), for their effort here. This is a very important problem. The chairman was gracious in working with us on the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, and I want to thank him for this effort here to clarify the law.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) to fly out on a helicopter and go aboard the Carl Vinson as it came through the Straits of Juan de Fuca into Puget Sound into the Bremerton shipyard in my hometown. It was a great honor for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I to have an opportunity to address the crew of the Carl Vinson. They had let the air wing off in San Diego, but still over 3,000 sailors, 12 percent of which were women, were coming home to Bremerton, were coming home to meet their families. I believe that the Carl Vinson, which was the first aircraft carrier into the North Arabian Sea, performed heroically on behalf of our country in Operation Enduring Freedom. In looking over their record over this last 111 days when they were fully operational, they conducted 4,200 sorties flying F-14s and F-18s into Afghanistan using the smart weapons like JDAMs and the satellite weapons to destroy Taliban and al Qaeda targets in the area, and helped to contribute to the quick demise of the Taliban government. I was pleased to be aboard and talk to the crew. They were extremely excited about coming home; but they were very, very proud of the service that they had rendered on behalf of our country. I want Members to know that we assured them that this Congress, this administration, strongly supports what they have done. There was bipartisan support in the Congress for the President's operations in Afghanistan. I think we should reiterate the importance of these large big-deck carriers, 4.5 acres of American sovereignty. As we all know, we do not always get the bases that we need in any area of the world where we have to have American actions. In this case, we were not able to use airfields, as we were in Desert Storm and Desert Shield, in the region so these aircraft carriers became paramount. Mr. Speaker, there were 48 attack aircraft coming off these carriers, and those attack aircraft flew these missions, having to have several airline refuelings, which also points out the importance of why we have to have tankers in order to provide the fuel for these planes on their missions, also for the bombers, the B-1s, the B-52s and the B-2s that were all used successfully in this endeavor. It was also exciting to see the crew of the ship reunite with their families. Seventy-six of the men on board were fathers during the time they were gone, 6 months of deployment. In fact, I saw one woman who had delivered her baby on the day of the deployment, the first day, so the child was 6 months old. And to see all of them reunited on the pier in Bremerton, Washington, my hometown, is truly something I will never forget. Mr. Speaker, I think we all should recognize the important contribution of the men and women who serve us daily in the military. This Congress has a responsibility to make certain that we give them the benefits, that we give them the support, that we give them the equipment so that they can conduct these operations in the future. But those large aircraft carriers were crucial in giving us the ability to make these attacks early on and to win this war decisively with very minimal loss of American life. I also would say that while they were operational, they conducted 37 replenishments while they were underway. This is when another ship comes up and provides supplies to the aircraft carrier when it is operational and moving. I think that is rather remarkable. Over 16,000 airplanes landed and took off on the Carl Vinson during this deployment; and they went 51,000 miles, which is almost two times around the Earth. I was proud to be there, proud as a member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and to see the men and women serving on the Carl Vinson. We also learned in this war, 90 percent of the weapons that were used were smart bombs like JDAMs, and we almost ran out of those weapons. So we have got a lot of work to do here in the Congress to support the President to make sure that we have the equipment for the future. But it was a great day in Bremerton, Washington, and I am proud of the work of these great sailors and of our United States Navy.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman would agree with that assessment?

Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman agree a general purpose aircraft that will meet the general requirements of many customers; that can operate as a passenger aircraft, a freighter, a passenger/freighter ``combination'' aircraft, or as an aerial refueling tanker; and is available to either government or private customers, meets the definition of a general purpose, commercially configured aircraft?

