Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, is it not the regular order that Members who are standing are recognized for a portion of the 30 minutes?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen very much for yielding me the time. I rise in very strong support of the Boehlert amendment. I think the Boehlert-Fazio amendment is carefully crafted. It gets the job done but it does not create this great big broad exception in the Endangered Species Act. Let me just read to my colleagues, I think very careful language that addresses why the bill as reported, the Pombo bill, is unacceptable. The bill would permanently exempt the reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of all dams, hydroelectric facilities, levees, canals, as well as a host of other water-related activities, from the safeguards and protections provided in the Endangered Species Act. There are literally thousands of dams and other structures nationwide that have flood control as a purpose. H.R. 478 is clearly unnecessary. There is no credible evidence suggesting that the ESA has worsened flood damage. In fact the ESA is already flexible enough to allow expedited review for improvements or upgrades to existing structures in impending emergencies. The ESA also allows exemptions for replacement and repair of public facilities in presidentially declared disaster areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service issued a policy statement clarifying how the agency is implementing these emergency provisions in the 46 California counties that were declared Federal disaster areas this year. Under the policy, flood fighting and levee repairs are automatically exempted from the ESA if they are needed to save lives and property. By the way, just to read again the statement by the administration, the administration strongly opposes H.R. 478 because it would exempt all flood control projects from consultation and taking requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The administration clearly supports minimizing flood damage and protecting the residents living in flood- prone areas, but does not believe that H.R. 478 will achieve these purposes. Because of severe economic and environmental impacts that would be caused by H.R. 478, the Secretary of the Interior would recommend that the President veto the bill in its current form. Mr. Chairman, that is why I think the Boehlert-Fazio substitute, which is carefully crafted, which deals with the emergency situation, which in essence codifies in law what the President has already done in California through his declaration, is the right way to proceed. This will be in conjunction with what we are doing on the supplemental appropriations bill. I just hope Members really do understand that this amendment is aimed at weakening the Endangered Species Act and I think will produce a very negative consequence to the timber industry, to agriculture and mining who will have restrictions laid on them because of this exemption.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Fazio- Boehlert amendment. I supported this amendment in the Committee on Appropriations, and I think this is a real commonsense amendment. Basically, what it says is that any activity that is needed for the repair of flood control projects is exempted from the consultation process of ESA. But this amendment goes far beyond that. It says we are going to exempt any project anywhere in the country that is involved in flood control. That is an overreach. It is not what we should be doing here today. Mr. Chairman, I happen to believe, I am a strong believer in the Endangered Species Act, even though up in my State we have had terrible problems with the marbled murrelet, the northern spotted owl, and salmon. But what we have done is worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We have had consultation, and we were able to work out solutions that protect the environment, that protect species. The Fish and Wildlife Service has already, in California, exempted the work that has to be done to fix the levees and do the repairs. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill, frankly, is unnecessary. Second, what in essence we are doing here today with the Boehlert- Fazio amendment is putting into statute what the Fish and Wildlife Service has already done, and which this administration strongly supports. That is going out there and doing the fixes that are necessary to help the people that are hurt. This amendment goes beyond that and says any flood control project in the entire country is exempted from the Endangered Species Act. I am ashamed of the other side who presents this, because they tried this same thing last year and they were defeated when many Republicans, Republicans who would support the Endangered Species Act, deserted and stood with those of us in the House who believe we should have some concern about species. We are a specie. The health of the ecosystem is important not only to the species, but also to the humans. In our long-term best interest, I think we are in better shape when we work with the agencies and come up with rational solutions. So let us not overreach, let us not try to use the floods in California to gut the ESA, let us legislate today carefully and competently. Let us accept the Fazio-Boehlert amendment, which gets to the heart of what needs to be done, without overreaching.