Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the gentlewoman from California. I wanted to be chairman, but never quite made it. I was the ranking Democratic member and did serve for 8 years, and it was the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), our distinguished chairman, who I miss seeing almost every day for hours, as we did for a few years. I want to compliment him for accepting the motion and compliment the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for offering this instruction.

I would say, based on my experience, the sooner we get lessons learned to the Congress, the better off we are going to be in terms of getting the fixes that we need in terms of our equipment. I can remember General Schwarzkopf coming to the committee and laying out the problems we had in Desert Storm, Desert Shield, in the intelligence area. He said, I want to be able to look over that battlefield and know what the enemy is doing. That led us to push forward UAVs like Predator, like Global Hawk. We also had problems with denial and deception. This time we did so much better out in the West controlling any opportunity they had to bring up Scud missiles, et cetera, et cetera.

But those were because there was a lessons learned process where the Congress got information and we could help get the resources and the programs necessary to help improve our overall military capability. And intelligence lessons learned are also critical.

And my colleagues, many of them here have already spoken, and there is a question of the credibility of the intelligence that was presented to the American people, presented to the Congress, presented to members at the White House.

So I think the sooner we clear this up, the sooner we get this information out in the open, and the sooner we can work together on a bipartisan basis to make the fixes necessary.

There is a lot of talk about the necessity for additional human intelligence. The chairman has been a leader. I can remember the chairman's efforts to add additional HUMINT resources to our intelligence capability, to build back the HUMINT capability. We are finding out that right now we may not have as much of that capability as necessary to deal with the problem that we are facing in this country. Languages was mentioned by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). That is still a problem. We do not have enough people who speak the various languages that are necessary here.

So again, I want to compliment the chairman for accepting the instruction, and I think we will all be better off getting this information up here as soon as possible to help the Congress next year in the authorization and appropriations process, both the Committee on Armed Services, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to make some of these fixes that are necessary to improve our overall intelligence capability.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and this rule. I have concerns about this bill, too. I represent the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Keyport, Bangor. Many of these work rules are very much deplored by the workers there, and I regret that they have been attached to this legislation, but we will continue to work to try and deal with them as we proceed in this session of Congress.

I want to rise in very strong support of the provision my friend the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) talked about earlier, the question of tankers. I became interested in this issue several years ago with a visit to Tinker Air Force Base where we saw the condition of our KC- 135-Es. I believe that this is a crucial national priority, to get a new tanker replacement program started.

The Air Force has chosen the 767. We have had a lot of controversy about whether we should buy or lease. We have come up with a combination here. The Secretary of Defense's office, led by Mr. Wolfowitz, sent a letter on Thursday, which has brought us together. I want to commend the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his dedicated leadership on this issue. Without his tremendous effort and tenacity, we would not have gotten this far.

I intend to have a colloquy later with the chairman of the committee when we get to the authorization bill on this matter, but I just want to say that I want to compliment everyone who has worked on this. For 2 years, we had to get an effort under way to get this replacement effort going.

Not to understate it, every single plane that flew into Afghanistan and into Iraq had to be refueled multiple times. Our whole effort to improve our bomber capability with the B-2 and smart weapons and all of the aircraft coming off of our carriers, Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, all of them had to be refueled multiple times. So you do not get anything done without tankers.

We have planes now, 544 of them, that were built between 1957 and 1963. These are very old aircraft. We have serious corrosion problems, and I am glad that this conference committee was able to come together and put together a package and that the administration has said they will make it work.

I believe this is one of the most important things we can do. If you think about it, tankers and the EA-6-Bs, which are also old and in terrible condition, are two weapons systems that have become absolutely fundamental to our U.S. ability to project power around the world. I am glad we can get this tanker thing moving forward and that it is in this bill.

I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, the conference report on H.R. 1588, the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Authorization Act, contains a provision, section 135, which authorizes the Air Force to enter into a contract for 100 tanker aircraft under the terms and conditions of section 8159 of the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, it is my further understanding that section 135 was written after extensive negotiation with the Department of Defense and the administration and that that section represents a common understanding between the conferees and the administration on the terms under which this tanker program will be executed.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

We thank the chairman for his hard work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, the letter sent to the Committee on Armed Services by Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz is as follows:

Deputy Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, Nov. 5, 2003.

The Hon. John Warner,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you again for your consideration

of the Department of Defense's proposal to lease 100 KC-767A

aircraft. As you know, there has been a vigorous debate on

the best way to get this program started. Your most recent

amendment would allow the Air Force to lease no more than 20

of the 100 tankers. The Air Force has developed a proposal to

implement that arrangement, and I hope that you will find it

acceptable.

Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the

critical need for new air-refueling tankers and the

constraints on our budget. As reflected in the enclosed

chart, we intend to lease the initial 20 aircraft and then

buy aircraft at a steady rate of 11 to 13 aircraft per year

until delivery of the 100th. We commit to add $2.4B, in

Fiscal Years (FYs) 2008 through 2010, to the funding profile

for the original proposal to lease 100 aircraft. We also will

add $1.4B in FY 2012 to 2013. The combination of these added

funds achieves an immediate start to the program and allows

us to purchase the last 80 aircraft at time of delivery.

I appreciate the support that you have provided in the past

and look forward to working with you in the future. If you

require further information, please do not hesitate to

contact me. A similar letter has been sent to the chairmen

and ranking minority members of each of the defense

committees.

Sincerely,

Paul Wolfowitz.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, who is a classmate, for yielding me this time. I want to compliment him and Chairman Hunter on this bill. We have worked for 2 years on the tanker provisions in this legislation. I am convinced that modernizing our tankers is absolutely crucial to national security. The gentleman from Missouri and I have worked for many years to implement and upgrade the B-2 bombers which fly out of Whiteman, Missouri. We have found that in all of these deployments that tankers are absolutely crucial.

I must tell the House that the condition of our tankers today is not good. The KC-135-Es have significant corrosion. They were all built between 1957 and 1963 in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. I have been on them. I have talked to the pilots who fly them. I have talked to General Handy, General Jumper and they are convinced that replacing these tankers is one of the most important things we can do to preserve our military capability. When you think about it, every time we deploy, we have to have tankers. We have to have EA-6-Bs, those jammers. Both of them are very, very old and both of them need to be replaced and we need get on with it.

One of the things that I am concerned about that we still have not addressed since the Bush administration took office is the fact that we are short in procurement still 30 to $40 billion. The big argument in the tanker issue is lease versus buy. The only reason we had to do a lease is the Air Force did not have the money to buy these airplanes. That is why we have got to get the procurement account up, General Myers says somewhere between 100 and $110 billion. We are at $72 billion. We have got work yet to be done here.

I am also very concerned about the provisions in this bill that deal with worker rights. We are going to continue to work on that. I hope that down the road we can exempt shipyards from those new restrictions.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and his staff. We had a very cooperative working relationship on this conference committee. I am pleased that we have very substantial funding in this bill for firefighting. I see my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), whose district has been ravaged by these forest fires recently; and I know he has been working hard to make sure that the forest service and the BLM have adequate resources to deal with these issues.

I want to also mention that we had a nice vote here on the House floor to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Both of those increased this year, $6.7 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; and I want to thank the chairman for his efforts on that in our conference committee.

