Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I rise in support of H.R. 4 the Weldon-Spratt National Missile Defense bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill and urge my colleagues to support it. At the same time, I strongly support the amendment offered by Tom Allen, which was not allowed on the floor, which clarifies that we will not deploy a system unless we know that it works. The Allen amendment also makes clear that the readiness and Theater Missile Defense (TMD) of our troops is our top priority. We may have an opportunity to vote for this sensible alternative as a motion to recommit, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Even as we pass this bill we need to come clean with the American people. We have not been able to make National Missile Defense work, and at this time, we don't have a system to deploy. We are developing this system as fast as we can, in fact, we may be pushing the technology too hard. But significant challenges remain. We have experienced a series of failures with our medium-range THAAD system. If we can't even do THAAD, how are we going to do National Missile Defense, where the targets are much faster and much more sophisticated? The Army successful tested the shorter range PAC-3 missile defense system this week. And we all hope that THAAD will bet back on track with a successful test next month. But we shouldn't kid ourselves here. We have a long way to go to get a National Missile Defense system. Fortunately we have good people working on the problem. We should also be honest with the American people on what we are talking about deploying. This will not be the leak proof missile defense shield that Ronald Reagan dreamed of when he founded the Strategic Defense Initiative. We are no closer to achieving a leak proof defense against Russian missiles today than we were in 1983. Instead, we are developing a system designed to deal with the limited and relatively unsophisticated threats presented by countries like Iran and North Korea. I believe developing a defense against these threats is necessary and appropriate. And by voting for H.R. 4, Congress will signal its intent to deploy such a system if it works. But it will not change the fact that Russia, the old Soviet Union, maintains thousands of nuclear weapons, which they can launch against the United States at will. And for this reason, I cannot support those who advocate abandoning the ABM treaty which has been the cornerstone of strategic arms reduction. Deploying a National Missile Defense system will improve our national security, but nothing can compare to the importance of implementing START II, and negotiating a START III agreement with Russia. We should not abandon the ABM treaty in our haste to protect against the North Koreans of the world. Missile defense has proved to be a tough nut to crack. We have been trying to deploy a workable national missile defense system since the 1960's and have spent tens of billions of dollars, without success. This bill today signals that Congress is deadly serious about solving this problem. But it will not change the fact that national missile defense is difficult. And it should not push us to abandon arms reduction with the Russians.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution but I am going to oppose the rule because I think the Allen amendment should have been put in order. I wish we would have had an opportunity, like the Senate did, to take amendments on this important national security issue. Having said that, I do want to compliment my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and those people who have tried to work to make this into a bipartisan issue. I want to remind my colleagues, I have been on the Subcommittee on Defense for 21 years. I was there in 1983 when Ronald Reagan announced his effort to build a national missile defense system. I happen to believe that we always have to have defense priorities. My number one defense priority today is theater missile defense. When we deploy our troops in all these countries, whether they are in the Middle East or whether they are in Saudia Arabia, wherever they are, Bosnia, we want to be able to have a credible theater missile defense system in place. It was not until just this week that Patriot 3 had its first success. So as we come to this decision on national missile defense, I must point out to my colleagues that we still do not have the technology in place to deploy such a system, and that is why we are going to have to continue the research, continue to look at this on the year-by-year basis and, again, my hope is that the first thing we get done is theater missile defense to defend our troops. I do believe there is a threat out there and I do believe that warning times are less than they used to be and many countries are proliferating and building ballistic missiles. We are also going to have to work out a relationship with the Russians. This is not going to be accepted by them. We are going to have to negotiate with them. So hopefully, if we can deal with these issues, then we can go forward and have a system like this. I think we have to go into this with our eyes open.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on his statement. Mr. Speaker, we have some problems with the rules, but we definitely support the extension of the Cox Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, although I will be opposing the resolution establishing the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 106th Congress, I want to note for my colleagues my support for the provision which will extend for three months the life of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Select Committee in late December unanimously approved a lengthy classified report of its investigation of issues related to the transfer of United States technology to the PRC. As the Ranking Democrat of the Select Committee, I joined with Chairman Chris Cox in sending a copy of the report to the President with a request that it be expeditiously declassified. I want to underscore that the Select Committee's investigation is over. The extension provision makes clear that for the next three months, the Select Committee will be engaged solely in activities associated with the declassification and public release of the report. This will require a very small staff and no funds beyond some portion of those originally provided to the Select Committee, but neither obligated nor expended during the 105th Congress. I believe the House needs to have the Select Committee in place to facilitate the declassification process. I support the Select Committee's extension to serve that limited purpose.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I was home in my congressional district, I had the great pleasure of meeting a Washington State native who recently became the first American woman to sail singlehandedly around the world. In a heroic voyage that took her just over 2 years, Karen Thorndike fought off serious illness and the relentless elements of nature in circumnavigating the globe unassisted on her 33,000-mile journey. She set a remarkable example of perseverance and determination as she piloted her 36-foot yacht ``Amelia'' around the five great capes of the world: Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Cape Leeuwin, South East Cape of Tasmania, and South West Cape of New Zealand. I was proud to be in Port Angeles, WA, yesterday as the Mayor and City Council proclaimed October 19, 1998, as Karen Thorndike Day in honor of this courageous woman. It was a great day for Port Angeles, and I wanted to share with my colleagues in the House of Representatives the text of the proclamation that Mayor Gary Braun presented on behalf of the City Council, so that Karen Thorndike can serve as an example of courage, determination, and perseverance. Proclamation in Recognition of Karen Thorndike Day Whereas, Karen Thorndike, the first American woman to solo circumnavigate the world, is a native of Washington State; and Whereas, This American pioneer in her 36-foot yacht ``Amelia'', survived winds and waves of terror south of the five Great Capes of the world: Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Cape Leeuwin, South East Cape of Tasmania, and South West Cape of New Zealand; and Whereas, Karen Thorndike is only the seventh woman in the world to sail alone in open ocean around the globe; and Whereas, Karen Thorndike overcame serious illness off the Falkland Islands, and completed her historic journey of more than 33,000 nautical miles by returning to San Diego, California on August 18, 1998, two years and two weeks after departing San Diego; and Whereas, Karen Thorndike became a role model for youth and adults all over the world by her inspirational example of perseverance against the relentless elements of nature. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GARY BRAUN, Mayor, on behalf of the City Council of Port Angeles, do hereby proclaim October 19, 1998, to be ``Karen Thorndike Day'' in Port Angeles in recognition of her extraordinary journey in which she became the first American woman to solo circumnavigate the globe. Gary Bruan, October 19, 1998.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to support the passage of H.R. 4757 in the House of Representatives, which recognizes the many contributions made by our former colleague, Dante B. Fascell. This legislation names the University of Miami's North-South Center after Chairman Fascell, and I believe it is a tribute that is well- deserved and long overdue. Having served with Dante for 16 years, I know that Chairman Fascell was the driving force behind the creation of the North-South Center, which has been working for more than fourteen years to improve relations between the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. I think it only proper that the building he helped to erect at his alma mater, the University of Miami, should bear his name. Few members who have served during my tenure in the House have possessed the understanding and appreciation for the nuances of foreign policy as Dante Fascell did. His memorable leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee here in Congress is his legacy, particularly his strong views on U.S. policy toward Latin America and his deep concern for international human rights. And thus it is fitting that the North/ South Center will carry his name into the future, permanently recognizing the many contributions he has made. When he retired in 1992, Florida lost one of its finest Representatives, and the House lost one of its greatest statesmen. I wanted to take this opportunity today, now that the House has acted on the bill H.R. 4757, to express my appreciation to all of my colleagues who joined this effort.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the omnibus appropriations bill now under consideration. In my judgment, this legislation will address the important national priorities of military readiness, environmental protection, transportation, education, and foreign policy--priorities that I believe put our nation on the right path heading into the 20th century. However, I also have a number of concerns that are not addressed by these appropriations that I believe must be considered during the fiscal year 2000 budget and appropriations cycle. I strongly support the supplemental funding in the omnibus package that will be directed to military readiness and overseas operations. For quite some time I have been concerned about our troop readiness levels as well as the chronic shortages in spare parts, equipment overhauls, facility repairs, recruiting, and routine base operations. In fact, I have had several conversations recently with the base commanders at Ft. Lewis Army base near my district, and am told that readiness and training dollars are so scarce that soliders are mowing lawns and performing other civilian duties instead of training for combat. This is absolutely unacceptable. We have already cut defense by roughly one-third since the peak of the Reagan budget, yet our operational tempo--including the rate at which our soldiers, sailors and airmen are being deployed overseas--has not followed that downward trend. In fact, current OPTEMPO rates are at near-record highs for the 20th century. The additional funding included by the Congress in this legislation will help mitigate these problems in the near term. However, additional funding will be required in fiscal year 2000 and beyond in order to ensure a long-term solution to the serious readiness problems plaguing all branches of our Armed Forces. I am equally worried about the inadequacy of funding included for the modernization of our future fighting equipment. The Joint Chiefs have stated consistently over the past couple of years that the procumbent portion of the defense budget needs to be increased to roughly $60 billion annually in order to provide our troops with the weapons and equipment needed to address the military challenges of the next century. The procurement budget currently stands at just over $48 billion. The supplemental package does not include much funding for procurement--the exception being an additional $1 billion for missile defense. This is far short of what is needed to ensure that our fighting forces remain the best equipped in the world. I will continue to work with the administration and with my colleagues to ensure that additional monies are allocated for this priority. I also applaud the willingness of Congress to step forward and provide the necessary funding for the NATO-led stabilization force in Bosnia and for increasing funding for anti-terrorism activities including embassy security and reconstruction in response to the tragic events at United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya last August. Finally, as the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I also am strongly supportive of the additional funding included in this package for U.S. intelligence activities. This omnibus appropriations bill also contains important funding for environmental priorities that are critical to my state and district. To address the critical need of Washington State in confronting with the proposed listing of salmon and steelhead species under the federal Endangered Species Act, the appropriations for the Interior Department contains $20 million in aid. This federal appropriation adds to monies already appropriated by the state legislature to go directly to the Salmon Recovery Office of the Governor. By providing direct grants to tribes, local governments, and community groups, Washington can begin the important work of restoration and recovery activities to revive dwindling fish runs. The transportation provisions included in this omnibus appropriations bill will fund many important projects in Washington State, all of which have widespread support among our state congressional delegation. I am very pleased with the $54 million in funding for the Puget Sound region's ambitious mass transit program, called Sound Transit. Most of this total is for commuter rail, which will begin service between Tacoma and Seattle at the end of next year. Traffic jams have become far too commonplace in the Puget Sound region, and this investment will provide substantial relief from this problem. I also am very pleased with the continued funding for three important transportation projects in the district I represent: the Tacoma Dome Station, Bremerton's Transportation Center and the International Gateway Center in Port Angeles. These projects are critical to economic development in these areas which all suffer from a myriad of problems, including high unemployment and poverty. I do not think that anyone can discuss this bill without mentioning the important provisions regarding the education of our children. This legislation contains $1.2 billion for an important new program proposed by the President and congressional Democrats to help school districts hire and train 100,000 new teachers over the next seven years. Washington will receive almost $20 million. We all have read the studies that show that kids learn better in small classes. I am very pleased that Congress is finally taking steps to help local school districts--especially the poorest in our country--to begin to make this happen. Many of my colleagues know how important the Impact Aid Program is to me and to the many men and women in my district that serve in our country's armed forces. This program, which provides federal dollars directly to school districts that serve the children of our uniformed service personnel, is needed to bring these districts up to the same funding level per student as non-impacted schools. I am happy that the agreement provides an additional $56 million for this program. Although the $864 million does not reach the authorized level of funding, it does provide the minimum need for each participating school district-- the first time this has been done in many years. There is one noticeable omission from this bill; there are no funds included for school construction. I frequently visit the school districts in my congressional district when we are not in session. Some of them are very nice. Many, however, are in shameful states of disrepair, without adequate lights, heat, plumbing, and wiring. At the same time, enrollments are rapidly increasing. I believe that this bill should have included funds to help school districts to address these problems, and I am disappointed that the majority party refused to accept sensible provisions in this regard during this negotiations. Next year, I hope to work with my colleagues to ensure that Congress does not ignore this critical need. My district and the entire State of Washington are heavily dependent on trade. In fact, one in every four jobs in my state are dependent on trade--especially with Pacific Rim countries like Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan. The financial crisis that these Asian nations are undergoing has already had a serious effect on the economy of my state through reduced exports, and this trend threatens to continue unless we work with these countries and relevant international organizations to lessen its effect. Because of these concerns, I support the inclusion of credit in this bill to replenish the International Monetary Fund so that it may continue its work to help these Asian nations resolve their economic problems and to continue to buy American goods. I am also glad that strong language was adopted requiring the IMF to make necessary reforms with regard to fairness, transparency, and to the conditions that the IMF places on nations that seek to borrow funds. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the bill includes a small but important clarification in law that was related to a provision adopted in the Defense authorization bill earlier this year. Though it was not the intention of Congress to complicate the export of commercial aircraft and spare parts, the language of a broad prohibition on the export of missile-related technology to China contained sufficient ambiguity that it could have jeopardized the sale of Boeing aircraft to one of America's largest export markets. With the passage of this omnibus appropriations act an important clarification will eliminate this ambiguity and assure that one of the top United States exporters, employing more than 200,000 United States workers, will be able to compete on equal footing in the Chinese market with other worldwide aircraft manufacturers. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by stating that I recognize that this bill does not have the answers to all of the problems that currently face our country. But it is, in my judgment, a good-faith effort to solve many of them, and because of this, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman for outstanding leadership on this issue. I am very pleased to have been a cosponsor of his legislation. I think this is one of the best things this Congress has done. I want to commend the gentleman for the great leadership that he has demonstrated. George Bush was a great American and I think this was an outstanding idea. I want to congratulate him on his leadership.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) who has been one of our most outstanding members.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is also leaving the committee. She has been one of the most outstanding Members I think of the House, both on the Committee on National Security and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and she will be sorely missed in the next Congress. She has done an outstanding job on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, she is a quick learner, and I am going to miss her service.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), my colleague and a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank the distinguished chairman and we want to welcome him back, although this has been a difficult time for he and his family. We are certainly glad to hear the positive news about his wife, Mariel. I want to say that I appreciate his kind remarks. It has been a great pleasure to serve on this committee for eight years, and we have had bipartisan cooperation. I do not think there has ever been a time when we have not come to this floor unified behind the intelligence bill, and I think that is good. This is one area where partisanship should not be a part. It should be only how do we get the best intelligence for the American people. Mr. Speaker, the goal of any conference committee should be to produce an agreement that improves the bills submitted to it. I believe the conference on the intelligence authorization for fiscal year 1999 achieved that result, and I urge the adoption of the conference report. I am especially pleased that the conferees were willing to reconsider earlier legislative recommendations which I believe would have negatively impacted the ability to collect reliable and timely intelligence through our national technical means. Make no mistake about it, had these recommendations gone forward, the consequences would have been felt for years, primarily by those whose responsibility it is to ensure that United States military forces operate with maximum efficiency and minimum casualties. The conferees did not, however, fully resist the temptation to unduly encumber highly complex programs, particularly new ones, with directives which I believe were unwise in terms of constraining the flexibility of those who are supposed to manage these programs. Congressional oversight should be vigorous and constant, but it should be reasonable as well. I am concerned that we are prematurely forcing technical programs into a budgetary straitjacket that will force them to either satisfy fewer requirements, or to become operational much later than necessary. We must never lose sight of the fact that congressionally imposed restraints on the development of intelligence collection programs can have real effects on the Nation's security. The conference report contains a resolution of a matter on which the House and Senate intelligence committees have worked for some time, the means by which intelligence community employees can bring significant information to the attention of the intelligence committees. In perhaps no other aspect of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches is the Congress as dependent on information from the object of its oversight as it is in the area of intelligence. We can simply not do our job if the intelligence agencies are not forthcoming with information, the bad as well as the good. We must know that impediments do not exist which would prevent intelligence community employees from bringing important information to the attention of the Intelligence committees. I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for crafting an alternative means by which to assist and encourage employees who have significant information in bringing it to Congress, and the leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee for raising an important issue and insisting that it be addressed. Mr. Speaker, we should be proud of the fact that even in the chairman's absence we had a spirited debate on this subject, but the chairman prevailed, so his deft hand and good work were felt, but were felt properly. The job that the chairman did in crafting this legislation and refining it was exemplary, and I commend him for it. My service on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence saw the successful prosecution of the Persian Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. It also saw greater proliferation of technologies associated with weapons of mass destruction, protracted ethnic conflicts, the possibility of information warfare, and persistent terrorist threats. I have been continually impressed in my eight years on the committee by the need of our policymakers and military commanders for reliable and timely intelligence. I wish at times they had made better use of the intelligence available to them. To stay ahead in the collection, analysis, processing, and dissemination of actionable intelligence is admitedly costly. The authorization levels in this conference report exceed the President's request by less than one percent. The amount authorized is substantial, but I am concerned it may not be enough. We must insist that intelligence activities be pursued with efficiency, that funds provided be used wisely and well. We would make a mistake, in my judgment, however, if we did not invest enough in intelligence, and thereby risked our Nation's preeminence in this area. I hope in the years to come we will be able to devote more resources to this critical underpinning of our security. Mr. Speaker, I commend the conference agreement to the House, and recommend its approval. I, too, want to compliment the staff of the committee. I think the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been well served by having an outstanding staff. Mike Sheehy has been the director on our side, and I want to thank him and all the members of the Democratic staff for the outstanding work they have done, especially for me over the last four years as the ranking member. I also want to thank the majority staff; they have done an outstanding job. I think maybe our finest hour was on the question of encryption, an issue which still has not been resolved, but I must say that I felt very proud of the fact that we had a strong majority vote out of our committee. I think we sent a very powerful message about the importance of this technology, and of the challenge that law enforcement and our intelligence agencies have in dealing with it, and why it is so important for this Congress to be very, very careful how we proceed so we do not undermine law enforcement and national security. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman again for his kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), another one of our most distinguished colleagues. He has been one of the hardest working members on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He has made an enormous contribution in this House. I have had the privilege of serving with him on the Committee on Appropriations. I think of him as kind of the conscience of the House of Representatives, and I am going to very much miss him next year, and I want to wish him the very best in his future endeavors. I know he will be a success wherever he goes.

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

Mr. DICKS. It is my understanding that this bill was taken up in the Senate yesterday. If that is true, can there be a motion to recommit?

Mr. DICKS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to also add my congratulations to Calvin Humphrey who has been one of our most outstanding staff people. I want to congratulate him on the great job he has done for our committee. He has handled some of the most difficult assignments. He had to travel with Congressman Richardson all over the world. Together, they got many American citizens out of tight spots around the world. The only thing I have ever had a problem with Calvin on is his devotion to the Cleveland Indians even when they kept my Seattle Mariners out of the World Series. That I may not be able to forgive him for, but I will never forget him. We wish him well in his new post.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have now been informed by staff that the bill was not taken up yesterday, so I withdraw my objection.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join my colleagues here in the House chamber today to honor and pay tribute to our good friend Joe McDade of Pennsylvania. I certainly share many of the sentiments that have been expressed today from the members of the Pennsylvania delegation, noting the enormous contributions Joe has made to the state and to the 10th District. His legacy there will be monumental. But I would also like to remark that his contributions extend far beyond the boundaries of the State of Pennsylvania. I have worked with him on the Appropriations Committee since I entered Congress in 1977, and have come to appreciate his sincere interest in improving the lives of others, preserving our national heritage, and in maintaining a strong national defense. I have served with Joe on the Defense and Interior Appropriations Subcommittees, and I want to express my gratitude for his insight and his counsel in these two areas. Joe has been a forceful advocate for maintaining military readiness and for providing our armed forces with the most modern and most efficient weaponry. He has worked with members on both sides of the aisle in defining our defense priorities and in overseeing the proper expenditure of the nation's defense budget. And on the Interior Subcommittee I have been proud to work with him on a host of public lands issues over the years. In particular, though, I have appreciated his deep concern and support for the National Park Service. He is a member who has taken the time to learn the problems confronting the parks, which have struggled to maintain quality during a time of dramatic increases in visitor attendance. He has become personally invested in helping the Park Service carry on the legacy for future generations, and my constituents who treasure three great National Parks in Washington, are among the millions of our citizens who have benefitted from his work. In this session of Congress, I have appreciated all of his help on the important water and power issues that affect the western states most especially. As chairman of the Energy & Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee he has always been open to our views and sympathetic to our issues. And finally it is important to note as this session of Congress concludes and as Joe McDade completes his 18th term in office, how much he will be missed because of the style and the manner in which he approached his work here in the House. He was always the gentleman, always one who was willing to find a way to work out problems and to get things done in a way that, to some, may seem old fashioned. His friendly approach has been an endearing quality, and I know I can speak for many here in the House today in saying how much we will miss these qualities here in this chamber.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the reasons that the leadership has brought this legislation to the floor this afternoon. Both sides of this debate--and both parties--know very well that there are not enough votes to pass this bill today, a bill that I believe is extremely important for the future of our country. Rather, this legislation is being used as a political tool with the sole purpose of trying to embarrass the President. I believe that this is wrong, and I think that the leadership on the other side should have worked with the Administration in good faith to gain the votes to pass this bill instead of using such an important and inflammatory political issue simply for partisan gain. Despite the actions of the other side, I support reextending fast track negotiating authority to the President for certain trade agreements. I believe that this authority is necessary to ensure that the United States remains a global leader on free trade, and to enable the President to continue to work to open foreign markets to American goods. Trade is critical to Washington state, which is our nation's leader in per capita goods exports. In fact, one in every four jobs in my state is directly or indirectly dependent on exports--almost 740,000 people--and this figure is expected to increase to one in three by 2005. These are not low wage service jobs that have been generated from the growth of trade in my state. These are high-wage jobs--jobs that pay 46 percent more than the overall state average. We are talking about thousands of union Machinists making airplanes at the Boeing Company, we are talking about software developers at Microsoft, we are talking about mill workers that fabricate aluminum at Kaiser, chip makers at Intel, and workers at Weyerhaeuser that produce lumber and wood products for export. Trade is not just important to big companies; in my state, there are many more small businesses than big ones that depend on international trade. There are many small companies that supply machine and airplane parts that go into the aircraft that we sell overseas, thousands of farmers that grow apples and wheat, and countless small, family-owned mills that process timber and sell the products in Asian and other overseas markets. Fast track negotiating authority is critical to the continued prosperity of the Pacific Northwest. A second Information Technology Agreement, one of the Fast Track priorities of this Administration, is important for the many high tech companies in the Puget Sound area. Further negotiations on intellectual property, a principal negotiating objective of the bill, will also help these companies to fight software piracy, which costs the industry billions of dollars each year. Future agricultural agreements will also help open markets for Washington's farmers. Many Fast track opponents are arguing that the only reason for considering this bill at all is to enable the President to expand NAFTA to Chile and beyond. In actuality, negotiating a comprehensive trade agreement with Chile--a more economically developed country than Mexico--is only a small part of the Administration's trade agenda. This agenda also includes expanding current trade agreements to achieve reduced foreign tariffs on U.S. high technology products and services (some of which currently exceed 30 percent), greater protection of American intellectual property, improved access to foreign government procurement activities, and elimination of barriers against U.S. agricultural products. With 30 percent of our recent economic growth tied to exports, and these export-related jobs paying between 13 to 16 percent more than the average national wage, it is imperative that we actively pursue trade agreements that open foreign markets to America's products and services. It is important not to forget that more than 95 percent of the world's population lives outside the United States. Mr. Speaker, despite my dissatisfaction with the reasons for which this legislation is under consideration today, I will vote in favor of the bill. In my judgment, fast track negotiating authority is too important to my district, my state, and my country for me not to support it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues today to bid farewell to my good friend, Congressman Vic Fazio of California, whose departure from this institution will certainly be a great personal loss for all of us and for the House itself. Having known Vic since his election to Congress in 1978, I have appreciated many things about our service together. But most of all Vic has impressed me as a member who deeply cares about the integrity of this institution, and about the people who serve here. He has been a ``member's member,'' in the sense that he has always tried to represent the very best of Congress and to stand up for the institution against the criticisms that have come our way, particularly in recent years. Vic Fazio and I have served on the Appropriations Committee during his time here in the House, and I have appreciated his help and support on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, where he has always taken a balanced approach to the many difficult power and resource issues that affect the Western States most particularly. He has been a valuable ally on several issues of importance to my constituents, and I have counted on his help and his support. Vic has also been a member who has always had a clear sense of direction for the Democratic Party in the House, serving as the Caucus Chairman and speaking out strongly in support of the causes and positions that form the foundation of our party's political philosophy here in this chamber. He is able to communicate from the very soul of our Democratic Party, and we will all miss his spirit, his leadership, and certainly his friendship. As he leaves this body and ends a 33-year career in public service, I think it is important for the Members of the House to pay tribute to Vic Fazio who has represented the very best ideals of our institution and who has truly been a model public servant.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I am sure I do not need to tell the chairman how vital these salmon stocks are to the States of Washington, Oregon and California. Currently we are working together on a recovery strategy, but we desperately need the Federal assistance. I can assure the gentleman that all three of our States will make the necessary sacrifices as well by matching any Federal funds. I respectfully ask the chairman if he will pledge to work with me and the other Members from my region to address the needs of our region as the bill moves to conference?