Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the Interior appropriations bill and this rule. We have had a very difficult conference, but we came out of it with $98 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. I think that is a tremendous accomplishment, and something that we could very well lose if we go back into conference. Second, we came out with $699 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to take care of some very important national priorities. That money could also be lost, and I think probably will be lost, if this conference report is defeated. The other body, people in the other body, senior Members, say they will not put that money in again if this bill does not go through. To my colleagues, on the question of substitution in the West and on the question of log exports, I believe what we did in this bill is actually going to strengthen the ability to keep public timber at home. Also, it will allow the free movement of private timber in the Northwest, which will allow more of it to be domestically processed. Mr. Speaker, let me point out the bottom line is that under the law that was passed in 1990, at the end of last year the State of Washington would have been able to export 25 percent of its State's logs. What this ban does is say, no, we are going to keep public timber, State and Federal, at home. We are not going to allow it to be exported. Fifty-three percent of those sales of State timber in Washington State go down to Oregon, 53 percent. Mr. Speaker, we did not hear our former colleague, Mr. Wyden, or we have not heard the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] or anybody else from Oregon up here denouncing this bill, because they recognize it will mean more timber for small businesspeople in the State of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I frankly am outraged by the deceit that has been put in and surrounded on this particular provision. This is a good provision.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps one of the greatest nightmares that any family could experience is receiving a call in the middle of the night informing you that your daughter has been killed. Even worse to learn that she has been murdered by a random shooting clear across the country. That is the nightmare faced by Coleman and Jean Harris of Mount Vernon, VA, last spring when their daughter, Ann was murdered while visiting friends in Tacoma, WA. This bright and energetic honor student had a most promising future, having just gained early admission into Purdue University. While riding in a car on March 27, she was struck and killed by a bullet fired senselessly into the car by a joyriding group of young men. All too often these incidents of random violence are happening across America, representative of a society that is becoming more and more numb to the violence occurring on our streets. All of us know that something must be done to develop in our young kids a better sense of values and a more fundamental respect for human life. Getting guns out of the schools is critically important, but we must go further to address the value structure that results in such a cavalier attitude about life among many young people today. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, of the campaign that has been launched by the Harris family--Ann's Campaign for a Safer America. This effort represents a wonderful attempt by a grieving family to use the tragedy of Ann's death as the impetus for action to stop youth violence. The Harris family is speaking out in schools and in many communities to bring this message of understanding and respect for others to young kids. This is an incremental effort, Mr. Speaker, reaching out in small ways to kids who need this message. If it reaches 50, 100 or 1,000 young people and helps them to care more for their fellow students, it will represent a very significant and meaningful accomplishment. If even one more tragedy such as Ann's senseless murder can be averted through the work of this campaign, it will be a remarkable success and a very important memorial to this very talented and inspiring young woman. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Coleman and Jean Harris and express my appreciation for their desire to turn Ann's tragedy into a positive and constructive educational effort.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I understand it, the memo that the gentleman from Oregon is reading from is a draft provision that has not been cleared by the Department. We will get this straightened out. I guarantee that what we have just said will cure the problem because there was not a problem in the first place.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to say that I strongly support the conference report and urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, would the chairman be willing to work with me and those who supported this provision to monitor implementation with the Forest Service to ensure that concerns such as this are addressed?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, would this provision affect land acquisitions by the Federal Government through donation, exchanges, or legal settlement or is it limited to land that is acquired through purchase with appropriated funds?