Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. No, that is not true.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this to my friend from California. We had a major debate a few years ago on the Riggs amendment. I stood up and urged that the company develop a multi-specie habitat conservation plan. Now, they negotiated for 2 years with the Federal Government. This is the most difficult negotiation that I can think of. I think the standards here are the highest in the entire country, including some of the standards that are developed in Washington State and are going to be imposed in this agreement. So I think the company, the Pacific Lumber Company, has been acting in complete good faith, and I would just hope that the legislature in California would provide the resources that they have committed from the State in order to bring this together. If anybody thinks that the standards here of a multi-specie agency are not really high, they just do not understand what is required under the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), who, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), have been two of the people who worked the hardest to try to bring their vision of reform to the National Forest system, to ensure sustainability, to ensure the fact that timber roads are built properly, that we have the highest environmental standards and that we improve these roads and protect our natural heritage. I regret very much that the gentleman and I have not always seen eye to eye, but I regret the fact he is not going to be with us next year. I have enjoyed working with the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think it is almost miraculous that they made it, and I hope that we can put this together, because I think it is a good agreement.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the decision of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) to withdraw this amendment. I think that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Washington, the gentlewoman from Oregon, we all share a common goal, and that is a sustainable forest policy. Mr. Chairman, I held the first watershed restoration conference in the Pacific Northwest, the Vice President attended, to try and help work with the administration as they spent $1.2 billion over 5 years to try and not only implement Option 9, but to help the communities in this region that had been hurt by the decision to dramatically reduce. I can remember, as can the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, when we harvested around 4 billion board feet. That is now down to less than a billion board feet. That I think is about a 75 or 80 percent reduction. The National Timber Program has been reduced from 10 billion board feet down to 3.5 billion board feet. So I think there has been a recognition on the part of the Congress that what we were doing was not sustainable. Now we have the job, the daunting challenge to deal with some of the problems, one of which the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture laid on us this year, that we need to do road maintenance repair work of about $10 billion. So, we have got serious problems out there. And I compliment the gentlewoman from Oregon for her persistence and her judgment. We have not always agreed on every single issue, but we have agreed on many. And I think that my hope here is that we can work together, that we can end an era of confrontation and bring people together, work out reasonable solutions from the grassroots up and restore these ecosystems, restore these watersheds, restore these salmon runs. That should be our goal. And the gentlewoman's support for the fish has been probably the hallmark of her career, and that is something that we all agree upon.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman mentions Seattle, Washington, I wanted to point out that in the past, funding 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 round 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; whitewater rafting on the Thompson River in British Columbia; cross-country skiing in Mount Ranier National Park; winter camping, inner-tubing and snow shoeing in various winter sports areas; water safety instruction; fishing, canoeing, boating and swimming, mountain packing on designated State and Federal lands; weekly environmental education outdoor skills workshops, leadership training for advanced youth participants and youth hosteling and meeting travelers from around the world. I have listened carefully to my chairman, and it seems to me for this small investment if we can do and provide more opportunities for kids after school to be in programs like this, and if the Park Service can play a role in this, I certainly support the gentleman from California. I will work as hard as anyone on the backlog, but if we have got $80 million sitting in a trust fund and the chairman can get $78 million of it for the backlog and we can get $2 million for this urban recreation thing, I think that is the kind of program the American people support. It is prevention of crime that we should be focusing on, and having some opportunities out there through this bill seems to me to be a good idea. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. DICKS. But, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, why does the gentleman not, for the gentleman's diligence and good work, at least give him the $2 million?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we will go right back to the start of the bill after we finish this?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a brief moment?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment that will be offered in a few minutes to provide full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts at the level of $98.5 million and urge my colleagues to join me in casting an important vote in support of the Nation's arts programs. As a member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations for 22 years, I have been privileged to work closely with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and other supporters over the years to ensure the survival of the National Endowment for the Arts. The National Endowment for the Arts is a critical institution for our Nation. This important organization has served as a catalyst for the expansion of arts institutions throughout our Nation. The NEA is responsible for building the cultural infrastructure of our country. Over the last 30 years, the NEA has nurtured a healthy infrastructure of cultural institutions in order to better serve the unique needs of each community. In 30 years, the number of State arts councils increased from 5 to 56, the number of local arts councils grew from 600 to 3,800, the number of orchestras increased from 110 to 230, the number of nonprofit theater companies increased from 56 to 425, the number of dance companies grew from 37 to 450, and the number of operas grew from 27 to 120. Since its creation in 1965, the NEA has awarded over 100,000 grants, and less than 40 have been considered to be controversial. It is estimated that the endowment cost each American just 64 cents a year. However, with this modest investment, the agency helps enhance the quality of life for all of our citizens. I really think, when you analyze this, you see that the Endowment has been a catalyst. It has helped spread the arts all over this country. Instead of attacking it, we should be applauding it for a job well done. I want to compliment both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), our chairman, for the work that they have done to try to fashion a way for the House to be able to work its will on this issue. I just feel so strongly. In my own State of Washington, to see all of the various arts institutions grow and develop with small seed money from the NEA has really been something that I am proud of and I think everyone from our State is proud of. So I would like to see the money left in under the Obey amendment, but if that does not occur then we certainly want to support the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) when she offers an amendment to restore the money. It is certainly, in my judgment, one of the high priorities for this bill. I rise in support of the amendment to provide full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the level of $98.5 million, and urge my colleagues to join me in casting an important vote in support of our nation's arts programs. As a Member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been privileged to work closely with my distinguished colleague Sidney Yates, and other supporters over the years to ensure the survival of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is a critical institution for our nation. This important organization has served as a catalyst for the expansion of arts institutions throughout our nation. The NEA is responsible for building the cultural infrastructure of our country. Over the last 30 years, the NEA has nurtured a healthy infrastructure of cultural