Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, there would be 15 minutes on each side for both amendments?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), it is 50 minutes, 25 on each side. The gentleman will control 25 and our side will control 25?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would provide an additional $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, bringing their funding up to $115 million. I might point out that in 1995 we funded the arts at approximately $170 million, so there has been a dramatic reduction in funding for the arts. I would say that the National Endowment has done a great job, but it certainly needs this modest increase. We would also increase the National Endowment for the Humanities by $3 million, taking it up to $123 million. It was funded at about $170 million in 1995 as well, so this is another one that needs help. And, of course, the Museum and Library Services, we would increase this by $2 million, taking it up to $26.8 million. Since 1996, the Endowments have been woefully underfunded, as I have stated. The National Endowment for the Arts, to be precise, received $162 million in 1995 and was level funded at $98 million until their small increase last year. The Humanities were funded at $172 million in 1995, yet only received $120 million in the fiscal year 2001 bill. Even with requests from the previous administration of $150 million for both agencies, we were not able to achieve more than a nominal increase. I believe it is time that these programs receive at least a portion of this request because of the value they add to our country. The National Endowment for Humanities supports programs that matter most, enriching classroom teaching, developing programs for public television, supporting some of the country's finest museum exhibits, preserving invaluable historical materials from our past, supporting new research by scholars, and partnering with State humanities councils across the Nation. A small grant from either the National Endowment for Humanities or the National Endowment for the Arts spurs nearly four times that amount of funding in the private sector. But without additional funding, important programs supported by the NEH will not be available. Additional funding would also be used to preserve endangered recordings of folk music, jazz and blues. The National Endowment for Humanities works directly with each of the State humanities organizations and regional centers to support critical cultural programs. They also help ensure that this information is widely distributed into communities through technology like the Internet and CD-roms. The National Endowment for the Arts also receives an increase for the work that it does. As I mentioned, the NEA received $162 million in 1995, but only $105 million last year. This is simply inadequate. I was extremely pleased that we were able to reach agreement to provide this small increase for the NEA last year, adding an additional $7 million for the NEA's Challenge America program. The NEA should be commended for its work to address criticism and concerns over their funding of controversial grants and for not distributing grants in a more geographically evenhanded way throughout the country. They have addressed those issues and I think have solved them, and much of the credit belongs to our subcommittee, particularly the work of our former chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who was insistent that we emphasize quality in awarding these grants. The Institute for Museum and Library Services also deserves this small increase. Each year our Nation's 15,000 museums host 865 million visits, a 50 percent increase from only a decade ago. For the last 25 years, the Institute of Museum and Library Services has used its modest Federal funds to strengthen museum operations, improve care of collections, increase professional development opportunities, and enhance the community service role of museums. An additional $2 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services will have a real impact in our communities, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this increase. It is my hope that a favorable vote on this amendment will send a message to the administration that these three areas are greatly deserving of these small increases, and we want to say that we are pleased that the administration was at least willing to support last year's efforts. I compliment the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her leadership and her leadership of the Arts Caucus. We are going to continue this fight. We think it is a worthy one. We received some considerable support in the other body. I think it is time for this House to take a stand in favor of support for these three important cultural institutions. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York and myself. The amendment seeks to raise the level of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment of the Humanities and the Institute for Museums and Library Services. The increases we are seeking for the Endowments and the IMLS would be offset by small reductions in administrative costs at the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. We had originally planned to offset these amounts through a deferral of excess clean coal funds as we did last year. Unfortunately the Rules Committee did not waive the rule to allow this. Instead this amendment makes a very small reduction of less than .3 percent in administrative costs. We believe these can be absorbed with no programmatic impact on these agencies. The President's budget was generous in funding administrative costs including more than $160 million for the cost of the Federal pay raise and the committee has added additional funds. This amendment requires that approximately 10 percent of the cost of the pay raise be absorbed through management efficiencies. Historically the amount of pay costs which agencies were asked to absorb has averaged in excess of 25 percent. We believe that most of the cost will come from a higher than expected lapse rate, the savings which occur when positions which are assumed to be funded for all of the year are inevitably filled more slowly with substantial savings. This lapse savings is inevitably higher than expected when there is a new Administration which fills vacancies slowly as is the current case. In addition there may be some small reductions required in travel, printing and administrative contracts costs. In no case should there be any impact on existing staff. The amendment would: Provide an additional $10 million for the NEA, bringing them up to $115 million; provide an additional $3 million for the NEH, bringing them up to $123 million; and provide an additional $2 million for the Institute for Museums and Library Services (IMLS), bringing them up to $26.8 million. Since 1996, the Endowments have been woefully underfunded. The National Endowment for the Arts received $162 million in fiscal year 1995, and was level funded at $98 million until their small increase last year. The Humanities were funded at $172 million in fiscal year 1995, yet only received $120 million in the fiscal 2001 bill. Even with requests from the previous Administration of $150 million for both agencies, we were not able to achieve more than a nominal increase. I believe it is time that