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform my colleagues here in the House of Representatives that our former colleague, Congressman Joel Pritchard of Washington State, died 12 days ago at his home in Seattle. As some of you may know, he fought a valiant battle with cancer over the last several years, though it affected neither his spirits nor his work as Lieutenant Governor of Washington State. Joel Pritchard served here in the House from 1972 to 1984, and until his death he retained many of the strong friendships he developed during those 12 years among us. He was clearly one of those members whose exuberance and sense of humor left all who knew him--on both sides of the aisle--with a warm and positive impression. His retirement from Congress in 1984 was certainly a loss for this institution, and his death last week leaves all of his many friends with an even more profound sense of personal loss. A memorial service was conducted in Seattle last week, at which his family and many friends had the opportunity to reflect on the many happy memories of Joel and on his accomplishments in 38 years of public life. On Thursday, October 30 at 5:00 p.m. we will have a similar opportunity at a memorial service that will be held in the Veterans Committee hearing room, 336 of the Cannon House Office Building. Joel was a very special friend, and someone who represented the very best ideals of public service. His hallmark phase was ``it's totally amazing what you can do if you don't care who gets the credit,'' and he was known here as someone who could bring people together on any important issue or cause. In his own selfless way, Joel deserves great credit for his service here and for the civility he brought to this institution. We will truly miss him.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would take the remaining time to thank the chairman and ranking member for all the help for our State. We have many important projects, and they have done an outstanding job. We strongly support the bill.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] in a brief colloquy with regard to language in the conference report. As the chairman will recall, during the deliberations over the conference report on the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998, both Senators from the State of Washington and I were interested in clarifying Senate language that addressed the Corps of Engineers' actions with regard to the Terminal 5 expansion project at the Port of Seattle. We appreciate the conference committee's decision to include a statement urging the corps to make a final decision with regard to the Port of Seattle permit application. However, events that have occurred after the conference committee adjourned have rendered the language unnecessary. Specifically, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, which had been opposing the terminal 5 expansion, has now adopted a resolution approving a settlement that has been reached between the tribe and the port, including significant mitigation and enhancement measures that will benefit the tribes who utilize the Duwamish River fishery. In this resolution of approval, the Muckleshoot Tribe has requested recognition in Congress that the language inserted in the conference report relating to the terminal 5 project is no longer necessary. We appreciate the committee's assistance in this project, which is critically important to the further development of international trading opportunities at the Port of Seattle.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would also then like to ask my colleague whether it is his view that, should the Secretary of Defense choose to seek approval for a reprogramming action for any or all of this $14 million, the committee would be willing to consider such a request, depending, of course, on the outcome of the authorization conference?

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman of the committee, in a colloquy on a matter of great concern to me. This conference report reduces the budget request for operating the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, or DARO, by about $14 million. In taking this action, it is my understanding that the conferees were silent regarding changes in the subordination, mission, size, and structure of this office. As I understand it, these matters relating to DARO will be addressed in the defense authorization conference, which has not yet concluded. Is this the understanding of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the distinguished chairman?

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, child abuse and neglect is an epidemic that devastates our children and often leads them to a life of crime. In 1994, public welfare agencies received reports of 3.1 million children being abused or neglected. Each year, an estimated 2,000 children--most under the age of 4--die at the hands of parents or caretakers. A study shows that abused children are more likely to commit crimes both as juveniles and as adults. Abused children are more prone to commit a violent crime during their lives. It is also more probable for abused children to grow up and abuse their children, starting the whole cycle over again. Congress must take action to end this cycle of abuse and crime that ruins the lives of thousands of our children. Some states and communities have found a solution that has proven 99 percent successful in preventing child abuse and neglect among those families most at-risk. Modeled after a program pioneered by the State of Hawaii, these programs utilize existing social services to provide counseling to at-risk families that volunteer to participate in the program. Today, I am introducing the same bipartisan legislation that I introduced in the last Congress to create the Healthy Families Initiative. This bill would enable the Federal Government to help States and communities that decide to create one of these programs. Simply put, my bill would make Healthy Families programs eligible for funding as crime prevention programs under the 1994 Crime bill--at no new cost to the Federal Government. This legislation is an innovative