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Interior appropriations subcommittee for 21 years and when the new Republican majority took over, one of the first things they did was cut out the money for the work that is necessary under the Endangered Species Act. It was gutted in our committee, and the reason they are having difficulty in getting consultation done and other work done on the ESA is because they cut out the money for the bill, the money for the work. Now if my colleagues are truly sincere about what they are trying to do today, they would offer an amendment to put the money back in so they could do the consultation.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment because I agree with the gentleman from Arizona, and I think the words ``a substantial threat'' are better for us here than an ``imminent threat'' for many of the reasons he described. I think it will allow earlier action.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to designate a portion of the Columbia River, known as the Hanford Reach, as a wild and scenic corridor. I am pleased to have several of my Northwest colleagues join me as original co-sponsors of this important legislation. The area known as Hanford Reach is in critical need of protection through designation within the wild and scenic rivers system. First of all, Hanford Reach is a major spawning ground for Fall Chinook salmon within the main stem of the Columbia River, and as such is important to salmon recovery for the entire Columbia River system. The Reach's free flowing status provides excellent habitat for the Fall Chinook, as well as for runs of steelhead trout and sturgeon. As the Northwest continues to seek effective solutions for the immediate protection and restoration of wild salmon runs, the protection of Hanford Reach provides a meaningful and cost-effective contribution toward an overall long-term strategy for salmon habitat protection. Hanford Reach must also be protected because of its abundance of other ecological and cultural treasures. The area proposed for wild and scenic designation also serves as habitat for bald eagles, wintering, and migrating waterfowl, deer, elk, and significant other wildlife. It also supports a variety of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals. This area of the Columbia River Basin also has significant religious and cultural significance to several Indian tribes, with more than 150 archeological sites identified along the Hanford Reach corridor, including some dating back as far as 10,000 years. The Hanford Reach also contains the area known as the White Bluffs and adjacent shoreline areas that are an archeologically significant paleontological resource, and are rich with fossil remains from the Pliocene period. The unique cliffs of the White Bluffs provide dramatic scenery and rare habitat. Because of such historically and ecologically significant splendor, the 50-mile section of river representing the Hanford Reach corridor also provides an abundance of recreational opportunities and will serve as a long-term economic stimulus for nearby communities. It will afford visitors opportunities to hunt, boat, fish, hike, kayak, waterski, and birdwatch, as well as the opportunity to enjoy the relative solitude of an unspoiled and environmentally rich area. I urge my colleagues support for this critical environmental legislation.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 85, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 400, the Twenty-First Century Patent Improvement Act. If I had been present I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.R. 400, a package of patent reforms that will have significant positive impact in several key industries in the State of Washington, namely the information technology, biotech, aerospace, and defense industries. I believe that this legislation will result in tangible improvements in our Nation's patent system, and that it strikes a balance between the need to assure strong patent protection for inventors while allowing for the free flow of information regarding new technologies. In this regard, I believe that H.R. 400 will foster the best of American ingenuity and serve as an important mechanism for spurring U.S. economic growth and competitiveness. I regret, Mr. Chairman, that opponents of this legislation have sought to portray this patent debate as a David versus Goliath fight when, in fact, the reforms contained in the bill will benefit large and small companies alike. The committee bill protects the work and intellectual capital of thousands of Americans, whether working in basement laboratories or in teams at major U.S. corporations. By cutting bureaucratic red tape, reducing the operating costs, and promoting self-funded PTO, all patent filers stand to gain from a more predictable, efficient, inexpensive, and equitable patent system. H.R. 400 also contains several safeguards to protect independent inventors, and in this regard I note that nationwide associations representing 30,000 small business members are in support of the legislation we are debating today. I also rise in strong opposition today to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] who seeks to substitute his legislation which, in my judgment, will reverse the positive patent reforms that were achieved through the GATT and would encourage abuse and manipulation of the patent system. The gentleman from California has maintained that the issue of the so-called submarine patents represent only a miniscule problem for our system. But I believe it has been shown that this gaming of the system has cost inventors, U.S. companies, and consumers billions of dollars and it would only continue under the language Mr. Rohrabacher is asking us to adopt. As a member of the National Security Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Intelligence Committee, and as a Representative