institutions in order to better serve the unique needs of each community. In 30 years, the number of state arts councils increased from 5 to 56; the number of local arts councils grew from 600 to 3,800; the number of orchestras increased from 110 to 230; the number of non-profit theatre companies increased from 56 to 425; the number of dance companies grew from 37 to 450; and the number of opera companies grew from 27 to 120. Since its creation in 1965, the NEA has awarded over 100,000 grants and less than 40 have been considered to be very controversial. It is estimated that the Endowment costs each American just 64 cents a year. However, with this modest investment, the agency helps enhance the quality of life for our citizens, by supporting theaters, touring dance companies, folk festivals, arts education, orchestras, museums, and a wide variety of other programs. Many widely acclaimed programs began with the talent of individuals who had received seed money from the NEA, and many rural areas of our nation would not be able to enjoy arts programs without outreach by the Endowment. We must recognize that the small investment made by the federal government in funding the NEA creates tremendous leverage in obtaining private investment. For every dollar spent by the Endowment, it attracts $11 in investment from the private sector. In fact, many private sector contributors rely heavily on the NEA's grant selection process as a guide to the kinds of programs that should be supported. Endowment support has helped to increase audience support for all art forms For example, the annual audience for professional dance has grown from one million to more than 16 million over the past 28 years. Audiences for the work of professional opera companies have grown to over 7.6 million, compared to only 5 million a decade ago. Non-profit theaters serve an audience that has grown to over 20 million. Symphony performance attendance has risen to over 27 million annually. All of this has occurred with seed support from the NEA. Also, support for the arts is support for the economy. The NEA's modest budget has annually generated matching funds estimated at over $1.2 billion. These monies permeate the economy. At least 1.3 million full time jobs are supported by the arts; $25.2 billion is earned through salaries, wages, and entrepreneurial income; local governments receive $790 million in taxes and fees; state governments receive $1.2 billion; and the Federal government receives $3.4 billion in income tax revenue. It is clear that the outreach and support granted by the NEA to the arts has an incredible ripple effect throughout our economy, and restricting or eliminating the NEA's ability to perform that outreach would be both economically and culturally devastating. In my home state of Washington, many arts and cultural institutions have benefitted from NEA grants, including: Tacoma's Broadway Theater, the Pacific Northwest Ballet, the Seattle Art Museum, the Spokane Symphony, and the Seattle Childrens Theater. Throughout the nation, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is serving the interests of the American people. It is important for our future, and it should continue to receive the support of Congress. Let's do what's right for the nation, and vote for the amendment to restore funding to the NEA.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would also say, as the prospective ranking Democrat on this select committee if the House approves this resolution, we will be very careful and judicious about the use of this authority.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, for several months, no less than seven committees of the House of Representatives have been investigating issues relating to the transfer of technology between the United States and the People's Republic of China. The resolution now before us would vest primary responsibility for the conduct of these inquiries in a select committee. Given the complex and contentious nature of these matters, many of which involve highly classified information, consolidating the current investigations in one committee with the authority to consider matters which cross jurisdictional lines is, in my judgment, appropriate. The technology transfer matter raises important questions of national security. The House deserves to have these questions addressed in a manner which is thorough and which focuses on substance rather than seeking to maneuver for partisan advantage. Based on my discussions as the perspective ranking Democrat over the past week with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), prospective chairman of the Select Committee, I believe we share a commitment to make sure that the investigation is conducted, and the Select Committee operates, in a manner which brings credit to the House. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his willingness to consider my views on ways in which the rights of the minority to participate in the work of the Select Committee can be better ensured. We have begun to forge the kind of working relationship which will increase the likelihood that H. Res. 463, the rules which the Select Committee will adopt, and the understandings which the two of us have reached and will reach are implemented fairly. The Select Committee would have a limited amount of time to review some complex and potentially contentious issues. At this point, I believe the inquiry needs to examine the following matters: First, the Select Committee must review the policy devised under President Reagan and continued in the Bush and Clinton administrations to permit U.S.-owned satellites to be launched on foreign rockets, particularly those of the People's Republic of China. Is this a sound policy which appropriately balances potential economic, technological, and national security risks and benefit for the United States? In this context, we need to examine changes in that policy and its implementation over the past decade. We must also look at the proposed sale of satellites containing sophisticated communications equipment to the People's Republic of China. The second matter arises from the failed launch of a satellite undertaken pursuant to that policy and concerns whether, in assisting the People's Republic of China in determining the causes of that failure, information harmful to the national security of the United States was transferred to the Chinese by representatives of U.S. companies. I would note that any information transferred which might have had negative national security implications was apparently done without the approval or knowledge of Executive Branch officials. Was there an enhancement of the reliability of the ballistic missiles of the People's Liberation Army as a result of these transfers; and if so, how did that happen? This is an area in which we must proceed carefully, because legal proceedings are under way, but I believe the American people deserve as clear a determination as possible on the national security implications of these transfers. The fact that the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency apparently reached different conclusions on this question underscores the difficulty of the Select Committee's task. Finally, the Select Committee must examine whether money flowed into the political process in the United States from either domestic or foreign sources in an effort to influence Federal decisions on technology transfers. Were any decisions made to benefit a company, whether it be Loral or any other firm, because of campaign contributions? In this matter, as well, pending legal proceedings may affect our work. As I noted, the Select Committee would have a relatively short life, and there is much to do. If it is the will of the House that a Select Committee be formed to conduct this inquiry, I would hope that the permanent committees which have had aspects of these matters under investigation will follow precedent and defer to the new committee. It will not assist the Select Committee, nor will it justify the considerable amount of taxpayer funds to be authorized for this effort if it is to be but one of many investigations of these matters involving the same documents and the same witnesses. I hope the Select Committee can get the cooperation of the House in this area and in all others which may affect its ability to do its job. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman designee of the committee. To the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), in the discussion of section 7, ``Procedures for Handling Information,'' the Committee on Rules' report on H. Res. 463 makes clear that classified information may be disclosed publicly only pursuant to a vote of the Select Committee. Section 7, however, discusses the making public of any information in the Select Committee's possession, not only classified information. Is it the gentleman's interpretation of section 7 that the Select Committee will vote to disclose publicly any information whether the information is classified or unclassified?