way to help communities fight child abuse, and has many substantial benefits. My bill helps programs that have proven effective preventing child abuse. Healthy Families programs have a solid record of success in the State of Hawaii and in communities across the Nation, including Port Angeles, in the district I represent. This bill will create no new bureaucracy and no new programs within the Department of Justice. Most importantly, no new costs will be created by my legislation--Congress will not be required to spend one additional dollar on this program. This bill will merely enable programs to compete for existing crime prevention grant moneys. Also, qualifying programs are required to coordinate with other organizations to avoid duplication of services. States and communities will retain control. This bill will give them a hand, but States and communities will still be in charge of their own programs. I would like to thank each of the 21 Representatives and delegates from around the country for cosponsoring this bipartisan initiative. I urge every Member to support this strong, bipartisan solution to one of the most damaging problems afflicting our children.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, just in case somebody does not think there is money in this bill, there is $125 million in this bill for breast cancer research already.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: This debate on the B-2 has been a long, difficult debate. I can understand my colleagues who think it is going to hurt something. But my view of this is that of everything we are doing at the Pentagon today, not one other weapons system has the potential capability to deter war as does the B-2. Take this platform that is stealthy, that can go one-third of the way around the world and stop the enemy from achieving their objectives, and that is a remarkable capability. What are the weapons we are going to use on this? J-DAMS at $13,000. If we do not have the B-2's, then we have to use the B-52's with standoff cruise missiles that cost $1.2 million per weapon--16 times $13,000 is $208,000, versus $1.2 million. You get 16 weapons on a B-2 for the cost of one-sixth of one cruise missile. It is ridiculous. This will save us money over time. And you can fly in over the target and knock out 16 separate targets in one sortie. In World War II, it took 3,000 sorties in order to be able to achieve that objective. This is a revolution in technology. What it gives us is an asymmetrical capability to stop the enemy before they achieve their objective. What does that mean? It saves American lives. It saves American lives. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend, the gentleman from California, I supported the B-1, but the B-1 is not stealthy. It has to have escort aircraft. It cannot go out the first day without being vulnerable to being shot down, just as the B-52's will be shot down. That is why we have to have some number of long-range stealthy bombers to stop aggression, whether it is North Korea, whether it is Iran, whether it is Iraq, whether it is something in China. We do not know what the future holds, but every time we have been weak before, we have gotten ourselves into trouble. Here is a capability that gives us an advantage that no other country possesses. Yet, we are going to walk away from it and say well, we have enough. We do not have enough. Every expert who has looked at this, all independent studies, Rand, Jasper Welch, all say 40 to 60 is the right number. We are saying 30 is all we can afford at this point. I urge the House to reject this amendment. This is a great moment for us to stand up and set our defense priorities for the future.

Mr. DICKS. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, $420 million from the R&D account, not the procurement account. I wish we were in procurement, but we are not there yet. We are still in R&D. What that will do is to slow down this program rather substantially. I think this is a program that has already been stretched out to such an extent that one has to be concerned about how much money we are going to spend on R&D to get this program into procurement. Now, the F-22 is the Air Force's No. 1 priority. Now, anyone who listened to the earlier debate, I might have a different set of priorities for the Air Force, but they believe that the F-22, the air superiority fighter, is absolutely essential for the United States to be able, as we did in the Gulf war, to be able to gain air superiority once a war starts. Of course, this is the airplane that will be involved in coming in, attacking other aircraft, attacking surface-to-air missiles, Scud launchers, and it will be very, very important in the early going in order to gain air superiority and to be able to cap the enemy so that they cannot get their aircraft off the ground. Once we do that, then we can bring in all the nonstealthy assets that we currently possess, like the F-15's, the F-16's, the F-18's, et cetera. But it is the enabler. That is why stealth is so important, not just for bombers but also for our fighter aircraft. So I believe that this is one of the two or three most important programs we are involved in. I think if we put together the F-22's and the B-2's, we get a tremendous synergism with an airplane that can give us air superiority and another one that can take advantage of that, to go in and knock out a variety of enemy targets and to ultimately allow us to win the war in such a way that we save American lives. So I would argue strongly against slowing down the F-22, and that is what this amendment will do by cutting back R&D funding. I would assume it would slow it down for at least 1 year, maybe even more. It would have a devastating effect on the program itself. Every time Congress gets up and does this, we adjust these programs, then the money is cut back, and then the contractors have to go back and readjust their entire schedule for developing the plane. So I feel very strongly that this program has already been interrupted and we should not do it again with this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Nadler amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], I read his amendment. I think it is a good amendment. We will work hard with him with the administration, and I hope the House will support his amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to rise in opposition to the Nadler amendment. As I understand it, we would be cutting $420 million out of the F-22 procurement. Now, what this would do would be to slow down this program.