Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one point I would make is that the Fish and Wildlife Service, as the gentleman knows, has been called upon here with an incredible number of habitat conservation plans all over the country, but particularly in the Pacific Northwest, California.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a copy of the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I reserve a point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection on this side.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and to engage the author of the amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), in a colloquy. I would like to ask the gentleman from California if he could help me clarify his amendment. Is it the gentleman's intention that his amendment apply only to appropriations for direct construction of timber access roads and not to any of the necessary planning, engineering, management, and support activities conducted by the agency?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the amendment is written to specifically target only appropriations for direct construction of timber access roads, I am pleased to support it. What I believe the gentleman is trying to accomplish is codification of the language already contained in the interior appropriations report on this matter. For clarification, this amendment addresses the issue of appropriations for direct construction of timber access roads and does not affect the other necessary planning, engineering, management, and support activities of the Federal land management agencies. It will also not reduce or prohibit any funding which enables the agency to comply with necessary environmental regulations such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record information regarding the Urban Park and Recreation Fund. The following is according to the fiscal year 2000 budget justification submitted by the National Park Service in support of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program: Urban Park and Recreation Fund Funding provided in the past has also contributed to the development of programs and projects such as the innovation project established in Tacoma, Washington. The goals of this innovative project were to provide at-risk youth alternatives to gangs and drugs through participation in outdoor recreation activities, and to develop life skills such as self-esteem, leadership, decision-making, and cooperation. The program was designed to operate as an extensive partnership involving professionals from the disciplines of parks and recreation, education, city government, social services and criminal justice. It was designed to operate year-around with expanded activity during the summer months and over extended holiday periods. Youth participants were involved through various avenues such as schools, home school associations, youth service agencies and neighborhood community centers. The program has provided various activities such as backpacking in Olympic National Park; white water rafting on the Thompson River in British Columbia; cross-country skiing in Mount Rainier National Park; winter camping, inner-tubing and snow shoeing in various winter sports areas; water safety instruction; fishing, canoeing, boating and swimming, mountain biking on designated State and Federal lands; weekly environmental education and outdoor skills workshops; leadership training for advanced youth participants; and youth hosteling and meeting travelers from around the world. The Tacoma program blossomed, leveraged other sources of funding and continues today as a model partnership program involving schools, government, criminal justice, social service and park and recreation agencies. It has since expanded to the adjacent community of Enumclaw, Washington. New partnerships have been formed with agencies such as Faith Group Homes and the Pierce County Juvenile Courts Probated Youth Program. This Tacoma program has received national recognition and was featured at a February 1995 invitational colloquium at Fort Worth, Texas, titled ``Recreation for At- Risk Youth: Programs that Work,'' sponsored by the National Park and Recreation Association.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman. I mean, we have I think been very tight in terms of these increases. We have tried to hold them down. And we are talking about the management of the Department of the Interior, which is an agency that we demand a lot of. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior, his office, are under tremendous pressure on a whole series of fronts. I mentioned to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) earlier, just the work that is being done today with all the very important habitat conservation plans that require input from the Secretary, they have got all the tribal account problems that we have been trying to get straightened out; and I just think that we are within our allocation. We have cut a lot of accounts here. This is one that I hope that we could spare. And I agree with the chairman that this is something we ought to continue to look at as we go into the conference. So I urge a ``no'' vote unless the gentleman wants to withdraw his amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important here for the Members to hear the language that is in the bill that the gentleman from Missouri seeks to strike. It says: Section 1006. Budgeting For Operations In Yugoslavia. (a) In General. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the authorizations of appropriations in this act may be used for the conduct of combat or peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Now, the gentleman from Missouri wants to strike that language, and I think every Member of this House should want to strike that language. I am on the Committee on Appropriations. It is not easy to get a supplemental appropriations bill through the Congress, and it may take us extra time to do it. We have had supplementals that get stalled for weeks. I just think that to have an amendment like this that basically says we do not support either our troops in combat or our troops in peacekeeping is a mistake. But this one really bothers me. We should strike this out of here. We know we are going to have our Marines going into Kosovo to conduct a peacekeeping mission, and all the legislative strategists on the other side there may say, well, but we will get a supplemental that will then do it, but we really do not support it because we passed this amendment. Why do we not strike this thing out so it removes any ambiguity about our support for our troops in the field? That is what is wrong with this. It sends this mixed message that somehow we are not really for this and, therefore, we are going to come up with language that says we do not support either combat or peacekeeping. Now, I do not see why we have to have this in this. This war is over. The peace is about to be established, and I think the Skelton amendment should be passed overwhelmingly; should be accepted by the majority.