Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's courtesy.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to discuss with the chairman the importance of funds for the National Marine Fisheries Service's Endangered Species Recovery Plan in this year's budget. I know the chairman is aware of the tremendous salmon problem facing the West Coast, including the proposed endangered species listing of West Coast salmon. It is my understanding that the administration requested an additional $7.3 million over last year's request specifically to address these listings on the West Coast by providing funds for planning and implementation of necessary protective actions for newly listed species of salmon. Is it correct that the committee was unable to provide the requested increases?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult and solemn time in the House of Representatives. It is a day in which our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the two heroic members of the Capitol Police force who lost their lives last Friday, Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. They were part of our family here in the House and all of us today are experiencing the emotions of a death in the family. These were well-liked and well-regarded men whose jobs it was to protect the institution of the House and the people who serve in it. And in protecting us, they sacrificed their lives to save the lives of many others working and visiting the Capitol building. Despite the many words expressed in the House and Senate today, there can be no tribute grand enough to express our true appreciation for the selfless actions of John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut. To their families, we owe a great debt of gratitude and we, as an institution, will never forget their placing their sense of duty above personal safety. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of this body will focus on the important messages that flow from this tragic incident. First, I believe it is important that we recognize how capable and well-trained the members of the Capitol Police Force are. We see them everyday in many of their diverse roles, but when called upon to respond quickly to life-threatening situations, the force reacted swiftly and superbly, preventing an even more tragic result. As we seek to learn the lessons of this incident, it is abundantly clear that the people in charge of the mission of protecting this Congress are indeed quite capable and well-trained. There may be security enhancements that can be accomplished to make this important public building even safer for the millions of visitors who come here each year. Certainly we must consider all the suggestions that flow from the thorough analysis of the shooting incident last week, including new physical protection measures and procedures that may guard against new and different threats here at the Capitol. Let me echo the sentiments of many of my colleagues here today, however, in expressing my personal hope that whatever security improvements may be implemented, they should preserve--to the greatest extent possible-- this building's character as the ``People's House,'' one which Americans from across the land can enter to view their representative government in action. Though we may be able to make the United States Capitol Building safer, I believe we should be careful to understand the actual and symbolic needs for access. There is perhaps another message here, Mr. Speaker, relevant to this individual who crashed through the security station at the East Front of the Capitol last Friday. While all of the facts and motivations may not be clear to us at this early time, the interviews of his family convincingly demonstrate that Russell Eugene Weston was unstable, with a long history of mental illness. I believe that this incident calls into question the way in which potentially dangerous mentally-unstable individuals are ignored until they cause harm to themselves or to others, and certainly this must cause some re-evaluation. If we are too quick to release mentally-ill individuals like this from institutions, we must at the same time recognize that the result will be additional challenges for law enforcement--though hopefully never with such a tragic result as occurred last Friday. So, Mr. Speaker, let me join all of my colleagues in bowing our heads in solemn memory of Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson today, and to remark that any honor we can bestow upon them will pale in relation to the sacrifice they have made for us.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, and I completely understand the gentleman's concern about proper authorization, nothing that we have done here would stop the authorization committees from going ahead and maybe correcting some of the problems that Mr. DeFazio has properly pointed out. But what I see based on our trip is that we have such a huge backlog of maintenance that needs to be done. The national parks are the crown jewels of this country, and in every park, the Olympic, Mt. Rainier National Park, the North Cascades, Yosemite, they have a backlog of work that totals billions and billions of dollars. For the first time we have gotten people used to the idea of a user fee, and that they ought to pay a little something when they visit the parks. A few people complained when the fee program first started. Now however, overwhelmingly, when they know we are on the level, when they know that 80 percent of that money is going back to their park, then they support this program. Also, Secretary Babbitt has asked for it to be extended. Secretary Glickman, our former colleague, has asked for it to be extended. We had the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), supporting the fee program. No one has done a better job of demonstrating concern for our parks than he has been. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been the champion on the Committee on Appropriations. We have all supported him. I think we ought to keep this program, and I urge the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to go ahead and work on any refinements to the authorization. The basic concept is solid, and the American people overwhelmingly support it. We have a lot of work to do. We have a chance here to stop the decline of the parks and start seeing them restored. This is a historic opportunity, and I urge that we stay with the committee position because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, I will be glad to work with all three gentlemen, my colleague the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and my two colleagues from the eastern side of the State of Washington. We still need to work something out in conference on this issue, regardless of what happens on the McDermott amendment. But I want you to know I am still willing to work with you all to see if we cannot work out something that makes sense. I do not want to see our bill get vetoed over this though. I would say to my colleague from Spokane, we cannot risk vetoing the bill. We have to work something out here.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just worry that if you do not work out something that gets everybody around that table and provides some leadership, you guys may have to go out there and sit down with these people and get this thing going in the right direction, because somehow you have to have a plan.