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me just give a little perspective on this. First of all, the gentleman from California says that nobody supports this. I do not quite agree with that. We have seven former Secretaries of Defense, Melvin Laird, Jim Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Harold Brown, Caspar Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, and Dick Cheney, who wrote the President a letter on January 4, 1995. In that letter they said this: The B-2 was originally conceived to be the Nation's next generation bomber, and it remains the most cost effective means of rapidly projecting force over great distances. Its range will enable it to reach any point on earth within hours after launch while being deployed at only 3 secure bases around the world. Its payload and array of munitions will permit it to destroy numerous time sensitive targets in a single sortie and, perhaps most importantly, its low observable characteristics will allow it to reach intended targets without fear of interception. The logic of continuing low rate production of the B-2 thus is both fiscal and operational. It is already apparent that the end of the Cold War was neither the end of history nor the end of danger. We hope it will also not be the end of the B-2. We urge you to consider the purchase of more such aircraft while the options still exist. Mr. Chairman, what bothers me about the administration's program is this: They want to invest $300 billion for TAC air and zero for bombers. That just does not make any sense. The B-2 was just used in terms of operational testing using GATS/GAM, and they can hit targets day, night, all weather, without lasers, from 41,000 feet. That is a remarkable capability. In the future when we get the smart submunitions like sensor-fused weapon, GATOR mine, et cetera, combined effects munition, I believe we will have the potential for conventional deterrence. I want to explain that. I think frankly nuclear weapons are only good for nuclear deterrence. We saw Saddam Hussein come south. We had 18 Trident submarines. He still came south. But if we have a bomber that can go a third of the way around the world with one aerial refueling and can be utilized immediately to stop the enemy from coming into, say, Kuwait, that is conventional deterrence. President Bush could have deployed the B-2's to Diego Garcia, they could have been operational immediately. What does that mean? It means that we stop the enemy from achieving his objectives. That is what the halt phase is all about. If we can do that, then we could have saved the taxpayers the $10 billion it cost us to move 500,000 troops out to the gulf and we could have saved the $60 billion that we spent, we and our allies, on funding the war in the gulf. And the B-2, to purchase these additional nine airplanes will be somewhere between $11 billion and $13 billion. I think it is a wise, prudent investment. The gentleman from California makes the strongest argument about why we should do it now. He says that if we do now, it is going to take 10 years to build these aircraft. You just do not go out and immediately get additional B-2's. It takes a long time to do a new bomber R&D program and it is very, very expensive. So we want to buy the right number of planes while the line is still open, and the line is still open in southern California. Sometimes the gentleman makes it sound like it is in Bremerton, WA, but it is not. It is in southern California. That is why I think that we ought to do it now. We can get the planes for less money, they will be less expensive and I think it is the right thing to do. The gentleman also talks like the war in the gulf was a slam dunk. The war in the gulf was not a slam dunk. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] is sitting here, our ranking member. He saw an errant Scud missile kill a number of his constituents. Had they had accurate Scud missiles in the gulf, our 500,000 American troops would have been vulnerable. They would have been vulnerable to attack either by chemical, biological weapons, nuclear weapons; they could have been destroyed in the field.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the proponents had time to go here for 10 minutes, a lot more time than the opponents thus far. So I would like us to balance it out before we go to a time agreement, if the gentleman would possibly agree to that.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to be fair here now in terms of the time. I would hope that my colleague is going to let the other side at least have a chance to have the time, at least myself, the same amount of time that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] had, because he had made a lot of accusations here today, some of which are true, and I would like a chance to rebut them.

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