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point I am making, I would like to see us say, Mr. President, send up a supplemental to take care of the peacekeeping and the combat because we support the effort; not saying we do not support it, or no money shall be spent on it. It is not a positive way of dealing with the problem.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make, and I would like to hear the gentleman from South Carolina respond to it, if in fact the Committee on Appropriations appropriated money for Kosovo, that money would be subjected on the floor of the House, according to the Parliamentarian, to a point of order because it would lack authorization. So to say that this does not have any impact I believe is incorrect. And in fact our committee has put money in the appropriations bills for various peacekeeping operations before, so that it would not be taken out of readiness, which is the same thing that the gentleman from South Carolina wants to do. I understand that good people here can have a differing view of this, and I certainly respect the gentleman's perspective on this. But I do believe that this amendment, if it is enacted, anybody in this House could stand up on the floor unless a rule were enacted and object on a point of order and the money in the appropriations bill would be stricken. So I do not think we should take that risk. I think we should vote for the Skelton amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think this would be a very major mistake on the part of our country to reduce by 75 percent our force structure in Europe. The reason we are in Europe is because it is in our national security interests to be in Europe. I believe the force structure we have there adds to stability in the area. I would like to mention a few reasons why the Department of Defense opposes this. The proposed legislation is contrary to current guidance articulated in the national security strategy and force level recommendations in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. The 1997 National Military Strategy states that current force structure and overseas presence posture are the minimum, minimum, force capabilities required to execute military responsibilities. Without detailed analysis of current and future requirements, it is impossible to determine if the existing force structure is adequate to accomplish our task. There is also a possibility that such a study may recommend force reductions based on changes in priorities and objectives. The current U.S. overseas presence posture in Europe serves a number of critical concerns. First of all, as I mentioned, is regional stability. As evidenced by operations in the Balkans, regional stability in Europe is not a given. Eastern Europe in particular may see an increase in the number of failed and failing states, rogue actors and non-state entities that will threaten European stability as a whole. U.S. forces serve as both a bulwark to existing security agreements and a deterrent to opportunistic aggression in the region. The credibility of this deterrent capability must be unquestioned in the eyes of those who would threaten our interests in the region: major U.S. staging areas, as we have seen in this operation, for EUCOM, CENTCOM, PACOM areas of responsibility. The proximity of U.S. forces to critical regions outside of Europe improves our capability to respond to crisis. The presence of U.S. forces in Europe serves to enhance deterrence and provide secure locations from which U.S. forces can operate in central Asia, southwest Asia, and south Asia. Just for example, I was in England at Fairford to see our B-52 pilots and our B-1B pilots and KC-135s operating out of that area. Now, you have got to have these four deployed bases and U.S. forces there in order to be able to move forces from the United States to a place like Fairford and then into the area of responsibility in Yugoslovia. The fact that we have these troops forward based, in my mind, is exactly the right thing to do, because they can train in the area of responsibility and they add stability to the area. So I think this is a very drastic amendment and it should be, as it always has been in the past, overwhelmingly defeated by this House. Mr. Chairman, I include the following information paper for the Record. Information Paper Subject: Amendment Number 16 by Representative Shays mandates a phased reduction of European overseas presence force structure from current levels by 75% at the end of fiscal year 2002. DoD Position: Oppose. Proposed legislation is contrary to current guidance articulated in the National Security Strategy and force level recommendations in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. The 1997 National Military Strategy states that current force structure and overseas presence posture are the minimum force capabilities required to execute military responsibilities. Without detailed analysis of current and future requirements, it is impossible to determine if the existing force structure is adequate to accomplish our taskings. There is also a possibility that such a study may recommend force reductions based on changes in priorities and objectives. Talking Points: The current U.S. overseas presence posture in Europe serves a number of critical concerns: Regional stability: As evidenced by operations in the Balkans, regional stability in Europe is not a given. Eastern Europe in particular may see an increase in the number of failed and failing states, rogue actors, and non-state entities that will threaten European stability as a whole. U.S. forces serve as both a bulwark to existing security agreements and a deterrent to opportunistic aggression in the region. The credibility of this deterrent capability must be unquestioned in the eyes of those who would threaten our interests in the region. Major U.S. staging area for EUCOM, CENTCOM, and PACOM AORs. The proximity of U.S. forces to critical regions outside of Europe improves our capability to respond to crises. The presence of U.S. forces in Europe serves to enhance