Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the first section number in my motion read ``section 335'', not ``section 336.''

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members who spoke today. I think this was a spirited debate. I know the chairman and I both want to see us get a bill in a timely way that the President of the United States can sign. That means we are going to deal with these riders. Mr. Speaker, I understand how strongly people feel about these issues. I have had problems with these in my own State. But I do believe that unless we narrow these dramatically, we are going to have a hard time getting this bill enacted. I also rise in strong support of the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities. I believe that they deserve this extra support. By the way, this very controversial project in Brooklyn has not received any funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. The museum has received support on other projects, but one of the things that the chairman, and I supported him on this, insisted on was a very specific description of what the money from the endowment is going to be used for. The money is not being used for this controversial project in New York. That shows that the reforms that we have put into place, in fact, are working.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) who was the author of this amendment to the Interior appropriations bill and who is an expert on this subject here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend the chairman. I had the privilege of working with him a few years ago in drafting language that, as he suggested, was tested by the Supreme Court of the United States. That rule tried to emphasize quality in making these grant awards. Because, obviously, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, neither one of them can fund every single grant application that comes in. We worked on language that talked about funding those applications that had the highest quality, that represented the finest in the arts. I believe that a lot of the success in recent years of both the Endowment for the Arts and Humanities is because we did give some guidance. I think the gentleman from Ohio deserves a great deal of credit for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairman of the Arts Caucus who has been a real leader on these issues.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the first part of my motion deals with the issues of the number of millsites allowed under the interpretation of the provisions of the Mining Law of 1872. Members will recall that this matter has been a contentious issue twice this year, both on the 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill and on the 2000 Interior appropriations bill. Both the House and Senate versions of the Interior bill contain provisions relating to the permissible level for millsites for mining activities on Federal lands. The House provision was included as a floor amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for himself and for the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). The amendment was adopted by a vote of 273-151. That amendment upheld the opinion of the Department of Interior that the correct interpretation of the 1872 Mining Law is that only one 5-acre millsite for mine and tailings is allowed for each claim or patent for mining activities on Federal land. The Senate provision is 180 degrees on the other side of the issue. The Senate provision sets aside the Department of the Interior's legal ruling and directs that the Interior and Agriculture Departments cannot limit the number or size of areas for mine waste. Furthermore, their provision is not just applicable for fiscal year 2000. The language of the amendment applies for any fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, the Senate provision has no place in the Interior appropriations bill. If the supporters of that provision want to amend the 1872 Mining Law, let them do it through the normal legislative process. The law allows mining operations on Federal land to proceed after payment of only $2.50 to $5 per acre. That may have made sense 125 years ago when the Nation was settling the West, but it certainly makes no sense today. Practically the only provision yielding any environmental protection at all in the 1872 law is the provision that only one 5-acre millsite per claim is allowed. To weaken that provision may benefit the mining industry, but it is bad public policy and will almost certainly result in the veto of the Interior Appropriations act. Unfortunately, during extended debate on this issue, some have resorted to ad hominem attacks on the Solicitor of the Department of Interior. Most often, such attacks are resorted to when the preponderance of evidence does not support the position of the persons making the attacks. And that is precisely the situation here. While there may have been some confusion due to administrative guidance issued in the past, as courts have stated, administrative practice cannot supersede the plain words of the statute. And here is what the law says from, 30 U.S.C., 42, page 804 of the 1994 edition of the United States Code: Where nonmineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes, such nonadjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith, subject to the same preliminary requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable to veins or lodes; but no location made on or after May 10, 1872, of such nonadjacent land shall exceed five acres. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for the environment and for our publicly owned lands and reaffirm their support for the Rahall amendment. The second part of the motion merely instructs the House conferees to agree with the slightly higher funding levels that the other body recommended for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities. For each Endowment, the Senate recommendation is $5 million higher than the amount contained in the House bill. Both of these important organizations have received virtually flat funding for the past 4 years. And that flat funding level has been approximately 40 percent below the amounts provided prior to 1995. Both organizations, but especially the National Endowment for the Arts, have substantially changed their operations and procedures in response to Congressional criticism. The message has been received, and it is time to move on. Both organizations have an impact far beyond just the level of funding provided. They both level their Federal funding with State, local, and private resources so that the impact of each appropriated dollar is magnified. We have had the debate on the merits of these agencies time and time again during the past 5 years. Every time the House has been permitted to speak its will on the NEA and the NEH, the result has been supported. During consideration of this year's Interior bill on the House floor, an amendment to reduce the funding level for the National Endowment for the Arts by just $2 million was defeated by a vote of 124-300. I realize an amendment to increase NEA and NEH funding by $10 million each was nearly defeated, but this was solely due to concern about the proposed offsets. The Senate was able to find additional funding for the Endowments without the objectionable offsets, and I believe the House conferees should go along with their recommendations. The final part of this motion concerns the several new provisions added during Senate consideration of the bill that are generally regarded as assisting the special interest to the detriment of our public land. I will not itemize all the provisions. That has been done repeatedly by the administration, the press, and concerned individuals and groups. I believe if most of these provisions are included in a bill sent to the President, a veto will result and we will have to negotiate the measure again. I urge my colleagues to avoid that unnecessary confrontation by stripping the anti-environmental provisions out of the bill in the conference. I hope my colleagues will demonstrate their support for the environment and for the Endowments of the Arts and Humanities. Support the motion to instruct the Interior conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I want to compliment the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for following the Udall rule, that when all else fails, read the statute. The gentleman clearly has done that, and the statute is pretty clear; and I urge the other side to take a look at it at their leisure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of our subcommittee, a valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), a very valued Member of this House.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) who has been a leading defender and protector of the environment in Washington State and throughout the country.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues a highly significant but largely unnoticed development--the recently agreed-upon labor pact affecting West Coast dock workers and clerks. At 5 p.m. on July 1st, with a news blackout in effect, the West Coast longshore contract expired. From early May until mid-July, officials of the Pacific Maritime Association representing roughly 100 companies on the West Coast, and representatives of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) met to try to hammer out a new agreement. After several days of complex, difficult negotiations-- frequently lasting through the night--the two sides reached agreement several days ago. Last week, more than 99 percent of the delegates to the ILWU caucus recommended approval of the new three-year pact. It is expected that before the end of August this agreement will be fully ratified and that West Coast ports will enjoy 3 years of stability. Besides raising wage and pension benefits the new agreement, among other things, calls for companies and union members to form a committee to discuss the introduction of new technology on the waterfront, or improve the use of current technology, to enhance productivity. This would seem to be crucial for all concerned. Canadian and Mexican ports and companies are rapidly moving forward trying to outcompete the United States for an increasing share of trade with Asia. It is in the interest of neither management nor labor to let this happen. In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, Professor Stephen Cohen, Co-Director of the Berkeley Roundtable on International Economy, and John Wilson, the former Chief Economist at the Bank of America and now a Senior Fellow at the Roundtable, noted that in the pat twenty years waterborne trade through West Coast ports has grown from $61 billion to an estimated $285 billion for this year. This is double the rate of increase in total US trade growth and this West Coast waterborne trade is clearly critical to America's continuing economic prosperity. Further, that trade, according to Cohen and Wilson, now constitutes more than 60 percent of the gross state product of my state of Washington and more than 35 percent of California's GSP. If PMA and the ILWU had not reached agreement and there had been a West Coast dock strike or lockout, the dislocations would have been felt even more strongly in Asia than here. As Cohen and Wilson have