Mr. DICKS. Then the gentleman would say that a commercial market exists for general purpose, commercially configured aerial refueling tanker aircraft?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that Italy and Japan have selected the 767 tanker for their air forces. Italy intends to buy at least four of the tankers, and Japan intends to procure at least one. Further, I believe that the same tanker configuration is being offered commercially to other countries to meet their in-flight refueling requirements. Is that the gentleman's understanding?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Defense Appropriations bill. Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha have done excellent work in balancing very difficult and demanding priorities. Most of all, I am very pleased that the conferees agreed to accept a Senate provision which allows the Air Force to lease new aircraft to replace the oldest of our KC-135 tankers. The issue of replacing the Air Force's tanker refueling aircraft is, in fact, very simple despite the cloud of confusion being created by its opponents. In their frenzy to condemn what they see as a special deal, they have totally lost sight of the facts. The truth is this provision is a good deal--a good deal for our armed forces and a good deal for taxpayers. First, it is important to understand that every credible defense and aviation observer agrees that it is time to replace the aging KC-135-E tanker aircraft fleet with new tankers based on the 767 aircraft. Both of the large tanker refueling aircraft now in use were built by the Boeing Company--current aircraft are based on the 707 and DC-10 airliners--and Air Force analyses have shown that the 767 due to its size, range, and carrying capacity is uniquely suited to this role. The proof of this is already evident in the commercial marketplace. The Italian Government has already signed a deal for 767 tankers for its Air Force, Japan recently did the same, and several other European governments are likely to be close behind. The 136 KC-135 E model aircraft the Air Force is seeking to replace average 43 years of age. They exhibit severe corrosion and structural damage due to age and spend on average well over a year in depot in an attempt to patch up this damage. The Air Force has two choices, either spend billions to attempt to repair and partially modernize these aircraft, or make the transition to a new airframe with much greater capability and lower cost of operation. The decision is not hard. The Air Force must replace its KC-135 Es and it must begin its program now. The war in Afghanistan has shown just how vital our tanker capability is. Navy aircraft flying from aircraft carriers are being refueled at least 2 and sometimes 3 or 4 times on each mission. Bombers from Diego Garcia, and even those coming all the way from the United States, are being refueled, some up to as much as 6 times on one mission. Simply put, we could not fight a war in Afghanistan without these tankers, and what we've discovered is that our current fleet is too old to do the job for long in high intensity situations like the current one. The only question then is how do we pay to replace these tankers? Again, for the Air Force the choice is relatively simple. It needs 100 aircraft delivered as quickly as possible. The Air Force calculates that phasing out the KC-135 Es on an aggressive schedule will save at least $5.9 billion. But the Air Force's procurement budget was held flat this year by the new administration, and for now there doesn't appear to be any help for procurement in sight. The Air Force bears the responsibility of paying not only for the nation's tanker aircraft, but also for all of the nation's airlift, most of our space assets, and our Air superiority capability. So the right answer is to lease tanker aircraft, which allows the Air Force to spread the cost over up to 10 years, and buy down the value of these aircraft to the point where at the end of the lease, the Air Force can easily buy or release these aircraft for their residual value. This is the same principle on which a car lease operates, an arrangement understood and exercised by millions of Americans. And the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that ``the lease price quoted is a very good price.'' How can the taxpayer be sure that Boeing will not turn around at the end of the lease and sell these aircraft to somebody else? Boeing can sell or lease these aircraft only with US government approval under export control laws.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the next six lines of the colloquy be inserted in the record.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I understand that this bill grants approval for the Air Force to enter into a lease for new tanker aircraft to be delivered as general purpose aircraft in commercial configuration. Is that correct?

Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in very strong support of this motion. As I understand it, we would go to the higher levels and, in that case for defense, it would be additional; we would go back to the $7 billion that was in the House bill. In my judgment, we desperately need that money for defense and national security. One of the things that came out at our hearings this year, led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), is that each of the services told us that they were somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion short on money for procurement of new weapons systems to recapitalize our force. This is something that I am very concerned about, because in each of these wars that we have had, Desert Storm, Desert Shield and Kosovo, now Afghanistan, we have heavily used this equipment. It is getting older. It is going to have to be replaced. Unfortunately, one area where the Clinton administration did not do enough and, in fact, the Bush administration is a little below them this year in the 2002 budget on procurement, is in the area of buying new weapon systems. The CNO of the Navy testified that in order to maintain a 300-ship Navy, he has to buy 10 ships a year. The budget only allows him 5. In order to maintain and reduce the age of the aircraft, the attackers coming off those carriers that we see operating and flying into Afghanistan, he has to acquire 180 to 210 planes a year. He is only able to buy 81. So if we continue to reduce the money in this supplemental for defense, we are going to have problems equipping the force and doing the things that are essential. I just hope that this Congress can work with this President and, during this war, add the additional money that is necessary to recapitalize our forces. I think it is the number one defense priority. We are doing a good job on readiness. We are helping our troops with adequate pay increases and health care, but what we really are failing to do is to get the new equipment that they will be using. I worry, as we saw one of the B-1s lost today, and we are pleased to hear that the pilots were able to bail out and I think are safe, hopefully. But it is that kind of problem that will occur if we do not do a better job of modernizing and, therefore, I hope we can save this $5 billion, and I support the Obey motion.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman would not argue that we are not short of the procurement dollars that are needed to modernize the forces, would he? Would the gentleman not agree with that?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001. This is outstanding legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3005 is legislation that will grant to the President Fast Track negotiating authority for certain trade agreements. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this authority is necessary to ensure that the United States remains a global leader on free trade, and to enable this President and future Presidents to continue to work to open foreign markets to American goods. Clearly in today's global economy, our Nation has a major interest in reducing barriers to international trade, with more and more American jobs dependent upon our ability to market our goods and services to overseas customers. And certainly in my State of Washington, which is the most trade-dependent in the Nation, our ability to trade freely with foreign nations sustains an enormous portion of our economy. In Washington, we exported more than $33 billion in goods each year, estimated to sustain more than 1 million jobs. The Puget Sound area of our State was recently described as the most export-dependent U.S. metropolitan area. So this is an issue that relates very much to the creation of new jobs in our region, and certainly it plays a major role in the national economy as well, helping to improve our balance of trade and provide jobs for American workers in the 21st century. And these are good jobs. These are not low wage service jobs that have been generated from the growth of international trade in my State. They are family-wage jobs that pay substantially greater than the national average. We are talking about thousands of union machinists making airplanes at the Boeing Company, about software developers at Microsoft, mill workers who fabricate aluminum at Kaiser, chipmakers at Intel, and workers at Weyerhauser who produce lumber wood products. Trade is not just important to large businesses and big corporations. In my state, there are many more small businesses than big ones that owe their income to international trade. There are many small companies that supply machine and airplane parts that go into the aircraft that we sell overseas, thousands of farmers that grow apples and wheat, and countless small, family-owned mills that process timber and sell the products in Asian and other overseas markets. And there are jobs that are sustained by these exporters: Bankers, teachers, restaurant workers, plumbers, lawyers and countless others. The economic recession has had a severe impact on the State of Washington. The end of the high technology boom and the effect that the attacks on September 11 have had on the aircraft industry has been devastating. Currently, we are suffering the highest unemployment rate in the Nation--6.6 percent. My highest priority as a Member of Congress has always been jobs. Increasing our trade and exports with other countries means jobs for Americans and jobs for people in Washington State. In my judgment, the fastest way out of this recession is to tear down the barriers other nations have put up against American goods and services, enabling our manufacturers and other businesses to access new markets. I believe in the ability of our workers and businesses to compete against anybody and win. Some of my colleagues claim that Trade Promotion Authority is not needed; that the President can already conduct trade negotiations without expedited authority granted by Congress. This is true, the President can negotiate an agreement with other nations. However, what we have found since Fast Track authority lapsed in 1994 is that other nations are unwilling to negotiate with us knowing that any agreement reached with the