deterrence and provides secure locations from which U.S. forces can operate in Central Asia, Southwest Asia, and South Asia. NATO Leadership and commitments. The stability of the NATO alliance is a vital U.S. national interest as stated by both the President and Secretary of Defense. The presence of sizable U.S. forces in theater is a visible demonstration of our commitment to NATO. The United States would abrogate its leadership role and significantly reduce its influence on the shape of European security were we to sizably reduce our presence in Europe. Partnership for Peace. As with NATO, the U.S. plays a vital leadership role in the Partnership for Peace (PfP). By increasing transparency and mutual understanding among Partners, PfP contributes immeasurably to stability in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Because U.S. forces based in Europe routinely engage with Partner nations, they constitute the vanguard of a larger effort to build confidence and enhance security among PfP member nations. Reassurance to Europeans in the event of Russian resurgence or instability. The future of Russia is uncertain. Economic and political instability remain a critical concern to European and U.S. security. A significant reduction in U.S. forces in Europe could contribute to further instability on the continent. Integrated regional approach (complementing other U.S. elements of power). Military forces help to establish the conditions of peace and security that enable the application of other elements of power. We remain economically and politically committed to Europe. A significant reduction of our overseas presence would diminish our capacity to develop and implement a comprehensive regional approach. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The presence of U.S. forces overseas as a demonstrable commitment of U.S. resolve and leadership bolsters the effectiveness of international institutions like OSCE. Finally, allies in other regions may see a large reduction of forces in Europe as a precursor of a more broad-scale withdrawal and the beginnings of a more neo-isolationist U.S. policy. This would serve to decrease our global influence and may encourage aggression elsewhere.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would just point out that I think there is a problem, because it could well be that the Committee on Appropriations would appropriate money for the Kosovo peacekeeping, for this operation. If you have not authorized it, it would be subject to a point of order on the floor of the House. So the lack of authorization would have an impact.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. It is almost as if they just cannot cope with the fact that Bill Clinton, President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, the head of the free world and NATO, has put together this coalition to stop this terrible ethnic cleansing. And I understand some of the arguments that are made but the bottom line is that it has worked. We are on the verge of establishing the peace. Yet we are here voting on whether we are going to cut off the money for the operation. In my whole career, I have not seen anything more ludicrous than this.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I very reluctantly rise in opposition to the Ryun amendment. I want to commend the gentleman for his work on this issue. He was an early proponent of tightening security at DOE, and his realization of the problems there have been proven correct. We attempted in the drafting of the original Dicks amendment to address the problems he identified and, to a large measure, we were successful. The Dicks-Ryun amendments are now almost identical except for one major point. However, in my view, this point is a major difference. I must reluctantly oppose his amendment. The Ryun amendment, like the Cox/Dicks amendment, imposes a moratorium on foreign visitors to the dose national laboratories. But under the Ryun amendment, this moratorium would extend for at least 2 years, regardless of whether or not all possible security measures needed to protect the labs are in place. This is a serious concern to me because Ed Curran, chief of counterintelligence at DOE, assures me that it will not take that long to fix the problems at the labs. Frankly, I do not think the House could accept any answer from DOE that said it would take 2 years to fix these problems. To let problems continue for that long once they have been identified would be totally unacceptable. Because the Ryun moratorium would last well after the amount of time needed to fix the problem, I am concerned that it will actually reduce the incentive for DOE to react quickly. I believe the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) will slow down the improvement of security at DOE. The Cox/Dicks amendment already adopted by the House provides ample time for congressional oversight of DOE's changes to security at the labs, and it provides DOE the incentive to act quickly. I urge Members to oppose the Ryun amendment. I just want to underline, our amendment is in place until the director, Mr. Curran, and the director of the FBI certify to the president, to the Congress, to the DOE that they have a security program in place. Then there will be 45 days of congressional review after that to make certain we agree with that. But to put a 2-year lock on this thing, as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) does, will undermine any incentive to act quickly, which is what we want. We want Richardson, Curran, and Freeh out there implementing this program as quickly as possible. I do not think the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) intended this. I think it is an unintended consequence, but I think it really undermines our effort to get a quick solution to this problem.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the B-2 did very well over there, by the way, in Kosovo.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure we have this understood here. Nothing happens. There is a moratorium until Ed Curran, the new Director of Counterintelligence, certifies that we now have in place an effective counterintelligence program. Then, under the Cox-Dicks amendment you would have 45 days, and Congress would then have a chance to review it. So you would have 60. But this is 60 days after the new head of counterintelligence certifies that we have an effective plan in place. Why would we want to keep it on for two years after that? That does not make any sense.

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