We have had questions on privatization studies, as we have been debating all afternoon. I think the provision that we worked out in this bill is a good one and will protect government workers.

As was mentioned by the chairman, we had a very low figure in the House bill for lands and water conservation for acquisition of Federal lands for our Federal agencies. That number came up in conference committee. I, of course, with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we were two of the authors, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) of the conservation spending amendment, we are disappointed that we have not been able to keep that funding level where it should have been under the agreement that was reached in 2000. But one of our problems is with the budget resolution; our committee has gotten a very low allocation; and the strategy of the majority has been to try to take care of the Forest Service, the Park Service the Fish and Wildlife Service, the major agencies and that is understandable, though I regret that we cannot do more on the Conservation Trust Fund.

So I think all in all this is a good bill. We are going to have a little debate here on other matters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I wanted to say something to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense. The gentleman served as a chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, and FEMA was under my colleague's jurisdiction. When FEMA has an expenditure it gets reimbursed.

In our situation, with the Forest Service and the BLM, they take money from all of the accounts of the agency, go spend it fighting the fires, and then we do not reimburse it completely. It is not automatic. It has to be appropriated, and we do not do it as completely as we should. I think the FEMA example is a better way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to end the debate on our side by saying I strongly support the conference agreement, and I hope Members will vote for the conference agreement. I appreciate the comments made here tonight. We are going to work hard to resolve the problems on the trust account issues. We will work with the authorizers. The chairman and Mr. Rahall are acting in very good faith. I know there has been a hearing, and they are going to have another hearing.

We need a solution to this problem, and I pledge tonight to my constituents back in the State of Washington that I will work tirelessly for a solution to this problem, so we can do justice to the holders of these accounts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing for consideration of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. Although there are certainly things that I would have done differently, I am generally pleased with the process this year and am glad that we have the opportunity to bring this bill to the floor as a freestanding measure.

I supported the conference agreement and am particularly pleased it included the additional $400 million added by the other body for emergency wildland fire costs. The House voted overwhelmingly to have the money included in the final conference report, and we were successful in providing it.

Other levels in the bill are far lower than I would have hoped, particularly levels for conservation spending. Under the Conservation Trust Fund law established in 2000, this bill should have funded conservation programs at $1.56 billion for the Interior part of the bill. Unfortunately, this bill falls roughly $500 million short of that level. The impact of this cut will be felt nationwide. Funding is reduced for State and Federal land and water conservation fund, historic preservation, park and refuge construction, endangered species work, and forest legacy project. It means projects all over the country will not be done this year.

The agreement does provide small increases for other important programs that I am extremely pleased about. The National Endowment for the Arts receives a $5 million increase over last year, and that was a direct result of the Slaughter-Dicks amendment that added $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities that was voted on overwhelmingly by the House. And the Tribal College Program receives an additional $10 million. My colleague from the other body, the ranking Democratic member, Mr. Dorgan, is to be given a pat on the back for his efforts on this matter.

The agreement also addresses the issue of competitive outsourcing with a compromise that I think is responsible. I want to again thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and his staff for their work on this bill, his first, and urge my colleagues to support both the rule for the conference report and the conference report itself.

I want to go back on the issue of funding for firefighting just for a moment. I am deeply concerned about the process that we have today, the way we fund the efforts to deal with forest fires in our country. What we do is we in essence appropriate some of the money, but then give the agencies the ability, the Forest Service and the BLM, to borrow money from other accounts in order to fund all of the money that is necessary for fighting the fires. And then we do not replenish the amount of money necessary. In 2003, I think we were short a couple of hundred million dollars in terms of replenishing the money necessary to make up the funding that was borrowed.

Now, with FEMA, we do not do it that way. We just give FEMA the money, and they draw it down and then we replenish it; and this is what I think we should do. We have got to come up with a new way of funding firefighting in this country. It is not acceptable.

The other problem we have is we have old, antiquated equipment. We have a whole group of airplanes that are 40-plus years old that we are using for firefighting. And according to the staff on the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, we are losing lives because we are using this old equipment.

So I would urge that next year we make this a priority, that we have a committee investigation. I am going to talk to the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) on the Subcommittee on Defense and the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) on the Subcommittee on Interior. We have to get some new equipment for these firefighters. It is outrageous that we are sending them out with these old airplanes and not replacing them. The planes that we use now are, I think, C-130s that are in some cases over 40 years old. I just had a chance to fly in a few of these over in Iraq; and I want my colleagues to know, I would not want to be fighting fires in these old planes.

So we have a lot of work to do, and I hope even in this supplemental, because of the situation in California. I understand the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee in the other body is considering an amendment to add money for additional funds for firefighting for the Forest Service and for the BLM. That should be done. We should not go in and start this year and start borrowing immediately on the 2004 money in order to fund these fires in California.

Now, I understand that $500 million was added in FEMA; and definitely, there is a requirement here for $100 million-plus for the Forest Service and the BLM.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I am going to vote for this bill; but we have additional things that need to be done in the supplemental or in the omnibus.

So this is an important matter. I know there is a lot of controversy on the agreement on how we are going to deal with these trust accounts, and I just want to say, I am concerned about the potential liability here to the country and to the Congress if we do not come up with a settlement here. The authorizing committees have promised us over and over again that they are going to deal with this issue. Well, they have had one hearing. The pace of their activity is not what I would call brisk. They need to get busy here. They made commitments to the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and myself that they were going to get busy on this issue. Well, they need to do it. That is not just in the House; it is also in the other body. They have to get busy, because this is a crisis that is affecting the Department of the Interior, and it is going to affect tribal programs and mean less funding for our tribes because of this if we do not come up with an answer. So we have some work to do.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, and the gentleman, I think, mentioned this, this was a bipartisan agreement, by the way. This was not something that was just done by myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This was something that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) was involved in and Mr. Byrd was involved in. So it had both House and the other body working together on this alternative, and so this was a bipartisan agreement. That is why it hurts me deeply that we have not been able to keep this up.

But budget levels have been so ridiculously low for the Interior, our allocation, that it has been almost impossible. The committee has made some very difficult choices, but I am completely in concurrence. I think their commitment was made. We should stay with it. We should get back to it, and, hopefully, we will at some point in the future.

But I have to concur with the gentleman that we are $500 million below where we were supposed to be under the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I was honored last month to attend the annual Nancy Hanks Lecture at the Kennedy Center, an annual tribute to the memory of the woman who served as the Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts from 1969 to 1977. Each year a prominent American is asked to deliver personal remarks about the importance of the arts in public policy, and it was a great pleasure this year to hear from the accomplished actor, Robert Redford, who delivered a poignant, funny and meaningful address about the importance of supporting creativity and artistic development in our Nation. I am very pleased to bring his remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the House of Representatives.

Remarks of Robert Redford

I've been coming to Washington, D.C. for the past 30 years,

either filming here, as was the case in All the President's

Men, or for lobbying efforts on behalf of issues relating to

the environment, energy, human rights and art. In the

beginning, it was a heady experience to be in the halls of

power surrounded by history and event, feeling what it is

like to be an integral part of a democracy--particularly if

you were fortunate enough to move someone on an important

issue.

In time, you experience changes in political climates,

different attitudes and priorities. The strength of the

system that controls decisions and compromises became clear

over time, and expectations of success had to be tendered

with failure relating to these realities. But still, you feel

fortunate to have access to the ears that made decisions.

Even though you knew that celebrity was maybe a door

opener, it nonetheless cuts both ways in politics. Like the

time I was on the Presidential campaign trail and speaking to

thousands of kids on a college campus about the importance of

their vote and environmental issues. In the roar of their

connection with what I was saying, I thought for a moment

``I'm really getting through here!'' Then I walked off stage

and immediately a reporter stuck a microphone in my face and

said, ``Who do you think is better looking, you or Dan

Quayle?

So, just when you might be feeling your oats, reality has a

way of sneaking up and putting it all in perspective. But as

a citizen and an artist, I try to remember that it is a right

and a responsibility to be able to partake in the process of

democracy.

I'm here today because of my belief that art is a great

translator of that which is both familiar and unfamiliar and

that it is through art that we can come to know ourselves and

others. To me, the vitality and insight which art brings to

civil society is more important now than ever.

I grew up in a time when democracy was taken for granted

since it was drummed into our minds as a fundamental

definition of America and why it was great. I was shaped by

WW II and a time when we were all united in its purpose--

unlike conflicts of today. Because times were tough, and my

family financial resources slim, we didn't have fancy toys or

luxuries and had to be creative in inventing worlds of our

own. My imagination was my most valuable commodity and

thankfully it became a life force for me at a very young age.

I saw the world around me not only as it was. I saw the world

around me as it could be. Art and the imagination that gave

it life became my closest companions.

Before anyone was much interested in what I had to say,

they were interested in what I created. As a kid, I remember

sketching everything in sight. My parents and their friends

played cards and I began drawing them as a group, individual

faces and the like. Then I moved under the table and began

sketching their feet at which point I think everyone started

to worry. Even though they thought I was a bit weird, I got

attention and encouragement for my ``art'' at a young age.

While I was a poor student academically, I shined in sports

and in art and my third grade teacher was next to recognize

that art was a legitimate means of expression for me as I

struggled with more traditional approaches.

I remember she had me come to the front of the room and

draw a story on this big pad of newsprint on an easel. I

think we were studying English and she used it as a basis to

make a point. The whole class seemed to get it and all

learned a little about sentence structure and storytelling in

ways that engaged and made sense. I didn't know what ``it''

was that they got, but it sure felt good.

My teacher's encouragement of my artistic tendencies

continued, making me realize art. was something legitimate to

pursue and that it was integral to how I was finding my way

in this world and making sense of things. If not for this, I

may have taken a path that wasn't as fulfilling and

productive. That's the main reason I'm here, to pay tribute

to the work that so many of you do every day, to keep art

alive in schools and in communities all across the country.

Being in this hall tonight prompted me to remember some of

the writings of President John F. Kennedy. I became

reacquainted with a speech he gave in 1963 at Amherst College

where he paid tribute to the American poet Robert Frost, and

reflected on the value of the arts to a society. It was less

than a month before his assassination. ``I look forward to an

America which will reward achievement in the arts as we

reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward

to an America, which will steadily raise the standards of

artistic accomplishment and will steadily enlarge cultural

opportunities for all of our citizens.''--John F. Kennedy.

To me, art, in all its forms, is the purest reflection of

the most diverse aspects of us as individuals, as

communities, as nations and as cultures. It's art that feeds

and nurtures the soul of a society; provokes thought;

inspires critical thinking; and fosters understanding of

things foreign to our own immediate world. In the end, art

plays a primary role in encouraging healthy tolerance of

diversity in any culture. In times like these--in this very

hour--more of this kind of encouragement would serve us well.

Joseph Campbell felt that a society without mythology was

doomed. I feel the same way about the role that art can play

in a society's sustainable future. On the surface, it may not

have the weight of the SEC, the Dept. of Defense, or Social

Security and other programs that may be easier to quantify.

But it is still a part of the whole. More importantly, it

exemplifies one of our great, maybe our greatest critical

luxuries--freedom of expression.

Throughout the 80s and into the 90s, battles over free

expression were furious and frequent. On the one side, the

perception that art was undermining the moral fabric of our

society began to stick and took on a life of its own and it

became the order of the day. When the moralistic posturing

gave way to the rationale to cut funding, for a time it was

the political value of attacking the arts that increased

significantly in stature. By falsely positioning the debate

as one of morals and money, these forces hoped to use fear to

obscure the real truth--0the value of art to every

community--and fear is a very dangerous platform to work off

of.

I wondered then, why aren't they going after tabloid media

or corporate greed with such a vengeance? Why isn't there the

same fervor about the dismal state of literacy in our

schools, the AIDS epidemic, or homeless men, women and

children? Why is the zeal not pointed at the virtual flood of

guns and drugs into our nation's streets, or pollution into

our air and water and the resulting public health

implications? When has a painting ever instigated the

destruction of a culture? Is a song or a play, a painting or

a photograph that much of a threat to our nation's well

being? That notion seems particularly absurd in light of the

larger threats we are currently facing.

Luckily the collective voice against this trend won out,

and of course, the political winds changed substantially.

And, while the cultural wars may have subsided, they still

rear their ugly head too frequently. But there's more than

one way to strangle the arts and today, funding cuts being

discussed all across this country at all levels of government

could paint a truly devastating picture when all is said and

done.

As most of you know all too well, when the economy is in as

bad a shape as it is now, art becomes the ``throw-away.'' Art

and art education becomes the funding cut they feel won't

have a tangible effect. In other words, it's the cut from

which they think nobody will suffer and they think nobody

will notice its absence. Well that's not true. It may take a

while to get it, but society at large will suffer and I

believe, society at large will ultimately notice.

Government support for the arts is not the frivolous give-

away that some would have you believe. It's a good investment

and it is sound economic development. Art and public policy

is good business. Let's look at the financial stake

government has in the arts. The non-profit arts world is

roughly a $134 billion a year industry, employing millions.

It generates nearly $81 billion in spending by those who

partake in its cultural offerings and is responsible for some

$24 billion in taxes going back to federal, state and local

governments annually

And, this doesn't take into consideration the impact the

non-profit sector has as the training ground for writers,

musicians, actors, dancers, painters, photographers,

filmmakers and the like. It doesn't take into consideration

the ultimate effect these people and their work have on a

thriving multi-billion dollar private sector.

So, supporting the arts is good business and the numbers

bear this out. It's also good public policy. A study by the

Justice Dept., Americans for the Arts and the NEA

demonstrated that arts programs helped at-risk-youth stay out

of trouble, perform better in school and improve how they

felt about themselves and their future. How do you put a

price on that?

Yet, President Bush recommended virtually no increase for

arts grants administered by the NEA. President Bush also

recommended terminating funding of the Arts in Education

program, which is administered through the Dept. of

Education. State legislatures all across the country are

making substantial cuts. Several states proposed wiping out

their entire state budget for the arts.

Are these federal and state governments missing something

in turning their backs on the arts? You bet they are. We need

people in

office who will have a vision for our country that goes

beyond the next election. We need people in office who

understand that encouraging creative pursuit could be

critical to any number of sectors, from the next great

technological idea to the next historic medical discovery.

How do you put a price on that?

Creativity is made all the more special because it is a

great intangible. It can come from the most unlikely places

and from those that might not fit the ``traditional'' model

of the artist. Creativity is inherent in all great endeavors

whether traditionally artistic or not. It is creativity that

must continue to be nurtured if we hope to reap the benefits

of the many great minds we don't yet know. How do you put a

price on that?

Yes there are pressing needs all around us. But completely

ceasing to fund the arts is sadly shortsighted in any

economy. Governments have to find a way to remain in the mix

of resources for the arts and the private sector--

corporations, foundations and individuals--they all need to

find ways to help fill the gap during these tough times such

as we're in now.

And that includes my industry, which benefits greatly from

a vital and thriving artistic force. When one thinks of

Hollywood, art isn't necessarily the first thing to come to

mind. Some would say it is often anti-art. No. It's first a

business. But it is a business that cannot exist without

creative talent in every facet of the making of its product.

So, in the end, the challenge to create art still rests

squarely on the artist not the industry. As in any medium,

sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail. But we succeed

often enough to create films that inspire, expose, transform

and provoke, amuse, entertain and even teach.

Just as all other arts did at the moment of their own

conception, cinema transformed the world. For good or for

bad, it is a universal communicator on a global platform.

Film is an indigenous American art form even though it's

always been a struggle to have it taken seriously as an art

form. But we can't deny that business has significantly

infiltrated the practice of art in general, and in particular

film. The constant talk of grosses--dollars and cents as the

benchmark of a film's worth--is very debilitating to the body

of serious film discussion and appreciation. And after all,

where would the business of film be without art as its seed.

While mine is a somewhat solid industry, it will be

important in the years to come for it to embrace risks as

readily as it does sure things. It must make sure that

freedom of artistic expression is honored and nurtured across

a broad spectrum. I believe strongly that keeping diversity

alive in my industry will keep the industry alive.

For example, the Sundance Institute is a step toward making

sure diverse voices and the creative energy they bring with

them are given an opportunity to grow and evolve. Those who

come to the Sundance labs to make films and those who come to

the Festival, to show films really are a microcosm of the

kind of diverse voices which our industry needs to continue

to support and nurture if it wants to maintain itself. They

are also the kind of voices that will join in characterizing

us to the rest of the world in the years to come. It's all

connected.

Even after two decades, Sundance continues to be a

community work in progress, success and failure

simultaneously evident, treating failure as a step toward

growth, rather than the destruction of a vision. I look at

the Sundance Film Festival and the innovative hustle

demonstrated by scores of young filmmakers to bring their

vision to the screen. They haven't curled up and died because

they can't get government backing for their projects. Somehow

they find a way. But I'm sure if I took a quick poll, I'd

find that most of them found art, found their voice, in

neighborhood, community and school arts programs. That's

where they began the dance with the wonders of creativity.

By the way, I started the Sundance Institute with a grant

from the NEA when many others were skeptical of the idea's

potential and ultimate worth. I will always be grateful to

the NEA for believing in us at the time. It was instrumental

in getting us started. It wasn't just the seed funding, but

the seal of approval that gave the idea impetus.

What most of you know that maybe others don't is that out

there right now is some kid with a great song in their head

we've yet to hear or a novel in their heart that has yet to

be written. There's someone out there that hasn't picked up a

paintbrush yet but has a masterpiece on the horizon. There's

a kid out there who hasn't picked up a camera yet but could

end up making a memorable film of their time.

What most of you know that others might not as clearly see,

is that the nurturing of creativity comes into play in

everything from world diplomacy to world economics, business

endeavors to social endeavors and everything in between. It

is creativity that gives all of it the nuance that often

makes the difference. In all its forms, art plays a critical

role in finding our way as people and as a culture.

As President Kennedy said that day in Amherst: ``I see

little more importance to the future of our country and our

civilization than full recognition of the place of the

artist. If art is to nourish the roots of our culture,

society must set the artist free to follow his vision

wherever it takes him.''

We hear the word freedom bandied about a lot these days.

It's a sacred concept. How fortunate we are to have it. How

viscerally we need to feel the commitment to protect it. To

be able to be part of a freedom of expression that allows us

to tell stories of our choice in the uniqueness of our own

voices as citizens and as artists is not to be taken lightly.

To be able to freely voice dissent in our hearts or in our

art is something to protect at all costs. But then, the glory

of art is that it can, not only survive change, it can

inspire change.

It is for all these reasons that it behooves governments to

sustain an environment that enables, supports and nurtures

the free and creative expression of its citizenry.

I have great hope for the future of art and thus civil

society as I look out over this room, and imagine the

collective power, the collective voice that will not cower in

the face of budget slashing critics, and will not surrender

its advocacy for art and free expression. My hope comes from

not only those gathered here tonight, but from the efforts of

grassroots, state and national organizations; young artists I

meet at Sundance film labs; inner-city elementary school kids

who are learning to play music and write poetry; the literary

and theater programs in prisons; and traveling exhibitions to

rural communities all across the country.

Thank you to the co-sponsors of this evening. To Americans

for the Arts my gratitude for your tireless and effective

advocacy on behalf of art and all that comes with that. You

truly make a difference and we're all the better for it. And

to the Film Foundation a recognition and respect for the

important work you do to inspire young artists through

education and for protecting and restoring some of the

greatest films of all time and thus enabling the diverse

perspective of it all to live on.

Lastly, it is an honor to pay tribute to the memory and the

contribution of Nancy Hanks whom I knew and remember fondly.

Nancy Hanks had a profoundly gifted perspective on cultural

policy in the United States, that being access to the

arts. Her legacy is the success of many of your programs;

the creative mastery of many of the artists here tonight;

and the commitment to freedom of expression that we

collectively embrace. The life she lived really meant

something.

So we go forth from here tonight to continue to try to

enlighten those who dismiss the arts as unnecessary,

irrelevant or dangerous. And we do so not only in the memory

of Nancy Hanks, but in the name of the active and deserving

imagination of every American child.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the other Members who joined us on this trip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who are also the subcommittee chairs on the House Committee on Appropriations. We had an outstanding group.

It was a tough trip. We flew into Amman, Jordan, and the next morning went in on a C-130, an old C-130, I think it was a 1962 vintage, and landed in a kind of military landing at Baghdad International Airport.

We had a chance then to be briefed by Mr. Bremer's people. Mr. Bremer had actually briefed us here in the country. General Sanchez gave us a good rundown on what was going on. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) mentioned, we went south to look at an area where somewhere between 300,000 and 1 million Iraqis had been murdered. And it was a very sobering experience. And we actually talked to people who had witnessed with their own eyes the killing of these people.

The next day we went north to Mosul, met with General Petraeus, had a chance to see his good work with the 101st Airborne. And we also visited a hospital that day and a power plant, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) had just mentioned. And in all these instances, we were stunned to see how run down the facilities were in the country. Saddam Hussein had spent his money on palaces and on the military and had let his country deteriorate.

We had a chance to talk to a number of Iraqis, and, also, we had to recognize that there was a major security problem and one that we have to continue to deal with. There has been a lot of debate here in the Congress in both bodies about loans versus grants, but the consensus of our group, the 17 Members that made this trip, was that we came away feeling that if we were going to set an example for the rest of the world, we have to step up here because the security of our troops are directly related to the ability to get this moving, to get the electric energy producing at a higher rate, to restore the oil producing facilities. All of this depends on an investment by the United States.

And Iraq already has $100 billion of debt to other countries. And it was run up by Saddam Hussein. And reparations are being demanded by other countries including Bahrain and Kuwait.

In the Committee on Appropriations, we had an overwhelming majority in favor of not only funding the military operations both in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to do the economic work that is so essential to build the trust with the Iraqi people. And it is interesting when you talk to and read some of the articles, the reason that these people are cooperating with the United States is they see the fact that we are there trying to help their country.

Up in the north, for example, Saddam Hussein's two sons were captured by a tip from a person who had been working and cooperating with the 101st Airborne with General Petraeus' people.

And I believe that if we can continue to build this relationship and work with these people, we can get this security situation under control. Clearly, that is not the case as we speak here today. The security situation is still very dangerous inside the country.

We had a chance to be briefed on the improvised explosive devices, the other tactics being used by the people who are part of the former Baath Party, former members of Saddam's regime. There may be, who knows, 5,000, 10,000 of these people still opposed to the United States and to our coalition; and we need to have a good effort there with our intelligence community and with our Special Forces to go after those people inside the country.

Again, it is the cooperation of the Iraqi people in giving us tips, letting us know who the bad guys are, letting us know where the safe houses are where these people are being protected by others. And I believe if we are going to be successful and we get our children home, if we are going to get them home in the near future, we have to build this relationship, and we have to help them develop their country, develop their democracy. And then they in turn can help us resolve the security issues.

We are training police as we speak. We are training people to be able to go back into their own militia so they can defend and protect their own country. So I think that we are making a significant amount of progress.

Ambassador Bremer is doing a good job, but he needs the resources. And also if we are going to ask the rest of the world to make grants, the Japanese, the Germans, the Brits, how can we do that if we are going to say we are going to loan them the money? Frankly, there is no one to loan the money to at this point. And I would doubt that they could repay the money under any circumstance. So it would be a grant, but we would be making a very nondirect and dishonest statement to the American people.

Again, I said I wanted to commend the chairman and all the Members who went. We had a chance to see what is

happening there. I recommend to the Members of the House to go and see for themselves. We are making progress. Security is still an issue; but things are getting better, and they are certainly moving in the right direction. And we need the support of the funding for the troops and to reconstruct Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think one thing that since we have gotten back on this trip and having a chance to reflect on it, and I appreciate the gentleman's very kind remarks, and I think the analogy of the Marshall Plan is a good one to think about in the context, but it is becoming clearer, the administration, I think, is working hard at the U.N. to bring other countries in. We need some partners in this operation to pay part of the cost, to share part of the burden, because it is, in fact, a U.N. resolution that we were enforcing when the United States went into Iraq, and I believe it is now time for the United States to reach out to the rest of the world and to bring the rest of the world into this operation. We may still have to lead it militarily, but on economic development, on moving the country forward, providing assistance, I think this is the time when that needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am having a hard time hearing over here.

If the gentleman will further yield, General Petraeus was up there explaining, opening these schools, getting people back to work, helping to train the police, selecting the local mayor, selecting the governor of the province. All these things are being done, and what they need in order to continue to do this is resources for reconstruction, and I think one of the things that I fought hard for in the bill was to make sure that the commanders are given some flexibility to be able to do some of these things because they are like the local mayors. They are out there in those provinces working on these issues, and his point over and over again, it is directly related to the security of our troops and the coalition troops.

If we do these things and build a relationship with the Iraqis, it is going to make it easier to protect our kids. That is why I think it is so crucial that we keep this package together, and that is why I think the money for reconstruction is just as crucial for security purposes as the other funding.

Again, we heard the same thing, and again I want to say my own personal thanks to all those who have served in the military operation.

I had a chance to go over right before the war with the chairman and then with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and to go again to see the success of the military operation, but again, I want to emphasize, we have got to continue to work on this security issue, to help protect the young men and women.

Many of us have been to the various hospitals to see the wounded. It makes one's heart break that we did not have some of the equipment necessary at the right time to protect them. Now, we have put the money in the budget. We have beaten on the Defense Department to get it out there, and I think they are doing a much better job, but this was a very revealing trip, and I think we are doing the right thing, but we have got to continue to stay with it, bring in our international allies and get this job done, and if we do it right, it could be a great success.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This motion would instruct the conferees to agree to the additional $400 million of emergency firefighting funds in the Senate version of the fiscal year 2004 interior appropriations. These funds are desperately needed to repay the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service accounts that have been emptied to fight forest fires during the current fiscal year. We need this additional money. In fact, the agencies estimate that we need $171 million more than was provided by the Senate.

The decision of Chairman Burns in the Senate to add an additional $400 million was in response to new agency estimates that show a shortfall of $860 million for fire. While the other body's amount does not fully address the problem, it would go a long way towards repaying the construction and land acquisition accounts of these agencies that have been pillaged, all because the administration did not request enough to fight fires.

My colleagues from the West understand this problem all too well, but I hope everyone is aware that other areas beyond the West face similar fire risks from record low rainfall. The National Fire Center reports that as of today, more than 3.1 million acres have burned. Nineteen large fires are still burning, affecting more than 350,000 acres.

The Forest Service and the BLM have already spent the money; they had no choice. But unlike other agencies, FEMA, for example, that get reimbursed, the Forest Service and BLM are forced to cancel construction projects, land acquisition, reforestation programs in our national forests, endangered species work, processing of grazing fees, and many other activities. These agencies simply cannot function and cannot do the work Congress directs them to do if year after year their accounts are drained for fires that we already know will occur, and if Congress does not reimburse these accounts.

In 2002, the Forest Service and BLM spent nearly $1.2 billion fighting fires. The administration requested repayment of $825 million, leaving $334 million still owed to the Forest Service and the BLM. This borrowing is over the amounts that Congress had previously appropriated. This cannot happen again and again. These cuts have real impacts and, in some cases, only compound the problems we have in our forests if the agencies do not have the money to do the thinnings and fuel-load reduction work that is necessary to avoid fire risk in the first place.

We all know this money is needed and that it is needed now. The conference should agree to the additional $400 million added by the Senate. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

So when this comes back up, I have to be here to ask for a recorded vote?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

I am pleased that the House is taking quick action to address the critical shortfalls facing the Director of Emergency Preparedness and Response, the entity we used to know as FEMA. In fact, I was speaking with the new Under Secretary, Mike Brown, just last night, who informed me that EPR will have to close regional offices within 2 weeks if funding is not approved. So I strongly support the approval of this money.

However, there are other important programs that will have to start closing down in August if funds are not approved immediately.

As was mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York, Teach for America, there are 2,700 people in this country who were signed up for Teach for America. They would be trained in August and start working in September. So obviously if we do not appropriate the money now, we appropriate the money in September, it is going to completely disrupt this program, which has been so important for helping kids in school who need special training and special help.

These young people all across this country who think that they are going

to have a contract are not going to have one because we have failed to act here in the House of Representatives. We tried to offer this amendment in committee to add $100 million for this important program, and on a straight party-line vote it was voted down.

We certainly can do this now if we can defeat the previous question. We can add this $100 million and take care of FEMA, take care of AmeriCorp and send the bill to the Senate. Frankly, as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Interior, I am worried about the money for forest fires. Again, we are not putting up the money for the forest fires either.

Now we use the old adage, well, we can borrow the money and then pay it back. But they have not paid back the money from the last year that they have borrowed. I was pleased that the administration requested, I think, $289 million, maybe it was $320 when you add BLM and Forest Service together; but that money is not in here.

I just had a conversation with the distinguished chairman in the other body on the interior appropriations, and he is very concerned about the fact that we do not have the forest fire money in here as well.

So I understand that the problem with FEMA is very urgent, but these other issues are also important. So I wish we could do a broader supplemental and deal with them. I hope that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to have an amendment that will deal with the problem of AmeriCorp. I just hate to see, if we are going to solve this thing in September anyway, why screw up the entire program and not get it done now when we have an opportunity to.

There are 224 Members of the House who have signed a letter, a majority, Democrats and Republicans, in favor of adding the $100 million. I am told the President now has changed his mind and he is in favor of it. So if everybody wants to do it, why not do it?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The one concern I have in the Toomey amendment which is yet to be offered, since it was not printed in the Record as it was supposed to be, but, anyway, in the Toomey amendment, we are going to have an across-the-board cut. One of the items that was not exempted was fire fighting. We are already not getting the supplemental funding for fire fighting that was promised in this bill. Last year they borrowed money from all the accounts to fund the fire fighting. That is what we are going to have to wind up doing again. But then on top of that, we are going to have to have an across- the-board cut. I am told this would be 7 or $8 million out of the fire fighting funds. I know you can defer it if the President does this and that. All I am saying is, I do not think this amendment is very well thought out, I do not like across-the-board amendments normally; and so I hope that this will at least be thought about as we get into the debate on this supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleagues, I had a chance last night to meet Mike Brown, who is the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, which used to be FEMA, and I asked him a couple of questions about this problem.

First of all, he said they will have to start shutting down offices all over the country, I think it was by August 8, if we do not get this money. I also asked him can they borrow the money from other accounts? No. They do not have a way of doing this like the Forest Service and the Department of Interior. The BLM does; they can borrow money from other accounts.

EPR, Emergency Preparedness and Response, does not have that authority. So we have to appropriate this money. That is why all of a sudden this supplemental reemerged because it became very clear we could not, in good conscience, doing our jobs, leave here without appropriating the money for FEMA.

We have got disasters all over this country, as we speak, that require this funding. And as I said, I wish we had taken care of fire fighting; I wish we had taken care of AmeriCorps. But at least we have to take care of this. It would be totally irresponsible, and I hope in the other body they will also understand that they have got to pass this as well, though I know there is concern over there about this coming at the last moment.

In my mind, this has to be done.

And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman is absolutely accurate on this point. We would almost be better off if we took away the borrowing authority, because then they would have to put up the money. We would be like FEMA in that situation. Then they would have to put up the money, because we could not leave here without taking care of this problem.

Now what we do is let them borrow the money from the Forest Service, from BLM, ruin their other programs, put the agency in total chaos, and then, on top of that, we do not pay the money back. This is not good.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I want to associate myself with his remarks and the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

I must say, I worry about the Interior Appropriations, an across-the- board cut like this, especially since it would affect forest fire fighting. It would also affect forest health. Those would both be cut. And all of the other accounts would be cut at a time when we are going to have to borrow money from those accounts to fight the fires of this year, because we do not have enough money in the budget to do that.

So I would say to everyone here, I think that the prudent thing to do, since we do not know all of the consequences of the amendment, and we know that a number of them are bad, and it is the last two months of the year, is to defeat the Toomey amendment and pass the supplemental.

The President of the United States happens to be the person, by the way, who is asking for this money, and he did not ask that it be offset. And this OMB has been as tough on spending as any in modern history.

So they want it as an emergency. They do not want to see their programs cut any further.

So I think, with the risk to fire fighting across this country, we should defeat the Toomey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add my own personal concern here, particularly with the Forest Service and the Park Service, because the way the funding for these studies were done violates the reprogramming agreements that the Committee on Appropriations has with the agencies. This has been called to their attention by the committee with the chairman's leadership.

I think it is very crucial that we protect the integrity of the reprogramming process so that agencies are just not taking money and going out and doing these studies without getting the prior approval of the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment to strike the language carried in our bill with broad committee support.

The bipartisan language related to competitive sourcing was well- though out and should remain in our bill. Congress must ensure that our agencies are not spending untold millions of dollars related to outsourcing activities without any defined plan from the administration about what the goals are and how much money they intend to spend.

I am deeply concerned about the loosely defined policy and believe that the committee was well within its bounds to simply ask for a ``pause'' until we can better understand the parameters of the policy. The Chairman and I were extremely surprised to learn that agencies within the jurisdiction of our Subcommittee were spending, or were planning to spend, millions of dollars on competitive sourcing without coming to the Committee through the normal budget process to tell us how they intended to pay for it.

Recently we learned that the Forest Service had already committed $10 million on these studies despite the fact that they are still owed $372 million in un-repaid forest-fire borrowing from 2002. The agency also admits that their budget for the National Fire Plan is insufficient, making borrowing more likely each season. For the life of me I simply cannot understand how the Forest Service could find the money to study outsourcing when they clearly don't have the money to fight forest fires without raiding other accounts.

Adding to this, neither the Forest Service nor the National Park Service has come to the Committee for a formal reprogramming. Instead, the agencies apparently moved forward on this on their own. I am deeply troubled that the Park Service would undertake this effort without prior approval from Congress, especially since their own budget estimates suggest that these studies would cost $3,000 per FTE.

Last month, Mt. Rainier National Park in Washington State was featured in an article in the Washington Post regarding outsourcing. The article detailed a memo that was sent to parks in the West from the Director's office that warned of budget cuts to pay for anti-terrorism policing and consultants to study outsourcing. Cuts that meant several projects that were ready to go in these parks would not happen this year. Administrators at Mt. Rainier had been instructed to absorb a 40% cut in their repair budget, which obviously meant several projects would not happen.

I have been a member of this Subcommittee for 27 years. I am intimately aware of the backlog of maintenance on our public lands--and particularly our parks. Yet here we see money being literally pulled back from the field--money that Congress appropriated and directed how it would be spent--going towards consultants. As soon as I finished the article, I called Park Service Director Fran Mainella personally. I was able to get an agreement with her that this money would in fact not be pulled from Rainier--but I'm not convinced that other parks are not in some jeopardy.

I understand the agencies seem to be caught in the middle of a larger issue between the Office of Management and Budget which is pushing hard on outsourcing, and the Congress which is understandably concerned about the policy. This is precisely why we need this language. We have got to have a better understanding of the goals and costs of outsourcing. Only then can we make a rational decision about how--or if--to proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Colorado, but I think in this case this amendment is ill-advised. First of all, on the issue of how much it would affect, it would take $196 million out of this bill, a bill that is already inadequate in many respects. We get right to the first two items, conservation spending, which has already been devastated, would be cut $10 million, and then right here on the issue that is so important out in the West, wildfire funding would be cut $23 million. The administration is up here with an emergency supplemental asking for well over $200 million to add to this. How could we cut $23 million out of wildfire spending in this across-the-board meat axe approach?

If you are going to have an amendment to reduce spending, I think you are better served in picking out the items you want to make reductions in. Maybe some of them would be over 1 percent. But to cut wildfire funding is just not responsible in the situation we find ourselves in. In fact, the agencies under this bill have had money borrowed from them to pay for the 2002 fire season that the administration has not even requested the funding to put back into place. So to compound that problem with another cut of $23 million to me is just not responsible.

And then you get over to the Bureau of Land Management and there is another $7 million for BLM fire that would be cut. So you have got $23 million in wildfire funding and another $7 million in BLM fire funding, and then you get to the Forest Service and it is $16 million, another $16 million. Or maybe it is the two of those together is $23 million. I think that is correct. The point is taking that kind of money out of this bill is just not right and it is going to go to conference. The House and the Senate are going to get back together. There is going to be a 302 allocation and we are going to fund the bill at the end of the day at the level that we have gotten an allocation for.

I think this is just a waste of time and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will make one final comment. No Member has worked harder to increase funding for firefighting in these bills than I have. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and I have made this one of our very highest priorities and included a $335 million increase over the current year for firefighting programs. In addition, we have worked with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) to ensure that additional funds for the current fire season are included in the emergency supplemental bill which we hope to conference this week.

So what I would suggest to the gentleman is that he should join us in opposing the Hefley amendment that would take another cut out of firefighting. But let us all oppose the Tancredo amendment for this meat-ax approach to the endowment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) on this amendment, that this really does cry out for compromise.

We have had some of the most bitter environmental battles in the Pacific Northwest over the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, salmon, and in most of these instances we have been able to sit down and work out a compromise on these important issues.

What happened last year, and there may be a multitude of reasons, the death of these fish, I think, caused a tremendous impact not only in the Northwest but across the country; and we have a scientific study that will look into and give us the reasons for the loss of this fish. But the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Blumenauer) amendment I think is an attempt to try and deal with the basic underlying issue, that is, the allocation of water.

We have the same problems in the State of Washington. We have to work out agreements between farmers and fishermen. And we work on these things, and it is not easy to accomplish. But the last thing we need to do is to end the dialogue.

I heard my friends, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), say they were prepared to enter into a dialogue. I think there ought to be a dialogue with the Members and the agencies. But the one thing you have to do with situations like this is to rely on science. This cannot be done on emotion. We just heard a very emotional appeal. This has to be done on good science.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Was water temperature here an issue?

Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, that I have great respect for the gentleman who offered this amendment. I know he is dedicated on the issue of firefighting.

As the chairman mentioned, however, we have added a significant amount of money and there will be a supplemental on the floor next week of $289 million for fire as well. And I just think that we have taken this land acquisition part of the Forest Service budget down from $132 million to about $29 million, and this would be another $19 million. You could not even run a program out of this. And if they need the money, they probably could borrow it anyway.

So I would argue that this is not an appropriate offset. I would urge the gentleman to consider adding this to the supplemental. If he wants to add additional money to the supplemental to reimburse the government for the money it borrowed from a lot of these accounts, the supplemental is coming up next week. This should be emergency. If the gentleman was offering it as an emergency measure, not taking an offset out of land acquisition, I could support it; but I cannot support the amendment as it is currently drafted.

Mr. Chairman, I hope these suggestions are beneficial.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and commend the gentleman for his attention to the important issue of forest health and the protection of our public lands. The amendment applies to U.S. Forest Service managed lands which support 17 percent of Federally endangered and threatened species.

In November, 2002, the Bush administration proposed a radical and sweeping rewrite of the forest policy that has governed the Nation since shortly after passage of the National Forest Management Act, NFMA, in 1976. The changes would eliminate or seriously weaken vital safeguards for 155 national forests in the United States and that were put in place by the Reagan administration.

I served under President Reagan, and I can tell you in this one case I was very pleased that he used science in order to make a determination on these forests plans.

Now the Bush administration, however, attempts to allow forest plans to be exempted from the analysis of their environmental impacts as required by NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. It seeks to do away with the rule that requires the Forest Service to maintain native species of wildlife in each national forest. The proposed regulations try to make surveying wildlife merely optional.

In addition, the draft would reduce the role of scientists and monitoring in forest planning. Extensive requirements for independent scientific review and consultation in the development of forest plans would be eliminated and replaced with optional provisions of including scientists in the process. The effect of these regulations would be to virtually eliminate scientific review of forest plans.

Public participation is greatly restricted in the forest planning process. The rule would discount petitions, cards and other methods citizens use to contact their government. Also, this plan would halt the appeals process allowed under current rules.

The Udall amendment would limit the Bush administration reductions to

the National Forest Management Act. The new regulations are the wrong policy to maintain and preserve our national forests.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the Udall amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to engage the gentleman from New Mexico, the sponsor of the amendment, in a couple of questions.

First of all, one of the assertions here that bothers me the most, having lived through the spotted owl issue in the Pacific Northwest, is that there seems to be an indication here that science is not favored in the development of this rule. We have a group of scientists who write to the USDA Forest Service planning rule saying as scientists with expertise and conservation, biology and fish and wildlife management, we are writing to express our concern over the proposed National Forest Management Act, and they go on. We request that you reinstate the 2000 rule that received very thoughtful input by scientists and the public.

We would like to respond as specifically to three assertions underlying the proposed 2002 rule change that, on examination, turned out to be false.

One, that monitoring an assessment of the species level cost too much. It seems that if we are going to have multiple use and if we are going to protect the forests, that one of the things that has to be done under any circumstance is monitoring an assessment of the condition of the species. What would the gentleman have to say about that?

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is what concerns me here. We have been through the Endangered Species Act, the listing of these

species. If we are now going to wipe the scientists out as we develop these forest plans and not take into account their input, we are just going to open ourselves up again to additional listings under the Endangered Species Act.

The one thing I found in the Northwest was we had to base our decisions on science, science, science. They had to be scientifically credible, legally defensible.

I worry that without public input, without scientific input, letting the agencies do what they want in the name of expediency, that we are going to wind up with a lot of additional listings and then a lot of additional requirements to set aside acres for protection. We are going to get into the same mess we were in before. Because if we do not rely on science, if we do not do what is scientifically credible and legally defensible, I see us getting into worse shape than we are already in. That is what bothers me about what the administration has done.

None of us like the fact that it takes 9 years or whatever amount of time, but that is because the administration, whoever is in charge, has not promptly dealt with these issues; and the concerns that are expressed by these scientists is that in 2000, during the Clinton administration, there was scientific input; and then we get the new administration, they walk away from science.

All I think it is going to do is lead us back into trouble, back into more listings; and I do not see how that does anybody any good. It is the listings that cause the economic disruption and the problems in the communities. It is better to do these plans credibly, take the time, use the science and make sure we get something that can be sustained in the courts because, at some point, the biologist is going to be taken into court. He is going to be put on the stand, and he is going to say and the lawyers are going to ask, if this scientifically credible? The minute he says no, the judge is going to enjoin the plan. It is not going to do any good.

By not using the credible science in the first place, trying to slip around this, I think we are making a terrible mistake, and I think we will be back here shortly saying we have got to redo this because it simply did not work.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

First of all, with all due respect, the forest plans do not have a lot to do with the funding that is necessary to deal with the important issues the gentleman is talking about. We are for trying to fund the programs that will improve forest health and allow us to deal with these fires. Our committee has appropriated a considerable amount of money, but having a good scientifically credible plan is crucial. It is not status quo. This is the kind of creative change that we have to have, and that is why I support the Udall amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows I would never support that kind of science under any circumstances.

No, it is not. That was condemned by everybody on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

We support scientifically credible science. We do not support people who go out with some kind of a vendetta. I just think we should not try to make this so vitriolic.

I have been through what has happened in the Northwest. There is one thing I learned, if it is not scientifically credible or legally defensible, you are not going to go very far. So if one thinks these plans are going to hold up once you get the Endangered Species Act in place, Members are making a big mistake. It is better to do these things scientifically credible in the first instance.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this amendment. There was a very important letter written on May 20, 2003, by George B. Hartzog, National Park Service director, 1964 to 1972; Nathaniel Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, 1971 to 1976; Russ Dickenson, National Park Service director, 1980 to 1985; Denis Galvin, National Park Service deputy director, 1985 to 1989, 1998 to 2002; Roger Kennedy, National Park Service director, 1993 to 1997; Robert Stanton, National Park Service director, 1997 to 2001; Michael Finley, Yellowstone National Park superintendent, 1994 to 2001; and Robert D. Barbee, Yellowstone National Park superintendent, 1983 to 1994.

This letter is to Secretary Norton. It says:

``It has been our privilege collectively to serve nine Presidents as stewards of America's national parks. For each of us, this experience underscored the pride and joy that Americans feel for their common heritage and their desire to have national parks vigorously preserved for their grandchildren. In this spirit, we write to you about a final decision that is before you regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. There can be no doubt that this decision is a defining moment for America's national parks. The choice over snowmobile use in Yellowstone is a choice between upholding the founding principle of our national parks, stewardship on behalf of all visitors and future generations, or catering to a special interest in a manner that would damage Yellowstone's resources and threaten public health.

``The latter choice would set an entirely new course for America's national parks. It is our deep hope as this issue now moves to your final review that you will ensure the highest protection for Yellowstone. To do otherwise would be a radical departure from the Interior Department's stewardship mission. Yellowstone is an irreplaceable national treasure, a symbol of our country and a gathering place where Americans feel justifiably proud that our country led the world by establishing its first national park.

``A decision made on behalf of the snowmobile industry and not for Yellowstone's environment and general public would be wrong.

``On many occasions President Bush has made laudable pledges that members of his administration will always be fully accountable to the public. In keeping with this, we are mindful of your assertions regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone. They are as important today as they were when you made them.

``Two years ago the Interior Department directed that a supplemental'' EIS ``be undertaken so that additional information and wider public involvement could be brought to bear in making the best possible decision about Yellowstone's future. The Department asserted that this information would be essential to a sound decision.

``On the basis of the new data, the National Park Service verified that phasing out snowmobile use would provide the best protection of Yellowstone's environment and the health of employees and visitors. The study concluded that ending snowmobile use while providing visitors access on snowcoaches `best preserves the unique historic, cultural, and natural resources associated with Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks' and would `attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation and risk of health and safety.' Final Supplemental'' EIS ``February, 2003.

``We hope that you will now embrace the central conclusion of a study that your Department asserted to the American people would shape a better decision. To ignore its conclusion would clearly be to accept avoidable risks to health and safety, a narrower range of beneficial uses, and weaker preservation of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

``Your department also called for wider public involvement, and the call was unquestionably answered. More Americans submitted comments to the National Park Service than the agency has received on any single issue in its 87-year history. While the volume of comment was unprecedented, its reflection of public opinion was consistent with previous comment periods over the past several years. By a four-to-one margin, Americans urged you to give Yellowstone the best possible protection and said they believe, as the National Park Service has confirmed, that this means replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches. We hope after calling for public comment, you will heed, not ignore, what the public has told you.

``Clearly we are in economic and budgetary times that require us to be scrupulous with every tax dollar. This is another reason why we urge you to adopt a phaseout of snowmobile use. Your study demonstrated that continuing snowmobile use in Yellowstone would result not only in higher levels of air and noise pollution, harm to wildlife, and risks for employee and visitor health; it would also cost taxpayers $1.3 million more each year than replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches. Surely you will not ask the American taxpayer to pay more for less protection, an annual transfer payment to the snowmobile industry subsidizing ongoing damage to Yellowstone.

``We would be remiss if we did not emphasize one final point. Yellowstone's wintertime struggles with pollution, noise, and traffic congestion fit into a larger context. Throughout the National Park System we have been striving for years to develop more efficient transportation systems so that the visitor's national park experience can be defined by each park's special attributes and not by negative aspects of traffic that most visitors hope to leave at home.

``Zion National Park is an excellent example of the success and popularity of this strategy. Where automobile traffic had clogged Zion's once quiet canyons and the visitors' experience were being defined by noise, exhaust, and frustrations finding parking, the Park Service substituted shuttle bus access. This change boosted gateway business, earned accolades from visitors who today are enjoying a better park experience, and reduced impacts to Zion's resources.

``In Yellowstone the supplemental study that you requested has demonstrated that replacing snowmobiles with an efficient system of snowcoaches would bring similar benefits. In fact, with wildlife under stress from Yellowstone's deep snows, frigid temperatures, and employees and visitors breathing snowmobile fumes often trapped by the park's inversions, the benefits of reducing traffic and emissions would be even greater than they have been in Zion.

``In summary, we join as former public stewards of America's national

parks in urging you to place Yellowstone National Park back on a path that gives the highest priority to protecting its natural qualities for today's visitors and future generations. To do otherwise would ignore sound science, the public will, and responsibility to taxpayers; and, worst of all, it would erode a precious gift that this country gave itself and the world, a gift that will only become more valuable to our Nation as our population grows.''

So if these eight people representing a cross-section of our American political life who have served in the parks on a bipartisan basis over the last 40 years can come together, certainly I hope that our House can come together tonight in support of the Holt amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), so that he may control and yield that time.

Mr. Chairman, I move strike the last word so that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) could enter into a colloquy with our distinguished chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

Mr. Chairman, I rise in sympathy with this amendment. I know the chairman may want to comment on this as well.

I saw the article in the paper which affects the Nebraska and Tallahassee sites. We tried to deal with 2004 and new starts, as I understand it. A lot of money has been spent without getting proper congressional approval. I am very troubled by these incidents.

I appreciate the gentleman raising this issue on the floor, and I look forward to hearing from the chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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