administration would likely be changed by Congress without consultation or consideration of the views of the other party to the agreement. This is why President Clinton strongly urged Congress to extend Fast Track authority several years ago. We are falling behind. Of the more than 130 free trade agreements in the world today, the United States is a party to only three. The European Union, by contrast, is a party to more than 27. Because they cannot negotiate a fair deal with the United States, other countries are choosing to buy European-made manufactured goods and agricultural commodities, putting our factory workers and farmers at a distinct disadvantage. I urge my colleagues to consider very seriously how a vote against this bill will affect our nation's ability to compete in the global marketplace. I also ask that you think about how important this bill is to enable our economic recovery. For both of these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3005.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3008, the reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Act, which is a vital program to help those workers who have lost their jobs due to increased imports. TAA gives these displaced workers the best chance for new employment opportunities. The program provides retraining, education, job search assistance, and income support to get people through the trials of unemployment and toward a new job. I want to commend Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Rangel for including in this bill additional benefits to reflect the economic consequences of September 11. These workers, including many in Washington State, suddenly were left jobless due to the terrorist attacks and I am glad that this bill will help them. However, we need to provide even more benefits for all jobless Americans whatever the cause of their unemployment. And finally, my deepest gratitude goes to Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Rangel for including a provision in H.R. 3008 to correct a problem that penalizes Washington and other States with supplemental unemployment programs for displaced workers who are being retrained. Congresswoman Dunn and myself brought to their attention the fact that TAA benefits would be delayed in States like Washington that have taken the forward-looking step of creating their own supplemental retraining programs. It makes no sense to put Washington and these other States at a disadvantage because they have decided to provide their displaced workers with additional help. I am grateful that Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Rangel understood the unfairness of this situation and agreed to correct it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha on this bill. It is a fine piece of work and they can be proud. The bill provides $317 billion for DOD, an increase of $20 billion over last year's bill, a step in the right direction. It is the right direction, but we have not done nearly enough. DOD still has over $25 billion in unfunded requirements for Personnel, O&M and Research, and beyond that over $20 billion in unfunded requirements for procurement alone. I am most troubled by the shortfalls in procurement because the President's request for procurement this was lower than it was in the last year of the Clinton Administration. The committee has taken some steps to correct that, but the President must make a commitment to increase the procurement budget if we are really going to make progress on this problem. Several important steps are taken in this bill to modernize the force structure of the services in innovative ways. I am pleased that the committee included $454 million to help the Air Force begin acquiring next generation replacements for its tanker fleet and to add to its JSTARS fleet. The current tanker fleet averages over 40 years in age, and yet it is the backbone of our ability as a superpower to project force to places like Afghanistan. The Air Force desperately needs to replace these aircraft and this bill begins that process. I am hopeful that at the appropriate time we will also consider whether the Air Force can lease these aircraft in a commercial type arrangement. The funding also begins development of a Multi- Mission Command and Control Aircraft, which will operationalize the Common Widebody concept and streamline the fleet of command and control and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft. I am strongly encouraged that the committee included $80 million to continue upgrades to the B-2 bomber. We are continuing the Link 16 Datalink program, we will complete the integration of the EGBU-28 bunker buster bomb, and we will continue to upgrade the EHF Satcom program. All of these programs are part of the Air Force's unfunded requirements list and continue ongoing programs that are urgently needed. The committee has also made a decision which makes tremendous military and financial sense, to convert all four retiring Trident submarines into SSGN cruise missile platforms. These ships will provide incredible capability to the nation, and the committee's addition of $463 million will allow the Navy to perform these conversions in the most cost effective way possible. I am also pleased to note that the committee included an additional $181 million to begin a second C-17 multi-year procurement for another 60 aircraft. Future military commanders and future generations of Americans will look back on these decisions in several years and applaud the committee's foresight. These assets will ensure that America can continue to fight for just causes with the same excellence as the military which is in Afghanistan today.