these programs received at least a portion of this request because of the value they add to our country. The National Endowment for Humanities supports programs that matter most--enriching classroom teaching, developing programs for public television, supporting some of the country's finest museum exhibits, preserving invaluable historical materials from our past, supporting new research by scholars and partnering with state humanities councils across the Nation. A small grant from either the NEH or the NEA spurs nearly four times that amount in the private sector. But without additional funding, important programs supported by the NEH will not be available. Additional funding would also be used to preserve endangered recordings of folk music, jazz, and blues. The NEH works directly with each of the state humanities organizations and regional centers to support critical cultural programs. They also help ensure that this information is widely distributed into communities through technology like the internet and CD-Roms. The NEA also deserves an increase for the work that it does. As I mentioned, the NEA received $162 million in 1995, but only $105 million last year. This simply is inadequate. I was extremely pleased that we were able to reach agreement to provide the small increase for the NEA last year, adding an additional $7 million for the NEA's Challenge American Program. The NEA should be commended for its work to address criticisms and concerns over their funding of controversial grants and for distributing grants in a more geographically even-handed way throughout the country. The Institute for Museums and Library Services also deserves this small increase. Each year our Nation's 15,000 museums host 865 million visits--a 50 percent increase from only a decade ago. For the last 25 years IMLS has used its modest Federal funds to strengthen museum operations, improve care of collections, increase professional development opportunities and enhance the community service role of museums. An additional $2 million for the IMLS will have a real impact in our communities, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this increase. It is my hope that a favorable vote on this amendment will send a message to the President that these three areas are greatly deserving of these small increases. I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate our new chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), on his first bill. He has done an outstanding job. As he has suggested, there has been real collaboration between the majority and minority, both the Members and the staff. I want to applaud the staff members of the Committee, both the majority and minority, particularly Debbie Weatherly and Mike Stephens and Lesley Turner on my staff. They have worked very hard on this bill, and I think it is an extraordinary bill. I rise in support of the FY 02 Interior appropriations act. I congratulate again the staff for producing a bill that I think we all can support. The subcommittee bill represents a significant improvement over the President's budget request. Most of the cuts have been restored, and a few very important programs received small increases. I want to also compliment our majority on the cooperative way the bill was crafted. The minority, as I suggested, was consulted extensively, and the majority went to great lengths to see that most of our concerns were addressed throughout the process. The most important thing to me in this bill, and to many of my colleagues, is the commitment to the Conservation Trust Fund which was negotiated last year. Under the agreement, conservation spending was nearly doubled in fiscal year 2001 and would gradually increase to fiscal year 2006. This year contains the full $1.32 billion called for under the agreement, but is not a new entitlement. This funding structure enables the committee to prioritize specific conservation programs, such as land acquisition, endangered species recovery, historic preservation, as well as provide grants to States for conservation activities and urban recreation. This agreement was a careful compromise last year during the final negotiation on this bill when it became apparent that the CARA legislation, which created mandatory spending, was not going to pass the Congress. The conservation spending category is a victory for the country. I am extremely pleased that this bill fully honors our commitment on a bipartisan basis. While I plan to support the bill today, I do plan to support an amendment that would increase funding to both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and would also give a small increase of funding for the Institute for Museum and Library Services. The chairman should be commended for his efforts to restore nearly all the cuts to energy research and conservation programs that were proposed by the President. These cuts were unwise, especially given the current energy situation we are facing out West. My State of Washington has seen the impacts of this energy crisis firsthand, and many more States are next. If the President is as concerned as his public statements suggest, he would welcome this committee's increase in these critical areas. Aside from some specific program levels, this is a very good bill. The total in the chairman's mark is $18.941 million. This is $814 million over the President's request, and essentially the same level as 2001. After adjusting for one-time fire money in 2001, however, the bill provides an increase over the current year of $803 million or 5 percent. This is on top of a 15 percent increase last year for nonfire programs. There is a $60 million increase for Stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund grants as well as $60 million included for the President's two new private landowner incentive programs, taking that up to about $150 million. This is one of the President's important programs. We also funded two new private landowner incentive programs proposed by the administration. Both of the President's two highest priorities in the Department of Energy, the weatherization program, an increase of $120 million, and the Clean Coal Initiative, an increase of $150 million, were provided. This bill also rightly continues the National Park's Services' Save America's Treasures program. This program, started by Mrs. Clinton during the last administration, has been a success, and has helped restore many historic structures. I am also pleased that the bill does not contain any objectionable riders like the ones that have threatened the bill in past years. Again, I compliment the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) on his first Interior bill. It is a pleasure to work with him and his staff, and I look forward to passing this bill today which I think we can all support. Mr. Chairman, I see that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, is here, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and I want to thank them for their help in helping us move this bill forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and rule. I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, I will help him in the conference on the measures that he just mentioned. I also want to say that I want to applaud the chairman of this committee and the majority and the minority for working to keep the commitment last year in