Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the chairman that we concur with his amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, did the Chair count?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we will accept the amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to all of our colleagues, and the chairman worked with us on doing this, that we were very concerned that because we have not passed the supplemental appropriations bill through both bodies down to the President that there was not enough money in these accounts for wildland fire management. So we put in for the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, $200 million to remain available until expended for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression activities. The other amendment we had in our bill, and this is on page 109, is $150 million for wildland fire management for the Forest Service. So there is a total in this bill of $350 million for what I think the gentlemen from Colorado rightfully want. I will say here today that if there is additional money needed, as the chairman has just said, in the conference we will put additional money in. I am sure the administration will request it. There is also $907 million in the regular bill, in the 01 bill, for this account, and then this $350 million is for emergency money. So if we add it all up there is $1.2 billion in total. So I want to help, but I do not think we should beat up on the other program. And just to give a little information, BLM is required by statute to manage the wild horse and burro populations in a manner that protects herds at appropriate levels. Cumulative appropriate management levels total about 27,000 animals in the entire western United States. Today, the number of wild horses and burros stands at more than 50,000 animals or roughly double the carrying capacity of our rangelands. What I worry about is if we take money away from this program, that they are going to do terrible damage to the watersheds all over the West. And it is estimated that at current funding levels and adoption demand, populations will increase to 126,000 animals by 2010, or more than four times the land's carrying capacity. And according to the BLM, a reduction of $4 million here will do serious damage to their program. So I stand committed to helping the Colorado Members and the New Mexico Members, and whoever else is affected, and I am out from the West myself and realize the terrible conditions that are out there, but I would like to see us, if we could do it, without taking it out of the money for the wild burro program.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just for a brief comment?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) that he has been a gentleman to work with and very persistent, but that is a good trait where I come from. We just appreciate his attitude and his approach to this problem.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his obvious work here and this presentation that he has made. I want to tell the gentleman that we have the same problem out in the Pacific Northwest with a variety of salmon species, not that we have genetically engineered, but we have hatchery fish that compete with our wild salmon that reproduce naturally in the wild, and these crowding- out effects, a lot of the same issues that the gentleman is raising here. The importance of preserving the gene pool of these species is critical. There is a lot of good work that is being done by the Fish and Wildlife Service across the country under the Endangered Species Act, but I think this is very important. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue and with the Fish and Wildlife Service to see if we cannot collaborate on this.

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman is correct that a new regulation must be promulgated by the Park Service before a ban on snowmobile use can be enforced at Pictured Rocks. If the Park Service proposes such a regulation, the constituents of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) will be provided with ample opportunity to express their concern and interest. I agree with the gentlemen that before proposing such a regulation that the Park Service should solicit the input of the park superintendent and the local community and follow the Administrative Procedures Act.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I had an opportunity to talk to Jamie Clark, our distinguished director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. She certainly indicated to me a willingness to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the other officials from that area.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and urge that it be adopted.

Mr. DICKS. We have no objection. We strongly support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, a consolidated amendment at the desk.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I promise the gentleman from California, one, that we will work to make sure that all commitments are kept by the administration, and, number two, that I am very interested in this, and I want to work with the gentleman and the other Members in that area in resolving this issue to the gentleman's satisfaction. The most important point here is that the Fish and Wildlife Service understands the crucial importance of having adequate flood control and reliable flood control even in the context of this new wildlife refuge once it is created. So I think this is a good outcome. And I appreciate the gentleman's interest and will work with him to resolve this problem in a proper way.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wu amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think our side has worked with the chairman to try to come up with a balanced package. I would point out to my colleagues that in the Pacific Northwest we have reduced timber harvests because of endangered species issues by 85 percent, maybe 90 percent. The administration, when it came to office, held a summit in Portland, Oregon, and said we are going to try to get out of court. We appreciated that. We were enjoying no timber harvest at all, zero, under the previous administration. We worked out a plan, the Northwest Forest Plan, to deal with it. Unfortunately, because the Forest Service has not done all of its work on some of the species they were supposed to monitor, instead of getting to the one billion board feet, down from four billion to one billion, we are now down at about 300 million to 400 million board feet a year in harvest. So what this amendment would do would mean that we would not be able to try to build back up to the one billion board feet that was in the President's plan. We are spending money, a substantial amount of money, on ecosystem management, on watershed restoration. I have made sure that the President's program to help the Northwest was funded over the last 7 years, and we are putting a lot of money into wildlife protection, into the Endangered Species Act, et cetera, et cetera. What we have got to do though is to keep the commitment we made to all of those rural communities that we would stay at about one billion board feet. Last year we were down at about 300 million board feet because of the court decisions. Now, I would be delighted to work with the gentleman from Oregon in trying to do something on the wildlife account, to move it up a little bit as we go to the conference committee. The gentleman from Oregon I think always tries to be constructive, and the gentleman is correct that the forest products account is up a little, and, therefore, we have some room to make some adjustments. But I think, frankly, that this effort to try to build back up is going to take a couple more years, frankly, so, again, we are going to have the people out there from our areas who we told that we were going to get up to one billion board feet, we still have not lived up to that commitment. That is why I think the committee felt that adding a little money here was appropriate. Number two, we have a crisis in the West, and it has been pointed out here. We have seen the fire at Los Alamos, we see the fires every night. Because of what? Because, as the chairman said, we have not properly managed these forests. We have understorage, undergrowth, that is there, that is explosive at this point because we have not done the thinning, we have not done the pruning and the other things you do to properly manage a forest. There was a professor at Berkeley who was denounced by everyone who said you have to use control fires; and now, 30 years later, people are saying he was the guru, the genius, who really understood that these forests have to be managed. Mr. Chairman, I have always been a believer in balance and fairness. I think, because we are so far behind, especially in the Northwest, not to add this small amount of money to try to get timber sale preparation done, to do the pre-commercial thinning and the other things, which will have a good effect on forest health, but also will help us build back up to that one billion board feet, would be a very serious mistake in judgment. That is why I support the chairman and oppose the Wu amendment, though I remain open to deal with the gentleman and try to work out something in conference if the amendment is not successful.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman for her outstanding leadership on this issue, and I assure her that we will give this request careful consideration and we will work with her in the conference to see if we can get the language that the gentlewoman would like. We will also work with the administration to try to make sure this commitment is kept.

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