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, The Kucinich-Lee amendment has a laudable goal, to increase funding for counter terrorism. I agree with the priorities indicated by the amendment, counter terrorism is more important than missile defense. But, the amendment is fatally flawed in terms of policy and funding. It cuts a half billion dollars from the Defense bill without replacement. This cut to Defense is unacceptable, especially at this time. The amendment would cut the funding for a proposed test launch facility at Kodiak Island. This facility will allow DOD to perform tests which are more rigorous and realistic than those possible at current test sites at Kwajalein and Vandenberg. It also cuts funding to upgrade the sensors and launch capabilities at Kwajalein and Vandenberg which will hinder rigorous missile defense testing. Because of its cuts to Kodiak, Kwajalein and Vandenberg, the amendment reduces the level of testing of missile defense technology when the right thing to do is increase the level of testing of these technologies for the very reason that they are not yet mature. Opposition to this amendment does not indicate support for the entire Pacific Testbed as proposed by the administration. The proposed construction at Ft. Greely remains premature, unnecessary, and unwarranted by the state of missile defense technology. However, this amendment cuts needed facilities in addition to the Ft. Greely construction. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Murtha have negotiated responsible cuts to the administration's request for missile defense totaling over $500 million. While I agree that some more cuts are warranted, this amendment goes too far.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the outstanding staff for their great work on this bill. This is obviously one of the most important appropriations bills that we deal with. Of course, one issue dear to this Member's heart has been the conservation spending provisions of both this and the Subcommittee on the Interior appropriations bill. Last year we made a commitment, we the appropriators, that we were going to substantially increase funding for conservation. When we add up the money, $440 million in this bill, and the $1.320 billion in the Interior bill, we have kept the commitment that was made last year. Some people favored CARA, another approach, an entitlement which would have taken this jurisdiction away from the Committee on Appropriations. We said no, we wanted to create a trust fund, like the Violent Crime Trust Fund, for conservation that would still leave the authority within the committee to decide how the money would be appropriated on an annual basis. The base that year was $752 million, and we went up to $1.6 billion; and this year we are at $7.60 billion. I appreciate the leadership of our committee on the House side. I know this was not easy dealing with the other body, but we prevailed on these issues. I think this money will be used, as it is being used in the Pacific Northwest for the Pacific Coast Salmon Restoration initiative in a very effective way, both on the Columbia River and on Puget Sound. I want to congratulate all the staff, but particularly Sally Chadbourne, who has been terrific to work with. She and Del are going up to Maine, and I hope that they will come back from time to time to give us good advice and counsel. I congratulate her on her outstanding career in the House of Representatives and let her know how much we appreciate her good work.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2149.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, representing a fair compromise between the versions that were passed in each House. While I certainly would have preferred a higher level of funding in some of the key programs of this bill, I am encouraged by many elements of the compromise. The conference report represents a fair effort to provide the necessary funds to maintain the National Park System and our federal land management agencies, to address tribal needs through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to increase wildfire readiness, to encourage important energy research and conservation programs, and to offer the small--but important--cultural funding through the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. One of the most important aspects of this bill and of the conference report, I believe, was the decision to honor the commitment we made last year when we enacted the Conservation Spending Trust Fund. I am extremely pleased that both the House and Senate bills contained full funding of $1.32 billion for these conservation programs--a dramatic increase over the $1.2 billion that was provided in the current year and $637 million in Fiscal Year 2000. This six-year effort represents the most significant increase ever approved for conservation spending across federal environmental accounts that will boost land acquisition, maintenance and wildlife habitat protection in national parks, forests and refuge areas. This was an important step taken last year in the House, and I am proud that we have brought the final version of the Fiscal Year 2002 bill to the floor in a form that included all of the funding anticipated in the second year of this conservation spending agreement. Despite an allocation in conference that was lower than many of us would have preferred, I am very pleased that this conference agreement funds several specific programs at adequate levels, including: $85 million for State Wildlife Grants; $140 million for stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants; $50 million for the new Land Owner Incentive Program; $115 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; A 50 percent increase for the Weatherization program over last year's level; $2.2 billion for National Fire Plan activities, $300 million over the President's budget request. As the Ranking Democratic Member of the Interior Subcommittee, I want to thank all of my colleagues in the House for the substantial input and advice you have given to me and to our staff, and I assure you that I have made a diligent effort to attempt to address as many of those concerns as possible within the limitations of our allocation. I also want to thank the professional staff of the Interior Subcommittee for the long hours and meticulous attention to detail that has characterized their work on this legislation. Every member of the Subcommittee--Democrats as well as Republicans--appreciates their hard work under tight deadlines. So I urge my colleagues to approve this bill. I am convinced that it responds to the most urgent environmental needs of our nation at this time, and that it addresses the major priorities of the Interior Department and the related programs with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy.