Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to say for those who did IGRA, it has worked well over the past 10 years with over 200 compacts negotiated in 24 States. And, frankly, and I do not particularly like gambling. But I think Indian gaming has been for certain tribes very successful in terms of raising money to improve the quality of life for those tribes. So I can understand why some of the tribes have done it. And as I understand the law here, they cannot do anything that the State does not allow. In other words, if a State allows a certain level of gambling, then the tribe can allow it. Mr. Chairman, my view is that we should defeat this amendment. That we should wait and see what the court does with the regulations that the Secretary has promulgated. And he has said that he is not going to approve, where there is a conflict, any new compact until those regulations are tested in court. That seems to me to be a very reasonable approach, and I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, which is unnecessary and which would, I think, violate the law and maybe even the Constitution.

Mr. DICKS. The Weldon-Barr amendment would be unconstitutional?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me after listening to this that basically what we have got here is a situation in which either we are going to wait for the court to determine whether under IGRA the Secretary has the authority to promulgate these regulations or we are going to adopt an amendment that basically says that if the States say no, it is no, that there is no other authority to intervene here. Now, as I have talked to the distinguished former chairman of one of the subcommittees that wrote this legislation, he believes that IGRA gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority, when there is an impasse between the tribe and the State, to come in. And he has promulgated regulations that would allow him to do this so that he can try to negotiate an agreement to settle the impasse. Now, Mr. Chairman, that makes sense. If we did not have that, then the State could just say no, and that would be the end of it. I think that would be very unfair. The tribes do have sovereignty. The tribes have a relationship, a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government. And it seems to me that the Secretary of the Interior would be playing a constructive role if he would try to negotiate an agreement and, if the States just adamantly refused to do anything, to actually implement an agreement. But it has to be consistent with State law. That is what I understand.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the distinction is, for every claim they get a millsite with 5 acres. That is how I read this. So if they have multiple claims, they get multiple millsites, each of which is 5 acres. The problem here I think is that we have got a fewer number of claims than the size of the needed millsite to deal with the waste. So I just think we need to get this clarified. I appreciate what the gentleman is suggesting that the Committee on Resources might help us all out by taking this matter up.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to look at this underlying statute. I would love to hear from somebody on the side of my colleagues or have somebody show us where they think the statute says something different than I have just read on the placer claims or on this law under this particular provision. We have to have some basis for saying that somewhere it says they can have more than 5 acres of a millsite per claim. And that is what I do not see here in the law.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think that the constituent of my colleague may have a great claim in equity, but I am not sure that he has got much of a leg to stand on when we look at the actual underlying statute. It appears that the Department, for many years, had misinterpreted the statute. Now, I am still willing to listen to other points of view, but I think we have got to deal with this statute.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they could have five claims; and for each claim, they could have a 5-acre millsite.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to also quote from Section 2 from (30 U.S.C. 41) subsection (b) where it says again: ``Where nonmineral land is needed by proprietor of a placer claim for mining, milling, processing, benefication, or other operations in connection with such claim,'' and then I will insert at the right time the rest of this. But when we get down to the bottom line it says: ``No location made of such nonmineral land shall exceed five acres and payment for the same shall be made at the rate applicable to placer claims which do not include a vein or lode.'' So when we get to these two different types of claims, I understand what happened here. In the old days, they would go into the earth to get the minerals and would only need a small area, like 5 acres on top, in order to have a place to bring the minerals out and deal with them. But now with these open-pit mines, all of a sudden they have tremendous amounts of earth that have to be moved and they cannot possibly do it on 5 acres. So this limitation is a very serious one for this type of mining. But as I read the law, the law does limit them to 5 acres.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and the chairman and I also appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks about our work on this bill. I just wish that we could have left our work alone. Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River The upper Missouri River retains the historical character of the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1805-1806 and offers a diversity of natural and cultural resources, including T&E species habitat and riparian and recreational resources. It supports a wide variety of wildlife: raptors, songbirds and waterfowl; sports fish and the endangered pallid sturgeon; a wide variety of predators and prey; and big game animals. The acquisitions include several historic sites, as well as a large inholding of the Judith River, one of the last free- flowing rivers along the Missouri and a fully functioning riparian ecosystem.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to all of our colleagues who are back in their offices watching us on television that the first vote is going to be on the Slaughter-Horn amendment, and I very strongly urge them to support that. The second vote would be on the Stearns amendment, and I urge them to oppose that. I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her leadership of the Arts Caucus and her tremendous advocacy for the arts. I hope today we can turn around a tradition here that has been anti-art for several years and show the people of this country that Congress supports the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the numbers are very good, though, because that means that 269 districts do get money. And I do not believe those numbers are correct, and we will check on them for the gentleman from Florida. But even under the gentleman's math, a vast majority of these districts do get funding and support. Remember this, if we have the ballet in Seattle but it tours all over the State of Washington, it is benefited by that. So I would just suggest to the gentleman that there are some positive implications of this.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will remember in fiscal year 1995 there was $170 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Today, it is $98 million. The National Endowment for the Arts has been cut back dramatically by this Congress, by previous Congresses. I think that was a terrible mistake. The gentleman is right. There are many of us on this side who strongly support the National Endowment for the Arts, and we have today heard many more than just one on the other side who stood in this well and supported the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Now we are faced with the prospect of a cutting amendment, of .49 percent, which would mean a cut here of $470,000. So there is another chance if people feel compelled, and I will be opposing that amendment to make some modest cuts, but I also would say to the gentleman, since the revolution of 1994 this budget has been on hold, and inflation has already cut it by at least 8 or 9 percent over that 4-year period; and I think the gentleman understands how that works. Inflation, as my colleagues know, and then we keep it at a fixed level, and so the purchasing power of the money has eroded by at least 8 to 10 percent since 1994. So I think what we have heard today I think in this House is that there is strong support for the Endowment because it is doing a fine job, and it is helping bring the arts all over this country and there may have been a day when the arts were focused in New York and Chicago and some of the large cities. That is not true today. Get the list of the National Endowment grants in all of the communities of this country and my colleagues will see that the arts have proliferated. We have literally hundreds of ballets, hundreds of symphonies, hundreds of orchestras. I mean, there has been a revolution, and I would argue that that revolution was moved forward dramatically in 1965 when this Congress created the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. I think those were incredibly bold acts, and the private sector growth in funding has paralleled the creation of the endowments. The private sector looks at the National Endowment for the Arts as kind of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We do not pick these things, by the way. The government does not pick. We have panels that review all the applications. The panel system has worked brilliantly, I think, to help in supporting the arts around the country. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today and tell the Members that I think this is a mistake. Let us have a vote on the Slaughter amendment. Let us try to do the right thing, which is to increase funding for the arts, not decrease it. I think that there is a strong consensus in the House that because we have had no increase in 4 years, that the Slaughter-Horn $10 million increase is the appropriate direction. Let us not confuse this with the Stearns amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, what he would say, Mr. Chairman, is that we will find a better source in the conference for this.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned the name of Sid Yates, who for many years was chairman and then ranking member of this subcommittee. I have had the honor of trying to fill those very big shoes. I just wanted my colleague to know that, if Sid were looking at the TV today, Mr. Chairman, he would be in support of this amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of this amendment. I have done my very best to be faithful to what the subcommittee did, but I made it very clear in this process that I favored some increase in the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. I have served on this subcommittee for 23 years. I can remember in the early days when Livingston Biddle was chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, we had three major challenge grants out in Seattle, and in those days Seattle was just emerging in the arts. And those three challenge grants led to a tremendous Pacific Northwest Ballet, to the Seattle Art Museum, the Seattle Symphony. All of those institutions have become major performing arts institutions in our Nation. But particularly in the Northwest, it brought the arts at a very high level to these communities. And it also created jobs. Sometimes we forget that the arts and the humanities create jobs in our country, particularly when we think about the performing arts. I can remember the days when we had to fight to preserve this budget even at a 50-percent reduction. But I am pleased today to hear the bipartisan support that there is on this floor and the understanding about the importance of the arts and humanities to the American way of life. I can tell my colleagues, in my own hometown of Bremerton, Washington, our local community came together to restore the Admiral Theater, and our local symphony performs there and other arts institutions; and we have the touring arts groups that go over all our State. I believe that the Federal participation here, even though it is meager, is still very significant because it demonstrates to the American people and to the private sector that we in the Congress and at the executive branch support the performing arts, support the National Endowment for the Humanities. We have a school in Tacoma, Washington, Jason Lee School. Dale Chihuly is one of the world's renowned glass artists. There is an after-school program now where literally dozens of kids who would otherwise be on the streets or have nothing to do after school are involved in creating glass art. And these kids love it. I went up and I participated with them to see them actually involved in the creation of pots and various items that are important in terms of producing glass art. These kids enjoyed these programs. I think the police are correct when they say that, if we have programs like this for kids, they will not get in trouble. And these are things that the Endowment has supported, and youth education. I can remember being out with Jane Alexander in Garfield High School in Seattle and seeing the kids in the after-school program there involved in the creation of art and have them explain what they have created. It gave them something positive in their lives. I believe that these programs are very important. And I believe that for 4 years now we have not had any increase whatsoever. I am glad that we have reached a point where we are not trying to eliminate these programs, which would be dreadful. But my hope is that today we can show that we have gotten beyond this kind of reactive anti-approach to the arts and humanities and that we now support them. I want to compliment our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). He and I worked on language in several instances to try to get the Endowment to focus on quality, recognizing that we cannot fund everything, that we had to focus on quality to fund those projects which reach the highest levels of artistic and human expression. And by doing that, we have gotten away from some of the more controversial areas. That will always be a debate in the arts. But I think the committee has succeeded, and I think it has met some of the criticisms; but I think now it is time to show that there is still in this Congress a majority that will support this modest increase for the arts and humanities. They deserve it. The country deserves it. It will be wisely spent. Our kids will benefit from it. Our communities will benefit from it. And the American people support it.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have always been a strong proponent of historic preservation and preserving our communities. I would like to think that in my district, Tacoma, Washington, has been a hallmark of that with the Union Station restoration project and many others. We believe in this, and we are very supportive of it

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