noted: Asian exports arriving by ship at West Coast ports are expected to exceed $200 billion this year. This is the principal source of the vital foreign exchange net earnings needed to sustain the currency values, to service large foreign debts and to import the components and machinery required for growth and development of the stricken Asian economies. A significant disruption of West Coast ports would hamper recovery. It might also affect financial markets. Mr. President, my constituents in Washington State and all Americans have a stake in this pact and in assuring that US-Asian trade continues to grow in coming years. None of us should lose sight of this reality. I am submitting for the Record a copy of the Cohen-Wilson article and a related article by Dan Weikel of The Los Angeles Times. [Los Angeles Times, Wed., July 14, 1999] METRO--Port Strike Would Hurt U.S., Asia (By Stephen S. Cohen and John O. Wilson) Despite six weeks of negotiations, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Assoc., which represents almost 100 West Coast shipping lines, have failed to reach an agreement for a new contract for the West Coast. Since the prior contract expired on July 1, many union work actions have affected port operations up and down the coast. A full-fledged strike would put the U.S. and many other economies at great risk. In the last few weeks, crane drivers walked off the job for two days in Oakland, effectively shutting down one of the nation's busiest ports. Work slowdown also have impacted the flow of goods through the behemoth ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Ports in the Pacific Northwest are experiencing slowdowns as well. A West Coast port shutdown could trigger a reaction in international financial markets, with the biggest risk being a worsening of the Asian financial and economic crisis. There would also be a major national economic impact, a 20-day strike at ports in California, Oregon and Washington, for example, could cost this country close to $40 billion and 200,000 jobs. The impact of such a shutdown would increase daily across the country and even could trigger a sudden spike in American consumer prices. What makes a West Coast dock shutdown a potential detonator of a national and international financial and economic crisis? The size and magnitude of the trade flowing through the ports, the dependency of this North American gateway on Asian economies and the relative inflexibility to divert cargo to other ports. Since 1980, waterborne trade through West Coast ports has increased from $61 billion to an estimated $285 billion this year. That is double the rate of increase in total U.S. trade growth. This growth in trade activity is directly related to the increasing import-export activity with Asia. West Coast ports are now dominated by trade with Asia, which accounts for about three-quarters of all port activity (sea and air) in California and about 60% in Washington state. International trade accounts for about 19% of the U.S. gross domestic product and more than one-third of California's gross state product. But the real dependency is one the other side of the Pacific. Asian exports arriving by ship at West Coast ports are expected to exceed $200 billion this year. This is the principal source of the vital foreign exchange net earnings needed to sustain the currency values, to service large foreign debts and to import the components and machinery required for growth and development of the stricken Asian economies. A significant disruption of West Coast ports would hamper recovery. It might also affect financial markets. The ability to shift significant volumes of Asian trade to East Coast or Gulf of Mexico ports in the event of a West Count shutdown is now extremely limited because container facilities--ships, ports and infrastructure--are too specialized. The West Coast ports have made about 70% of all port investment in the 48 contiguous states for the past five years. As a result, high volume shipping is a powerful, integrated and, alas, inflexible system. Almost all the containers destined for the Central and Mountain states now pass through West Coast ports. So do nearly half of containers destined for the North Atlantic states. But because of the specialization, the U.S. does not have the luxury of simply diverting Asian cargo to East Coast ports. Shipping is no longer a collection of roving ships docking here and there. For all these reasons, the risk of a port strike is simply too great for the U.S. and world economies. The current act of management-union negotiations warrants a watchful eye from the White House and Treasury as well as the Department of Labor. If need be, both sides should be locked up at Camp David to finish the talks. But, in no case, should the ports be allowed to shut down. Beach. ``There have been long truck lines, and we've been getting calls from worried manufactures. We should be able to clear, things up pretty quickly.'' Both sides declined to discuss what agreements, if any, were reached on several important contract issues; increasing the productivity of longshore workers, the number and type of jobs under union control, and the use of new labor-saving technology on the docks. Negotiators said the terms of the contract will not be released until after the agreement is ratified in the weeks ahead by union members and the executive board of the maritime association. ``We are pleased to have reached an agreement that provides ILWU members with a package that rewards them for the hard work they put forward every day,'' said James Spinosa, the union's vice president and chief negotiator. West Coast longshore workers now earn about $80,000 to $100,000 a year, depending on their skills and rank. Wages can go higher for heavy equipment operators, dock bosses and marine clerks who truck cargo. Association officials headed into the negotiations saying the talks were critical for improving the reliability and productivity of the waterfront labor force. They also said they hoped to engage in substantive discussions about the use of technology on the docks and ways to avoid repeating the score of costly work stoppages that followed the 1998 labor contract. Among the issues critical to the union were increases in pension and medical benefits as well as the union's jurisdiction--the number of port-related jobs that fall under its control. Labor officials said that if modernization continues, steps must be taken to preserve union positions and expand the organization's jurisdiction beyond port boundaries. Both sides came to the bargaining table in May after several years of court fights and political rancor. Within the union itself long-shore locals in Southern California had repeatedly tried to remove President Brian McWilliams and neutralize his power. The locals issued a vote of no confidence in the president and demanded that he take a leave of absence for the reminder of his term Williams, however, has remained in office. The union's internal conflicts coincided with series of sharp attacks by the Pacific Maritime Assn., which targeted the productivity and reliability of longshore workers. Miniace a labor relations specialist who worked for Ford Motor Co. and Ryder, led the assault in public and in court, repeatedly suing the union over work stoppages and slowdown to no avail. Miniace contends that productivity, measured by tons of cargo handled per hour paid has either stagnated or declined in each of the last four years. His greatest fear, he said, was that customers would send their goods through other ports in the United States or Mexico if things didn't improve on the West Coast. Union officials criticized Miniace's aggressive approach, saying he was a newcomer who did not understand the shipping industry. [Los Angeles Times, Fri. July 16, 1999] Longshore Workers, Shippers Reach Pact (By Dan Weikel) Longshore workers and shipping companies agreed to a new labor contract late Thursday, clearing the way for the resumption of normal cargo operations at West Coast ports that have been plagued by work stoppages and slowdowns for the last 10 days. After almost two months of bargaining in San Francisco, the powerful International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Assn. concluded a new three-year contract that will affect more than 10,000 dock workers in California, Oregon and Washington. With tensions running high, there had been considerable fear that the West Coast was headed toward its first dock strike since 1971. West Coast ports, which handle cargo worth an estimated $280 billion every year, are critical to the nation's economy. Details of the agreement were unavailable Thursday, but negotiators said it offered increases in pay, health insurance and pension benefits for future as well as current longshore retirees, some of whom now have pensions as low as $240 a month. ``I think this is a very good agreement for the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Assn.,'' said Joseph N. Miniace, president of the West Coast's largest shipping association. ``We had almost two weeks of work slowdowns, and we've been working until 3 a.m. the last few nights to get a contract. I am relieved; our team is relieved, and their team is relieved.'' The Pacific Maritime Assn., which is the union's counterpart, negotiates and administers labor contracts for about 100 shipping lines, stevedore companies and terminal operators. Association officials said Thursday evening that normal cargo operations will resume at all West Coast harbors, which have been hampered by work slowdowns since early July. During their peak, longshore workers shut the Port of Oakland for two days and reduced the flow of cargo by at least half at many terminals along the coast. The pace of work raised fears that the delays eventually would cost business and industry millions of dollars in lost revenue, not to mention losses in fees to port authorities. Harbor officials in Long Beach and Los Angeles, the nation's largest combined port, said Thursday that any backlog of cargo should be cleared from the docks in the days ahead.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman. I commend him for his work on the bill. I want to compliment the ranking member, who has also promised he would work with us on this important issue.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Committee on crafting a bill which I feel is extremely fair under the circumstances. Given this, I know that funding any new initiatives or requested increases was all but impossible. However, there are three key programs which are vitally important that I would like to continue to work together on as the bill moves through conference. The administration requested funding for a Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund which would assist the four West Coast States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California, and help them respond to the recent Endangered Species Act listings of 13 salmon and steelhead populations. Our region has been extremely hard hit by these listings, and is responding with both local and State money, but the Federal money requested by the administration is imperative, given the complexity of this species and the densely populated areas they impact. Related to the coastal initiative, the National Marine Fisheries Service has requested an increase for expanded workload on the West Coast for Endangered Species Act requirements. Without the necessary consultation and permitting, routine growth in our region will come to a standstill. Lastly, the United States and Canada recently reached agreement on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which sets harvest restrictions and conservation measures between the two countries. To implement this agreement, the administration has requested appropriations for two endowment funds to assist with resource conservation and targeted buybacks. Given the importance of this treaty in addressing over-harvest, I remain optimistic that this, too, may be revisited. It is my strong hope that the gentleman can agree to continue to work with me on these issues as the bill proceeds in conference. I would be happy to work with the gentleman.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I practiced law for 27 years. I was a city attorney of Pinebluff, Arkansas, for 2 of those years. I saw how the Legal Services Corporation was doing a good job in rural America. I stayed with this program up until right now. I stayed with it because of what the lawyers, my fellow lawyers, were telling me were the circumstances. It reminded me of what the circumstances were at home. But now I can see that people who had other ideas were just using the poor people. I would like to see how they, if they were given the case, would handle the misrepresentation. In other words, if we went to these political activists, if that is what we want to call them, or the people that use the poor people to try to get other things done, I would like to see what case they would make as to whether or not the money we have appropriated over the years, based on their figures, should be returned; how they would handle that and what they would call it. I think it would be very clear that they would have an excellent case. We have seen the Legal Services Corporation used for exotic theories and almost for law school type circumstances where they say, let us try this, let us try this, let us see if we can do this and that, and that all comes from idleness. I think the only way to bring the Legal Services Corporation back to focusing on poor people and trying to help them in their only touch, sometimes, with justice, in the municipal courts and smaller claims courts all across the country, is just to reduce the size of the appropriations; make them, Mr. Chairman, understand what their purpose is and get back to the principles. Otherwise, we are going to just promote misrepresentation and government bureaucracy, and I think that is a disservice to the poor people.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the United States is the world's largest trader. Our exports directly support almost 12 million U.S. jobs and have accounted for 30 percent of the U.S. economic growth over the past decade. With 94 percent of the world's population and the fastest- growing markets all located overseas, there is no question that U.S. exports are key to our nation's economic success and future. Competition for these growing markets is fierce, and competitive financing is often the critical element to winning sales for U.S. goods and services. It is therefore crucial to our nation's interest to preserve and strengthen U.S. export finance and the Export-Import Bank to provide the foundation and means for expanding overseas trade. In FY 1998, the Bank supported $13 billion in exports that otherwise may not have been sold. These sales have sustained tens of thousands of well-paying jobs here in the United States. Furthermore, the Bank is working to help U.S. exporters maintain a foothold in countries like South Korea and Brazil, which are suffering difficulties yet still offer important opportunities for exporters. The Ex-Im Bank is also an important source of assistance to small businesses to sell their products overseas. Each year, the Bank services about 2,000 new small business transactions, and is involved in more than 10,000 small business transactions. Although the overall funding for the Bank was reduced by $1 million, the Committee did approve a crucial $5 million increase in the Bank's Administrative budget that will enable the Bank to modernize their computer systems and to insert personnel into key markets to help American businesses sell overseas. This modernization is absolutely necessary at this time to ensure that the Bank is Y2K compliant. New systems and personnel will also help the bank reduce turn-around time on decisions for both small and large U.S. exporters. The gentleman's amendment would prohibit the Bank, as well and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade Development Agency, from entering into any new obligations. This extremely dangerous amendment plays right into the hands of our European and Asian competitors, who will not cease to subsidize and finance the deals that their companies make simply because we will have chosen to do so; rather, this amendment will make it even more difficult for American exporters to compete in the combative worldwide marketplace, cutting U.S. jobs in the process. This amendment may save a few dollars, but I assure my colleagues that the costs in lost exports and lost jobs far outweigh any savings we may incur. I urge my colleagues to fight to preserve American jobs and vote against this amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, the decision that Congress will make today with regard to maintaining Normal Trade Relations with the People's Republic of China represents another important step in defining our future relationship with China. The Select Committee on U.S. Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, on which I served as Ranking Minority Member, found some very disturbing information with regard to the theft of nuclear technology from our research labs by the PRC. However, the most disturbing findings of the Committee were that these losses resulted from our own security and counter-intelligence failures. Together with the Administration, we have begun to take steps to address this problem, and I am hopeful that our plan will be successful in preventing another sever security breach. Although I fully recognize the seriousness of these thefts, I do not believe that they should deter us from maintaining our trade partnership with China. Trade between the United States and China is of tremendous benefit to both nations. China, with one-quarter of the world's population, represents the world's largest emerging market. Although many segments of China's economy have not yet matured, the United States today exports $14.3 billion worth of goods to China annually--four times greater than 10 years ago--supporting more than 400,000 high-wage jobs. Within the State of Washington alone, exports to China totaled nearly $1.1 billion in 1996, and more than $8 billion worth of goods passed through the ports of my state either going to or coming from China. China represents a huge potential market for future sales in my state for the sale of aircraft, high-tech products, agricultural goods, and forest products. For aircraft alone, the Chinese market is worth over $140 billion during the next 20 years. Lack of NTR trading status would not only jeopardize access to that market, but also bring retaliation against our country's trading sectors and hundreds of thousands of workers. The people of China also benefit from trade with the United States. As that market opens wider and the Chinese economy develops, the Chinese middle class grows in strength, both political and economic. I believe that developing a viable middle class in China is the best way to provide a solid foundation upon which an open, democratic society may be created. Denying NTR status through this Resolution today will run counter to that objective, greatly hindering this transition, and is clearly not in our nation's best interests. Supporters of this Resolution argue that by denying NTR status to China, we will be forcing the government to make significant changes to their policies. I believe the exact opposite result would occur. If we choose not to renew NTR status to China, our international competitors will not hesitate to fill the void that will be left by our absence. Effectively, we will be excluding ourselves from the economy of the largest nation on the earth. In the aerospace industry, for example, the European consortium Airbus is both willing and capable of replacing Boeing as the leading supplier of commercial aircraft to China. Similarly, I believe it would be exceedingly more difficult for our government to make progress on curbing the enormous problem of software piracy that robs Microsoft and the many other American software companies of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Let me assure my colleagues that in the long run, denying NTR status will be much worse for our economic well-being than it will be for China's. As we vote today to decide the future of our relationship with China, I urge members to support continued engagement with China by opposing the Resolution to disapprove Normal Trade Relations.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member. I recognize this is their first year working together, and I think they have done a very good job on this very important bill. I want to thank them for all the money they gave to specific projects in the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) did, I want to register my concern, however, about two provisions included in this year's Energy and Water Appropriations Act relating to the power marketing administrations. I understand that the chairman has demonstrated willingness to clarify the language, but I still have deep concerns about the implications, unless the bill language is amended. Section 316 of the bill would limit the ability of the power marketing administrations to install fiberoptic cable. It is my understanding that the Bonneville Power Marketing Administration is willing to develop a report to the subcommittee which would present their fiberoptic capacity needs, projections, construction, and financing plans. This provision in the bill limits the ability of the Power Marketing Administrations from certain ``construction, expansion or upgrades'' to dark fiberoptic telecommunication lines which are repaid by users. I believe this provision is premature and unnecessary. We should allow the PMAs to complete ongoing projects and allow them to provide the Congress with their view of the public benefits before we enact a legislative provision in this appropriations bill. Additionally, section 317 prohibits the PMAs from providing emergency transmission system maintenance and repair and reimbursable contract services to their customers, which are provided by service utilities across the country. This provision not only jeopardizes the safety and reliability of the vast transmission system owned by Bonneville, but also violates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order 888, which states that the PMAs in certain circumstances must provide transmission access and construction of additional facilities to neighboring utilities. This section would prevent the Bonneville Power Administration from directly funding the power operations and maintenance of the 29 Federal Columbia River Power System dams which they are required to do under Federal law. The Northwest power system cannot operate without these funds. Each of these sections in the bill is unworkable in its current form. It is my great hope that both provisions can be removed, and the PMAs and the subcommittee can work together to address any concerns they may have. I appreciate, again, all the help from the chairman, he bent over backwards to help us, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has been very willing to help us, as well. We look forward to working with the gentleman in the conference on this issue.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Visclosky amendment. Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of the Visclosky-Oberstar- Borski amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act. The amendment would remove two provisions from the bill which severely threaten the health of our nation's wetlands and ability of the Corps of Engineers to effectively implement the Clean Water Act. The first provision severely limits the review process for wetlands decisions by making the review of these initial determinations appealable to Federal courts before a final permit decision has been made. It is my understanding that the Administration is currently creating an administrative appeals process for these determinations, and that this section in the bill cuts off that process. The second provision would indefinitely delay implementation of a revision to the Corps' ``Nationwide Permit 26'' under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The revision was first proposed by the agency last year and is still in the public process being undertaken by the agency. The new nationwide permits are a high priority of the administration. Through this public process, they plan special protections for flood plains and other environmentally sensitive lands. I believe the administration should be allowed to complete the open process and move forward with its revisions to the permitting system, not be cut short by a legislative provision in an appropriations bill. Our nation's wetlands have already been drastically reduced. We must ensure the protection of these critical areas and not preempt any public processes to be halted because of this legislation. I urge support for the amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the comment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, our former chairman and ranking member. It was my amendment, but I had bipartisan support. This has never been something that has just been my deal. It has been our commitment. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), now the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), all of us worked on this. But what we showed is that there are some important things that we in the Congress can do to improve the security of this country. I was pleased, because I think in the early days had we not had the B-2 when we only had TALCMs and Tomahawks, if none of our planes could have worked, then we would have looked very foolish. There were some people who were critical of this war. It might have undermined even further the support in this country. I just wanted to make that report here today. The B-2 did very, very well. I appreciate all the people in the House who supported it, and those who were critical, I am glad we were able to show and prove in reality that it could stand the test. It did. It was because of the pilots, because of the people who do the low observability work, the mechanics. The turnaround time was like 16 hours per plane. Some people said it would take hundreds of hours. All of that proved wrong because we had great people at Whiteman doing a fantastic job, and it is a testament to the good work of the men and women in the military service.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today to remind my colleagues in the House of some of the past decisions that we have made and how effectively they were used in Kosovo. The House on four separate occasions over the last 4 years voted to continue funding for the B-2 bomber, amongst a lot of criticism by the GAO and the press that the B- 2 would not work, could not fly in the rain, all kinds of criticism. But when the President called on it to be used in Kosovo, I was proud to see these young men fly these planes 31 hours over and back with several aerial refuelings, using JDAMs, a weapon that cost less than $20,000 per weapon, and do more destruction and really carry the air war at a time when many of our other aircraft could not be used because they require laser guidance. I think this is a testament of the commitment of this Congress, where year after year after year we added money to give the B-2 a conventional capability to improve its capabilities and then to see it work. I think it is a testament to the fact that there are people serving in the Congress who have many years of experience on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, on the Armed Services Committee, and they review these programs very carefully. In this case I was very proud when I went out with the President, with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and two of the pilots came up to me and said, ``Congressman, if your committee hadn't added the money, $40 million for GATSCAM which gave the B-2 a conventional capability one year earlier than was expected, we would have not been able to use it in this war.'' JDAMs would have taken more time for training and getting it on the planes and we would not have been able to use it in this war.

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