our substitute for CARA. This bill carries with it $1,320 million in conservation spending. I think it is a dramatic step in the right direction. If Members will remember, last year over 300 House Members voted for CARA, which would have been a 15-year $3 billion program. I offered an amendment with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that was accepted by the majority that would keep this within the purview of the Committee on Appropriations, and to create a trust fund to make sure that they important programs were funded. The majority is working with the minority. We have funded it in the Interior bill, and we hope it will be also funded in the State, Justice, and Commerce bill. I agree with the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) that we would have hoped that the Committee on Rules might have helped us on a couple of these amendments, but I want to say to my colleagues, we are going to offer an amendment to increase funding for the cultural institutions, $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $3 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 million for museum services. We are taking the money out of administrative expenses. I am confident that if the amendment is approved, we will be able to protect that in conference. So I am enthusiastically supporting this bill. I think we should move ahead and pass the rule on a voice vote and get to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule providing for consideration of the Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations bill for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies, despite a denied request to make two amendments in order that were proposed yesterday to the Committee on Rules. The Minority has been consulted throughout the process of developing this legislation and we believe our views are reflected in many aspects of the bill. While we do not agree with every recommendation and continue to work for improvements in several areas, in balance we believe that this Interior bill is one which Members from both parties can support. The Minority is particularly pleased with the recommendation for funding of the new Conservation Trust Fund created last year. By including the full $1,320 million authorized for conservation, Congress has kept faith with last year's commitment to significantly expand funding for land acquisition, wildlife protection and other preservation and conservation programs. We are also pleased by the Committee's inclusion of a $120 million increase for weatherization and State energy programs to insulate homes, schools and hospitals. These funds are critical to low income families. We applaud the Committee's decision to restore many of the unwise cuts proposed by the President in a number of critical areas. This includes approximately $300 million to the Energy Conservation and Fossil Energy research accounts. These funds can significantly ameliorate the energy crisis identified in the President's National Energy Policy. It made no sense to cut these programs when current gasoline prices and electricity problems remind us daily of the need for energy conservation and alternative energy programs. Although the Committee did not make in order the amendment proposed yesterday, Congresswoman Slaughter and I plan to offer a new amendment today to increase funding for our cultural agencies. The amendment would provide $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $3 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 million for the Institute for Museum and Library Services offset by small reductions in administrative costs at the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. We had originally planned to offset these amounts through a deferral of excess clean coal funds as we did last year. Unfortunately the Rules Committee did not waive the rule to allow this. Instead this amendment makes a very small reduction of less than .3 percent in administrative costs. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule protecting the bill as reported. It is a clean bill which I intend to support.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Pelosi amendment. This has been a real crisis, not just in California but throughout the West and particularly in the Pacific Northwest. My own utility in Tacoma has increased rates by approximately 50 percent and may be faced with another 50 percent increase because of drought conditions affecting Bonneville Power and its power. I want to associate myself with the gentleman from Oregon's comments. He is exactly right. The idea that we are going to base the cost of power on the output of the weakest plant and the plant that is the most expensive is an outrage. I think we need to stay with this. We need to get this amendment adopted. I urge the House to support the Pelosi amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The airborne laser integrates a high-powered laser on a Boeing 747 aircraft. It is designed to protect our deployed troops from the threat of theater ballistic missiles. The Pentagon requested $153 million to address program shortfalls. The amendment reduces this request by $55 million, leaving an increase of $98 million. It is true that in the January time frame, the Air Force estimated the airborn laser shortfall only to be $98.5 million, but subsequent to that, as the chairman has pointed out, they have identified two additional areas that need $55 million. The committee has carefully scrutinized this request, and we believe that the failure to fund the additional cost growth would force the contractor to stop work on the program. Failure to fund the additional spares will likely lead to inefficient schedule disruptions that will increase costs further. Most importantly, we are pushing to get a real test in 2003 for this program. If we do not fund this supplemental request, that question of being able to get the test to see if this will work to protect our troops when they are deployed in the field will be jeopardized. I would just say to my colleagues, we may have a lot of debate here in Congress about national missile defense, but I think there is bipartisan consensus that we need theater missile defense in order to protect our deployed troops. We can give somebody a check, we can take care of their health care, we can take care of their pension, but we also have to take care of protecting their life. What we are talking about here is a system that, if it works as advertised, will protect the lives of young men and women when they are deployed abroad. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, as the West Coast continues to struggle with its energy crisis, threatening the economy of the Pacific Northwest this year as well as the rest of the nation, I believe it is instructional for Members of Congress to review the problems encountered during the California deregulation effort in order to put the crisis situation into the proper perspective. A recent article in the northwest energy journal, Clearing Up, presented the issues in a clear and thoughtful manner, and I would like to take the time to share this viewpoint with my colleagues today. The article was co-authored by Stewart L. Udall, who served as Secretary of the Interior as well as Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration, and Mr. Charles F. Luce, who was undersecretary of the Interior Department and later Chairman of New York City's ConEdison Electric Utility. It presents a sobering review of the mistakes that were made as California implemented its version of electric power deregulation, and I am pleased to submit this article for Members to read. California's Ruinous Deregulation Caper (By Stewart L. Udall and Charles F. Luce) California's ill-conceived experiment in deregulating the generation of electricity has been an economic disaster for the Golden State. This fiasco has burdened its two biggest utilities with a $12 billion debt and left them teetering on the precipice of bankruptcy. It has inflicted heavy losses on businesses and agriculture that are dynamos of the state's economy, and confronts homeowners with the prospect that, for years to come, they will have to pay higher prices for their electricity. The near-term outlook is bleak. Not only do summer blackouts in California appear inevitable, but that state's crisis is spilling over into four Pacific Northwest states (Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana) that are linked to California by a giant transmission system. Energy shortages in the Pacific Northwest will be worsened because last fall, despite drought conditions in the Rocky Mountain headwaters of the Columbia River, the Secretary of Energy sacrificed Columbia River hydropower reserves when he forced Bonneville Power to draw down its reservoirs to help California avoid further blackouts. Having led a West Coast-wide effort in the 1960s to build the Pacific Coast Intertie (PCI) that ties together electrically California and the Pacific Northwest states--and gave them the most versatile and efficient electric power system in the whole country--we are shocked and saddened to find these states in the grip of a full-blown energy crisis. The PCI, built in the 1960s and since enlarged, links the hydroelectric generators of the Columbia, the greatest power river in North America, with the steam-power generators that provide the bulk of California's electricity. PCI consists of three EHV 500,000 kv alternating current lines and one EHV 1,100,000 kv direct current line. The pioneering direct current line, stretching from The Dalles, Oregon, to Los Angeles, is one of the largest and highest capacity d.c. lines in the world. Altogether, the PCI has the capacity to move up to 7,500,000 kw of power between the Pacific Northwest and the length of California. Over the past 30 years, the PCI has been a bulwark that helped keep electric prices low and increased reliability of electric service in both regions. The economic and environmental benefits flowing from the PCI have been enormous. Initially, the PCI made possible Canada's ratification of the U.S.--Canadian Columbia River Treaty after negotiations had been stalled for more than ten years. It did so by opening California's markets for British Columbia's 50% (1400 mw) share of Columbia River Treaty power generated at down- stream U.S. dams. California obtained a block of low-cost non-polluting Canadian power, and the Pacific Northwest received valuable flood control protection from Canadian storage dams as well as its 1400 mw share of Treaty power. The PCI has continued to benefit both California and the Northwest in many ways: exchanges of Northwest day-time excess hydro capacity for California's night-time excess energy; sale of surplus Northwest energy to California when Columbia River flows peak in spring and summer; sales of California wintertime surplus energy to firm up Northwest hydro; and emergency back-up service for both regions when disaster strikes. In the first ten years of its operation, the PCI, in addition to other benefits, saved almost $1 billion in fuel oil that California's utilities did not have because they could substitute surplus Northwest hydropower that otherwise would have washed to the sea. Considering the benefits from fuel displacement, and other benefits that can reasonably be anticipated over the 50 year life of the lines it will on average repay its initial entire capital cost of $600 million for each of the fifty years. Until California's deregulation power and energy moved over the PCI at prices regulated directly and indirectly by federal and state governments. Now, with deregulation, many intertie sales have no cap. California, desperate to keep its lights on, is bidding up the price of electricity in all the western states and Canada. Instead of being a boon to consumers of both regions, the PCI, because of deregulation, has become a key factor in pushing the price of Northwest wholesale electricity to the highest levels in more than 70 years. California's deregulated wholesale electric energy prices are siphoning power needed by the Northwest, causing double-digit rate increases to Northwest consumers, closures of electro-process plants, reduction of irrigated farming, and excess draw-down of Columbia reservoirs that portends summer power shortages and threatens Columbia River salmon runs. We believe the chaos caused by California's deregulation experiment raises profound questions about the future of the electric power industry. It should force policymakers to study the track record of our nation's traditional electric power system. How did this seminal industry serve the needs of our nation during the last century? Has it, overall, provided reliable, low-cost electricity for its customers? Or is it stodgy and outdated, a relic that is impeding the advent of an era of low-cost electricity that will confer widespread economic benefits for one and all? The panacea posed by the deregulators was a brainchild of ``experts'' and consumer activists who, we believe, did not sufficiently consider the eminently successful history of this all-important business. It is our view that the deregulators made a grievous mistake when they based their hasty ``reforms'' on an assumption that the time-tested, existing system could be dismantled overnight and replaced with a free market substitute that in theory would benefit all Americans. Any analysis of this issue must begin with a recognition that the electric power industry is the most important industry in the country. Unlike any other enterprise, it affects the everyday lives and lifestyles of almost every citizen, and provides the primary, irreplaceable source of energy for America's businesses. Once it was apparent to the public that Thomas Edison's inventions offered precious, wide-ranging benefits to householders and businesses alike, a consensus developed that insofar as possible, the price of electricity should be reasonable and it should be universally available. (This promise was not fulfilled until the New Deal era when, through the Rural Electric Administration, the national government made it a priority to bring power to the country's farms, ranches and small towns.) The initial consensus soon enlarged into a pragmatic concept that the surest way to keep costs reasonable and fulfill aims of social equity was (a) to give local electric companies an exclusive franchise, and (b) to pass laws establishing state and federal regulatory agencies with authority to control prices, scrutinize profits, and oversee the decisions made by these companies to carry out their responsibilities to their customers. As part of this service system that emerged, heavy burdens were imposed on the power companies. In return for their exclusive franchises, they assumed the legal obligation of ``public utility responsibility.'' They were required to operate efficiently and to respond with dispatch to the needs and demands of the individual customers and communities they served. They were likewise required to anticipate the growth needs of their service area and to make whatever investments were necessary to be prepared to take care of seasonal and daily ``peak loads.'' Such a rigorous regulatory regimen determined that the electric power industry would concentrate on reliability and be cautious and, above all, oriented to public service. Close supervision meant that this enterprise was governed by standards and expectations that did not apply to other businesses. For example, although its executives bore heavy community responsibilities, rewards were conservative: there were no handsome bonuses and few stock options because the system did not allow windfall profits or create banner years when profits doubled or tripled. Indeed, the economic culture of power utilities was reflected in the circumstance that the prices of their stocks were steady and their stocks were usually purchased by thrifty folk attracted by a tradition of reliable, annual dividend payments. Because they had public franchises, electric companies were confronted with performance standards few other industries had to deal with. Electricity was so vital that utilities were expected to be pillars who, in important ways, carried their communities on their shoulders. With reliability as the touchstone of their daily existence, companies can never relax: the only failures the public might condone involve outages or disruptions caused by supposed acts of God--and even then, criticism mounts if the response of emergency repair crews is not prompt and efficient. Implicit in deregulation, the local utility no longer would have ``public utility responsibility.'' In fact, no one would have utility responsibility. In its place, the ``invisible hand of the market place'' presumably would assure a plentiful supply of electricity at fair and reasonable prices. The profit motive, it was assumed, would induce independent generators to foresee the future demand for electricity and build the power plants needed to supply that demand at reduced electric rates--very risky assumptions. In the context of the California fiasco, Dr. Alfred Kahn, an authority on U.S. business deregulation, recently put the sui generis aspect of electric service in perspective when he referred to the ``uniqueness of power markets.'' The trouble with the theory that free-market competition might, in the long run, deliver cheaper power to customers is, as we have just seen in California, that such markets are inherently volatile and people and businesses require uninterrupted access to electricity. Even if benefits expected from deregulation are eventually achieved, they may be unevenly distributed and may carry heavy baggage. Independent generators almost certainly will negotiate more favorable contracts with large customers who will have superior bargaining power. The small customer, the ordinary householder, will pay for the discounts granted the large customers. Independent generating companies will lack incentive to provide energy conservation (let alone finance conservation as some utilities now do); their profits increase as sales increase. Nor can they be expected to invest in community- building organizations and projects now supported by local utilities. Relatively few independent generators may serve a particular market; the fear of politically imposed ``price caps'' (i.e. re-regulation) may scare others away. If that be the case, price competition may be less than vigorous, and the few independent generators that serve the market may be tempted to increase prices by delaying construction of new plants and by scheduling maintenance outages to stimulate price increases. Further, they will be tempted to build new units that are the least expensive and quickest to build-- ignoring the public interest in assuring diversity of technology and fuels. Already in California where virtually all new power plant construction will be gas-fired turbines, there is serious concern that supplies of natural gas will not be sufficient either for these plants or for the rest of California's economy. It is significant that Los Angeles, whose municipally-owned electric utility was exempted from deregulation, has not been damaged by the deregulation rampage in California. It is of far greater significance that today, U.S. regulated power companies provide overall service whose prices and reliability provide an example envied by the rest of the world. Decision-makers also should bear in mind the possibility that technology may make unnecessary the drastic deregulation of the type California has found so disastrous. Fuel cells that convert hydrogen to electricity without any pollution, and that can be built in small modules, appear to be close to commercial viability. Small gas turbines are also said to be coming on the market. Solar and wind technology may become attractive for small as well as large applications. These and possibly other new technologies hold promise of giving consumers, large and small, choices of installing their own on-site generation. Without unnecessarily disrupting the traditional organization of the utility industry, self- generation and the competitive threat of self-generation, could give electric utilities competition that would achieve the benefits claimed for deregulation. Experience cries out that it would be wise for the nation to pause and ponder all alternatives before further deregulation experiments are undertaken.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, during last year's campaign, President Bush made many promises to the American people. He promised to preserve Social Security and Medicare. He pledged to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors. He said that he would increase our spending on national defense to improve readiness on national defense to improve readiness and the morale of our troops; and he declared that he would increase the federal commitment to education and maintain our efforts to protect the environment. The FY 2002 budget before us today, based upon the President's own budget blueprint, sacrifices all of these promises and priorities in order to fulfill just one: a giant tax cut that offers its greatest benefits to the wealthiest Americans. In my judgment, this budget is fiscally unsound because it relies upon rosy assumptions of economic growth and of subsequent government revenues to generate continued budget surpluses. And if these projected surpluses do not materialize, this Republican budget will cause the nation to return to the days of budget deficits and escalating national debt from which we only recently emerged. I would caution my colleagues to consider this point before casting their vote on the measure. I am especially concerned about the shortsightedness of this budget with regard to our nation's defense. Although the President promised to increase defense spending to ensure that our military is prepared to meet challenges it will face in the 21st century, this budget allocation will not even keep pace with inflation. We already know that $3.9 billion will be necessary to provide health care benefits to Medicare-eligible military retirees for 2002 in accordance with last year's National Defense Authorization Act, a fact that is not considered in this budget. The President and many of my colleagues also support a national missile defense program, the cost of which will be enormous, further draining resources from an already depleted defense budget. This budget also does not assume any action in this current fiscal year to address the urgently-needed supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense. This is another faulty assumption and another area in which the Bush administration is retreating on the promise that ``Help is on the Way'' to address readiness concerns, the already- approved pay raise, and the need to improve quality of life for military personnel and their families. I believe that this issue is so important that I have already proposed a supplemental appropriations bill for my colleagues' consideration, containing legitimate emergency appropriations items that have been submitted by all of the services. To ignore these requests, as has been done in the Republican budget, is unwise. My friends on the other side of the aisle will argue that Congress still may increase defense spending pending the outcome of a strategic review of defense requirements. I would point out to my colleagues that by the end of this week, it is likely that the House will have passed tax cuts totaling more than $1.35 billion--almost 85 percent of the allocation provided for tax cuts in this budget resolution. Several components of the President's tax proposal remain to be considered, including the elimination of the estate tax, expanding the charitable deduction, and making permanent the research and experimentation tax credit. Once this tax package is approved, where will the money be found to fund any increase in defense? Very likely it would require deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and to education and the environment. In contrast to this anti-defense Republican budget, the Democratic substitute delivers on defense, providing a $7.1 billion defense supplemental for 2001 and providing $48 billion more for defense over the next 10 years than the Republican budget. This level of funding will improve the quality of life for our troops and their families, enable the modernization and replacement of aging equipment, and provide the research and development needed to ensure that our military remains the strongest and most efficient armed force in the world. I am also very concerned about the shortcomings in the Republican budget with regard to natural resources and the environment. Their plan cuts $2.3 billion from last year's level, effectively an 11 percent cut considering inflation. Even after adjusting the budget to take into account for emergency funding made last year, the Republican budget plan does not return to last year's funding level until 2007. As the Ranking Democratic Member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have concerns about what the proposed budget implications will be for our public lands and natural resource priorities. We already have unmet needs and backlogs. Any cuts to these important programs only worsen these problems. The Democratic alternative is much more responsible with regard to our nation's commitment to protecting the environment. Our substitute budget provides $3.6 billion more than the Republican plan for natural resources and environmental programs, adhering to last year's agreement regarding conservation programs, making needed investments in water infrastructure, and helping western states such as my state of Washington to better plan for and respond to the threat of wildfires. Although Congress considers a budget resolution every year, there are times when annual decisions like this one have impacts that extend far beyond the next 12 months. In 1993, for example, Congress considered and approved one such budget that helped our nation to gain control over the escalating budget deficits we had experienced under the previous Bush and Reagan Administrations--deficits that were launched, interestingly, by the Reagan Administration's insistence on passing an enormous tax reduction bill. With the assistance of hindsight, I believe it is clear that this 1993 budget is, in no small part, responsible for the extremely positive financial circumstances we have enjoyed in the past several years. In my judgment, the FY 2002 budget we are debating today will be much like that 1993 budget: a major landmark in our nation's fiscal history. What we pass today will outline how we will allocate the surpluses we project over the next ten years. We are determining whether we will devote necessary resources to preserving Social Security and Medicare, improving our national defense, protecting the environment, improving education, and providing sensible tax relief for working Americans; or, if we are going to abandon these needs to finance a politically popular tax cut. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget resolution and to support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, point of order. Did the person stand that objected?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an emergency supplemental appropriations bill for the Department of Defense and to ask my colleagues here in the House to pass it expeditiously. This legislation will provide $6.7 billion in emergency funding for critical readiness needs of the armed forces, and it will cover the cost of shortfalls in the Defense Health Program as identified by the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. This amount is only what is required to cover unexpected cost increases for the most basic needs of our service members through the end of this fiscal year. This is an appropriate and an expected response to the kinds of unavoidable expenses--fuel, power increases, housing and other operations costs--that were not provided for in the regular appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. This is a routine and prudent exercise, Mr. Speaker, we must act expeditiously in order to avoid the cuts in each of the services that would be triggered soon--with nearly half the fiscal year over--if we were not to pass this bill. There are many causes for this action that is now required. The basic cost of living for our armed forces is substantially higher than DOD's projections from last year. Congress approved the FY 2001 Defense Appropriations bill more than six months ago, and the budget Congress approved had been assembled well over a year ago. In the interim, energy costs have skyrocketed, housing costs have increased substantially because we've been making a conscious effort to improve the living conditions for our military personnel and their families. And Congress and President Bill Clinton have committed the nation to provide higher pay and a more complete Let me also address the issue of why it is neither necessary nor prudent to wait until the new Defense Secretary completes his Strategic Review. It is clear to me that none of these costs will be affected in the slightest way by a strategic review of Pentagon systems. In most cases, these bills have already been incurred, and the money is already spent. The need for a supplemental appropriations bill to cover these costs is simply indisputable. I believe that the current resistance to such a bill by the Bush Administration has more to do with the size and timing of tax cuts than it has to do with military strategy. Not paying these bills now forces the Department of Defense to reduce and delay training and maintenance. And it thus affects the readiness of our armed forces. It is simply too high a price to pay for the questionable goal of quick and massive tax cuts. I can understand why the political strategists may want to conduct a debate over large tax cuts without the annoyance of mentioning the costs of necessary budget increases for the Defense Department. I just do not believe it is responsible to do so, and I am therefore asking my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to approve this urgent supplemental defense spending bill as soon as possible. Of the $6.7 billion in this bill, a total of one billion dollars will go toward pay and housing allowances; $4.3 billion will be for operations and maintenance costs such as training, force protection, aircraft and ship maintenance, base operations, and fuel cost increases. One billion dollars will be allocated for unanticipated health care costs; $270 million to procure spare parts and force protection equipment, and $110 million will be provided to offset the impact of energy price increases on military family housing. I am proud to join with my original cosponsors, Representatives Ike Skelton, Norm Sisisky, Martin Frost, Chet Edwards and Ellen Tauscher in introducing this bill. I hope that the Appropriations Committee will move quickly to review and pass this bill. And I hope that President Bush will agree to sign it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in deep sorrow at losing a good friend and colleague on the Committee on Appropriations and on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence where we served together, and my heart goes out to his family, to Bettye, and to his staff, both here in Washington, D.C. and back in his district. Julian Dixon was a class act and someone who will be missed. He was a person that the leadership would go to when there was a delicate assignment, either on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, where he also served. For many years he and I served on the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, and we worked together to really help the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and our various chairmen over the years strengthen the United States of America and to rebuild our national security. I can tell you, on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence he sat next to me, and on some of the most delicate issues the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and I would turn to him and ask, ``Julian, will you take this on? This is something that is so sensitive, but we need your kind of professional, thorough investigative style. Will you do it?'' And he would take on some of these assignments that were highly classified, but so crucial to the country. There was a story in the San Jose Mercury that was very explosive about possible crack cocaine being supplied to African Americans in our country, one of the most sensitive issues that I can recall since I have been in Congress. Julian Dixon was the person on the committee who we asked to take that responsibility, and he helped bring the truth to that issue and helped defuse it. His service will be missed in this institution. He was, as has been said here today, very quiet. He was not the kind of person who was excitable, but he cared deeply about his responsibilities. I can still see him standing up in the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia appropriations issue that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) mentioned, about this free needle exchange and how important it is to protect these people's lives, and even though the committee is overwhelmingly stacked against it, on the basis of votes, he was able to get almost the entire committee to join him in this important endeavor, and he explained why it was so crucial to the lives of so many people here in the District of Columbia. So I miss him already. There will be a great void here in this House with his loss, but I hope that people will remember the great work that he did as one of our best Members of the House of Representatives. Julian, God bless you and your family. We are going to miss you.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a person who cares deeply about natural resource issues in our country.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would just conclude by saying that I think this is a great bill. I want to thank everyone who voted for the rule. I think we should pass this bill with an overwhelming vote. I would love to see it unanimous, though I doubt it will be. Again, I want to commend our chairman and the staff. This is truly bipartisan legislation. I want to thank the White House, the President for his commitment to conservation. I want to thank George Frampton, head of the Council on Environmental Qualities, Jack Lu, Wesley Warren, Sylvia Matthews, Martha Foley, all the people from the White House who helped us through the negotiation process. And I also want to thank the outside environmental groups who, when they evaluated our bill, came down almost unanimously on the side that it truly was what we told the American people it was: Historic legislation that will do much to improve our outdoor environment and protect it and protect endangered species. And out there in the great Northwest the money under this bill will be used to help restore our salmon runs and to restore our forests and do watershed restoration, all of these important things. It also supports the arts. Also, out in the West, very importantly, $2.9 billion to deal with these wildfires. This is a huge problem throughout the West. I think there is much work that we need to do as a Congress, working with the Forest Service and the BLM and the other land agencies, in order to make sure that we have taken care of those forests so that they are not susceptible to catastrophic fire. All of that is done in this bill. So again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio. I have enjoyed working with him on this bill. I urge all Members of the House to support this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations conference report. I wish to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who I think brings us today a historic bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I want to compliment him and his staff, led by the very able Debbie Weatherly. I also want to thank my staff, Mike Stephens and Lesley Turner, for the outstanding work and the work of all the staff members on the Committee on the Interior. I have been impressed over the 24 years that I have served on this committee, and the last 2 years as the ranking Democratic member, about the bipartisan nature of our effort. I am particularly pleased about this bill. This is an historic measure. I know there was some debate on the rule, but I want to thank all of the Members who voted for the rule from both parties. I think this is a good rule and it gives us a chance to consider this legislation today. I think the reason this is historic is because we will, with the enactment of this legislation, in the first year double the amount of conservation spending that we have done in this country from $782 million up to $1.6 billion, and $400 million of that goes to coastal programs under State, Justice, and Commerce; $1.2 billion goes to the Interior appropriations bill. I appreciate the fact that the conference was willing to accept the amendment that I offered, with the able help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who had many good suggestions, and helped advocate for this in the conference. He was a prime sponsor of this amendment with me. I just hope we can bring the House together now, because this is such a good bill. This should be a day of celebration. This should be a day of celebration, because the President is going to sign this bill. The administration, George Frampton, said many very positive things about this legislation. Also, the outside environmental groups, and I want to particularly thank my friend, Roger Schlickeisen of Defenders of Wildlife, and the 12 environmental groups who endorsed this legislation, and recommended that the House vote for the rule and vote for the bill, and who recognize the historic nature of this bill. I think we can do many, many positive things from this legislation for land acquisition, both for the Federal and State. We can do work on endangered species. I see that the gentleman from California is here, who has been one of the great advocates for urban parks, which is included. I just want to say to the gentleman from California, I know that for 4 years he and his group worked for CARA. What we tried to do is do the best we can on the Committee on Appropriations, following as much of it as we could. I hope we can work together in the future to expand upon this legislation and to make it even better.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), in order to enter into a colloquy.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise in very strong support of this rule. I think it is a very good rule, a very fair rule. I want to compliment the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who worked with me on the floor of the House and has been one of the advocates for increasing the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. We were able to add $7 million in this bill for the endowment. Also a program that is very important to the gentlewoman from New York is the home heating oil provision, $8 million, which will help every Northeasterner in this country. I am here today to talk to my colleagues a little bit about this superior appropriations bill and the land conservation preservation and infrastructure improvement program. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I worked on this. We offered it in the conference. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Byrd, they all agreed to this. I think it is a day we should be here celebrating. I would say to my friends who worked so hard on CARA, and I realize 4 years of effort on CARA, but I want my colleagues to understand something. I believe that that work was translated into this legislation. This is a blend between the President's Land Legacy Program and CARA. We have the most dramatic increase in conservation spending in the history of this country. Last year, we spent about $782 million. This year, for the same programs, it goes up to $1.6 billion. Then in increments of $160 million a year, it goes up to $2.4 billion in the year 2006. These are some of the most popular programs in our country for protecting precious lands in both the Federal and State categories, for urban parks, for historic preservation, for restoring our salmon runs. There is also $400 million that goes through the State, Justice and Commerce appropriations for coastal programs, including the Pacific salmon recovery program. This is the most dramatic increase in conservation spending in the history of the country. Let me just read to my colleagues a few quotations from people who have looked at this program. A good friend of mine, a fellow University of Washington graduate, Roger Schlickeisen, president of the nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife Society called it ``probably the best conservation funding bill in our lifetime.'' Then George Frampton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. ``This represents a historic breakthrough in conservation funding,'' said Frampton. ``It is a fantastic step forward.'' Today, the New York Times in an editorial, lead editorial said ``Congressional Dos and Don'ts. Land conservation. The White House and Congressional negotiators reached agreement last Friday on a plan to set aside some $12 billion over 6 years for a range of Federal and State land conservation programs. It is the most important land conservation bill in many years and deserves prompt approval on the House and Senate floors. Budget purists are annoyed that the money will be fenced off in a special conservation account similar to the Highway Trust Fund. But open space has been shortchanged for years, and this is a way to make restitution.'' Then finally, the White House, the President supports this bill. He also, in his statement of administration policy, it says, ``By doubling our investment next year in land and water conservation, and guaranteeing even more funding in the years ahead, this agreement is a major step toward ensuring communities the resources they need to protect the most precious lands, from neighborhood parks to threatened farmland to pristine coastal areas.'' Mr. Speaker, this is, as the Washington Post said, landmark legislation. This is legislation that this Congress can be proud of. I am proud of the fact that this amendment was adopted in a bipartisan spirit. It will be the most important step forward in conservation spending probably in our lifetime. I would urge my colleagues who support CARA to think about this. We have moved dramatically in the direction that they laid out in their legislation. No, it is not an entitlement. This money is in a special account. The money must be spent for the purpose, or it remains in the account. If we look at the precedent of the Violent Crime trust fund, all of that money is spent because these are important programs to the American people. As the ranking Democrat, I want to tell my colleagues that it is my intent that this money gets spent for all the people. I would say to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) this bill has so much money. This bill has so much for the great State of Alaska. This is one of the greatest funding bills in Alaska's history. I would hope that the gentleman, after he has his vote on the rule, would think about all of that money for all of those Alaskan programs and that he would be with me on final passage on the bill. I would say to the gentleman from Alaska, I want to correct one thing that was in his letter. The money for the State games is not just for nongame. It is for game and nongame.

Mr. DICKS. Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is because the gentleman from Alaska knows that the chairman of the appropriations committee in the other body is going to make sure that the money remains in there. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I appreciate his hard work and his guidance and his effort on this legislation.

Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.