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, they say is the plan that you have got sufficient to restore the Chinook salmon run, or is it sufficient to restore the steelhead run, or is it sufficient for the bull trout? If the scientist says no, the judge enjoins you, and then, instead of having the harvest rate up here at maybe 50 percent of what it was, you get enjoined, and then you have to come in and come up with a new plan. You will be back in Federal Court, they will demand you go out and have a plan for the entire area. Then when you have that plan developed, it will take you down further. I can remember when I stood up here and we could have gotten $2.5 billion in Region VI on the spotted owl, but the people said no, no, no, that is too much, we cannot do that, and they objected to the plan. We wound up with $1 billion in the whole region. So I just say to my friend from eastern Washington, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and I have been very hesitant not to get into this tonight, I just worry that if you do not have a strategy, if you are just going to leave it go to the local level, and I applaud, by the way, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) in support of the Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan, and, by the way, that is done under the Endangered Species Act. I think it is the ultimate tool. This is a tool Pacific Lumber is using in northern California. So I just worry that if we completely blow this up, that we wind up having nothing, and you leave yourself completely vulnerable to lawsuit after lawsuit that will wind up getting your forest. Instead of being at 50 percent, you will be down at 10 percent, like I am at the Olympic National Forest, a 95 percent reduction because the plan was implemented on a regional basis, top down, and we got killed. My people up there were very upset and offended by it.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, having suffered through the other side of the State and having seen the problems associated with that, I worry a little bit, I must say to my friend from Spokane, who I have worked with, and my friend from the Tri-Cities, who I have worked with, two of my colleagues, that the idea that you can just do this without some kind of a comprehensive strategy leaves you vulnerable to the lawsuit by the environmental action groups that you enjoin. They take the scientist in there and they put him under oath.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I will be very brief. It is time to vote. I just want to say that nothing that has happened here today in this appropriation bill stops or thwarts the gentleman from doing his job on the authorization committee. He does not have to come here and cry to the appropriators and cry to the Congress. He should just do his job; okay? That is all I am saying. The gentleman has a committee and they have said they will work with him. Go do the job. The problem we have got is, if we do not extend this thing at this juncture, then next year the thing will expire at the end of the fiscal year. What if we do not get the bill passed by the start of the fiscal year? We are going to have to stop doing these demonstrations all over the country? That would be utterly ridiculous. I think we should go forward and keep this program going. It is working. And let the gentleman and the authorizers do their job.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, the point is that if we wait until 1999 to do this, then we get to the end of the fiscal year. There would be uncertainty about whether we have the program or not. The thing that is good about having this now, is that we have established it and people are used to it. They have accepted it. Now we should not create uncertainty.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much. In fact, I was in the gentlewoman's State in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, one of the most beautiful places in the country, and we need to do a lot of good work there. But the point I was trying to make earlier, the gentlewoman is on the authorization committee, and there is nothing that we are doing here today that would stop the authorizers from making certain refinements in this program. And what I would urge the gentlewoman to do, with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), is for the authorizing committee to come up with whatever refinements are necessary to make this even a more acceptable program. The thing that I worry about is, it is the old adage, you pay for what you get. And if we want the parks to be stellar and world class, we are going to have to fix them up. We are way behind on maintenance. So I would really urge the gentlewoman to try to, in the gentlewoman's committee, and I know the gentlewoman is a leader in her committee, to try to help us refine this program, because we need it.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman. Is this a proposal by the Fish and Wildlife Service? Is that what I understand?

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the strong commitment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. And I do remember, I served on this committee now for 22 years under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) a time when we did have better funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Arts, and frankly, I think the need is out in the country, in Texas, in Washington State, in Ohio, in Illinois, in Oregon. Everywhere in the country there are needs for these resources. I hope, as we get back to a balanced Federal budget, which I think we will achieve at the end of this fiscal year, and as we go to the next Congress, hopefully those of us who return can continue to work to see if we cannot get a more reasonable level of funding. That is certainly my objective. We have had to deal with the realities of balanced budgets, and caps makes it difficult. But certainly, with the better future, with a balanced budget, I hope we can revisit this item, and I appreciate the leadership of the gentlewoman on these important issues.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to say that I join the chairman and say I want to work with him on this as well. We have got to get an answer on this. I have been a strong supporter of the K-V funds, which use of money for reforestation. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has made his point. We will see what happens on the amendment. But even if it does not succeed, I still think we have got to work on this. And I certainly am going to want to work with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and those who pledged to the gentleman in the well that we will come back with a substantive answer on this. I think the point is that we have got to fix this, it is broken.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), I hope to end this debate.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), whom I consider one of the experts on these issues in the House, let me give some of the information that we have received from the Forest Service for the benefit of our colleagues who are trying to learn about this. It says: Eliminating the K-V overhead indirect costs will have substantial repercussions for the agency. The indirect nonproject costs of the agency cannot be eliminated and support accomplishment of program work. Costs such as rent, utilities unemployment comp, and program supervision are necessary costs to support K-V accomplishments. According to the May 6, 1998, report on indirect charges in five funds, the K-V Fund paid for $51,169,000 in fiscal year 1997. As mentioned above, if K-V could not pay for these costs, the Forest Service's appropriated funds would have to be responsible for them. This would result in less program accomplishment in reforestation, timber stand improvement, wildlife, watershed improvements, and other appropriated resource areas. In addition, the plain language of the National Forest System Appropriation excludes general administrative support to funds such as K-V. Therefore, to charge appropriated funds would place the Forest Service in violation of its National Forest System Appropriations language on GA, and in violation of congressional intent, if not appropriation language on all other direct costs. So, I understand why we would like to preserve the funds, but we have to pay it somewhere. If we do not pay the indirect costs of the K-V out of the K-V Fund, then we will take money away from all of those other programs and things like timber stand reforestation improvement and wildlife, which the gentleman and I are both strong supporters of. How do we answer this?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the problem I have is the letter here from the Indian Health Service says one tribe will only get 39 percent of what it got last year. That is a 61 percent reduction.