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

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for that answer. In its discussion of section 10 of H. Res. 463, ``Tax Returns,'' the report of the Committee on Rules notes the committee's intention that the authority granted by section 10 extends to the Select Committee ``acting collegially.'' Is it the gentleman's interpretation of sections 10 and 4 of the resolution that the act of ``naming'' an individual or entity under section 10 for purpose of inspecting and receiving tax information about that individual or entity shall be done pursuant to a vote of the committee?

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today just to make a few brief comments. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) asked me to be the ranking Democratic member on the Select Committee. I have had a chance over the last couple of days to sit down with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who is going to be the chairman of this endeavor, and I basically support what we are doing. I think there are serious questions that need to be investigated, and we need to have the facts. I would ask all of my colleagues to try to see if we cannot lower the rhetoric on this subject. This is not a policy that started under the Clinton administration. As the chairman of the Committee on Rules appropriately pointed out the other day in the Committee when we were discussing this resolution, this policy started under Ronald Reagan and was continued by George Bush and by Bill Clinton. Both President Bush and President Clinton granted a number of waivers to allow our commercial satellites to be launched on Chinese boosters. I know much has been made about the question of whether there was some improvement in the overall military capability of the Chinese. Let me remind the House that the Chinese Communists possess only a handful of nuclear weapons aimed at the United States. Obviously we worry about that. It is their effort to have a strategic deterrent. I would remind my colleagues that we still have 18 Trident submarines and 700 land-based missiles. We have the B-2 bomber and the B-1 bomber, which are capable of delivering nuclear weapons. So I find the idea that somehow the People's Republic of China has gained some military superiority over the United States as a result of these transfers not to be accurate. What I hope we can do is to lower the rhetoric and get at the facts. Let us look at the facts and find out what happened. The administration has said that they made these decisions without any concern about political contributions. We will need to look at that. We also need to see what the People's Republic of China has been up to. There are some concerns about that. We also need to look at this policy. Today, on the front page of the New York Times, there is a story that the administration is now reviewing a sale of commercial satellites that is to be made to the People's Republic of China. This is different from our policy of allowing Chinese launchers to be used to launch US-owned satellites. This is another, and I think a very serious issue. I hope that, out of this, we will go back and look at our policy. Is our policy correct? Is the policy that President Reagan started and Bush and Clinton have continued the right policy for the United States? I think that is the most important issue. We may want to revisit that. I think that is certainly something that we will look into in this investigation. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules and my Democratic friends on our side of the Committee for all the work that they have done to try and help and cooperate. I feel very sorry for my good friend and colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) because his amendment was not made in order. He is going to speak on that. I would say one final thing. Some people use the Iran contra model as the way we should proceed. Remember, in the Iran contra model, once the Select Committee was created, all other investigations in other committees stopped. We have too many committees now looking into this subject. I hope once we create this Select Committee which will have outstanding Members who are going to do a highly professional job, the House will let the Select Committee do its job. That is why I share the concern that we may be spending too much money on too many different investigations. Let us do one and do it well and do it in a way that will be of use to the House and of use to the American people.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think he has a good answer.

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

Mr. DICKS. Does the gentleman think once we set up the Select Committee that we ought to let the Select Committee conduct this investigation in the House and that the eight other committees that he mentioned should let us have the field and do the job?

Mr. DICKS

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