Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the second comment is the parties would have a right to go to court, into federal district court, to stop the transfer into trust. I would think under that kind of a practice that the courts would strike down the application.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield for one further comment?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, unfortunately, I have been instructed by our leadership that we have to object to any time agreements at this point. I regret that, but I have no choice.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we ought to stay with this. If the gentleman and the Committee on Resources want to have hearings, have hearings until the cows come home. Then bring some legislation out here.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the Mammoth Cave Area Biosphere Reserve, with the national park as its core protected area, has therefore utilized its stature to better address local conservation and development issues, including securing additional financial resources not previously available. Landowners and communities have derived tangible benefits, received recognition for working together to resolve complex conservation and development issues and protect resource values. A survey of biosphere reserve managers in 1995 suggests that in cases where their cooperative activities identify explicitly with biosphere reserve concepts, there are more cooperating parties and more participation of local organizations than in cases where such cooperation was merely consistent with these concepts. The point here I think is that these have worked to the benefit of the local community. I have got two in my State, the Olympic national biosphere reserve and Mt. Rainier. Both of those have been very popular. We are in the heart of marbled murrelet, spotted owl country out there, where disputes rage over Federal involvement. But in this case the biosphere reserve has had the local support and, therefore, I think is a good deal. What I worry about here is by putting in this amendment, this kind of a meat-ax approach saying no money shall be spent, that means we just cut off this program. We have not had any hearings to cut off this program. It has been in existence.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one example is the Mammoth Cave Area Biosphere Reserve.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I think it is unnecessary. I think there has been a lot of fear mongering about this. My view is that it is a very solid, common sense oriented program that also has done a lot of good, but the World Heritage parks, sites that have been named have actually, we have seen an increase in tourism. More people want to go to those sites. So I think it has been an advantage to the communities where there has been such a designation.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to yield any further. It is under the Historic Preservation Act. I think there is legal authority for this. Here it is. Title IV of the Historic Preservation Act of 1980 and 36 CFR 73, the World Heritage Convention. I would also point out that not only was this done under the Nixon administration, but finally the Reagan administration chose to highlight one of its most major initiatives in private sector fund raising for parks, the restoration of the Statue of Liberty, by nominating the statue to the World Heritage list in 1984.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, and I quoted, and I will try to go back and find the section under the Historic Preservation Act, there is authorization for this program. That is my understanding. So I guess the point I am trying to make here is I think we have a program that is working very effectively, and the idea of cutting off the money for it and saying no money shall be spent I think is unnecessary.

Mr. DICKS. Yes; I continue to yield.

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman, I would refer him to the Constitution of the United States, under which the Senate of the United States has the responsibility for the ratification of treaties, giving its advice and consent.

Mr. DICKS. 1973.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. DICKS. Yes; I am glad the author of the amendment wants to be informed. I think it is quite good, and I yield to him.

Mr. DICKS. That is correct, that is my understanding.

Mr. DICKS. That is correct.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], who over the years has been such a strong defender of the National Endowment for the Arts, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, do not be fooled by the Ehlers amendment. The intent, as the gentleman from California just stated, is to eliminate the NEA and to try to give cover to a few Members in providing money to State arts councils and back to the schools. The State arts councils say, ``We don't want the money. We think this is a mistake. Killing the Endowment, our partner, is a mistake.'' I must tell Members that over the years, and I have served on this committee for 21 years and I have watched the NEA, we have made some improvements. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], when he was the ranking member, insisted on language. I worked with him on that language to make certain that we got quality funding by the NEA. Out of 100,000 grants, 50 have been controversial. When it comes to the arts, that is not a big deal. I want to say to my Republican friends, many of which have joined with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] in signing a letter to the leadership on this issue, this is our test vote. This is our opportunity to say whether we are for the Endowment or whether we are against the Endowment. I think a showing defeating the Ehlers amendment is the right thing to do. Then we can move on and deal with the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Endowment has worked well. I can tell my colleagues from the State of Washington's perspective, in 1977 we received 3 challenge grants. It had more to do with developing the arts in Washington State and in Seattle than any other thing. The work over the years with the Endowment has been good and positive. Jane Alexander has been an outstanding leader at the National Endowment for the Arts. Again, this is a bad amendment. It is nothing but a cover for those people who want to have it both ways. I hope the House will reject it and let us go on and move forward.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. By 50 percent.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I ask for a vote on the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to the Kennedy-Porter amendment, and ask Members to vote for the Dicks-Kingston-Hansen amendment. Our amendment basically does this. It is a compromise. Instead of cutting $50 million out of timber purchaser credit, our amendment would only cut $25 million. Instead of cutting $41.5 million out of appropriated funds for timber roads, we would only cut $5.6 million, which takes it back to the administration's budget request. Look at what happened here in timber sales in our country. In the 1980's, we were up at around 12 billion board feet. Now we are down to 3.7 billion board feet. What has that done? That has driven up the cost of timber. It has made our homes more expensive. If we are going to have access even to the 3.7 billion board feet we have to have some additional new roads. That is where the Kennedy amendment really does hurts us. Second, recreation. Let me just read the Members what these roads are all about: Access for over 300 million visitor days of recreation use a year, access to over 121,000 miles of trail, access to more than 34 million acres of designated wilderness, access to 19 national recreation areas, access to over 18,000 recreation facilities, access to about 7,000 miles of scenic byways, access to 50 major visitors centers, and major ski resorts. So I am telling the Members that this amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will have a devastating effect. It will reduce the timber harvest by 3.7, down to about 1.7. It will probably cost us somewhere between $200 million and $300 million in revenue lost to the Treasury. So please vote for the Dixon amendment and against the Porter-Kennedy amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], one of the major sponsors of this amendment. I wish I had more time to give him.