of a State that depends upon the best of human and intellectual creativity, I can assure you I would never endorse a proposal that undermines our national security or undercuts our global competitiveness. In the 2 years prior to the passage of the 1995 GATT law, 300 foreign companies manipulated the patent system to their advantage, at the expense of American inventors and consumers. Despite Mr. Rohrabacher's disingenuous label of H.R. 400 as the ``Steal American Technology Act,'' I am afraid that the bill he is offering as a substitute would only worsen that draining of intellectual capital from the United States. This is a major issue for all high-technology areas of the United States, and particularly for the Pacific Northwest, which has become an intellectual center for software development and biotechnology--two areas in which the United States leads the rest of the world. The foundation of the information technology industry in my region and nationwide is its intellectual capital, and as such, intellectual property protection is critical to the continued growth and success of this industry. In 1975, Microsoft was founded on the ideas and hard work of a handful of people; in just over 20 years, it now has almost 20,000 employees. Hundreds of startup companies have been launched following Microsoft's success, further contributing to the thriving high-technology industry in the area. The software industry as a whole provides high-wage, high-skilled jobs for more than 500,000 American workers and currently enjoys 70 percent of the world market--a share that will rapidly diminish if intellectual property protection is minimized. As R&D spending continues to increase, and while product cycles are condensing into timeframes of 9 to 12 months, predictability and full disclosure of existing patent applications becomes ever more critical. Due to the complexity of software patents, and a lack of prior art and expertise in the field, the average patent pendency for software is 36 months, double the PTO's average processing time. For this reason, an efficient PTO with highly trained and experienced examiners is becoming increasingly important. Passage of the Rohrabacher substitute, H.R. 811, and a return to the previous system enabling the practice of submarine patents, also threatens the biotechnology industry which is thriving in the State of Washington. Patents are critical to the research of the biotechnology industry into cures and therapies for deadly and costly diseases like cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis, multiple selerosis, heart disease, and 5,000 genetic diseases. Any law which undermines the ability of biotechnology companies to secure patents with a full term undermines funding for research on deadly, disabling and costly diseases. Capital will not be invested in biotechnology companies if they are not able to secure intellectual property protection ensuring that they have a full term for a patent in which to recoup the substantial investments they must make in developing a product for market. Today, the United States remains preeminent in the field of biotechnology but has become a target of other country's industrial policies. Only by maintaining strong intellectual property protection, and preventing the gaming of the patent systems by foreign companies can the U.S. biotech industry continue to remain dominant. I am convinced Mr. Chairman, that intellectual property is rapidly becoming the critical national resource of the next century's world economies, and I urge my colleagues to move forward with the improvements to our current patent system contained in the H.R. 400, which I have cosponsored, not backward with the substitute offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. An efficient and predictable patent system encourages both job creation and the research and development activities that have made the United States the global leader in many high-technology sectors. This is precisely what H.R. 400 seeks to do.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, several Members of the House of Representatives, including the chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, have made some rather hasty public statements concerning the recorded cellular telephone call involving Speaker Gingrich and all of its legal ramifications. Many claims have been made about the laws that are applicable to disclosure of confidential information, but I am concerned there has been insufficient legal research into the statutes involved and into the legal precedents in existence. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record an analysis that was printed in this week's National Law Journal by an expert first amendment lawyer whose practice involved areas of newsgathering, publishing, and broadcasting. In this article, Victor A. Kovner takes issue with an assertion made by allies of Speaker Gingrich who were involved in the recorded conversation. Specifically, the charge was made that forwarding and publishing information from such a conversation was a felony. In this article, Mr. Kovner explores the Federal wiretap statute (18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.) as it pertains to recorded conversations and concludes that ``there is scant authority for finding a criminal violation based on mere disclosure by a person who had no role in the underlying recording.'' I urge my colleagues to carefully consider Mr. Kovner's compelling reasoning as presented in the National Law Journal. [From the National Law Journal, Feb. 10, 1997] Not Whom You Tell, But How You Know (By Victor A. Kovner) Congressman Jim McDermott has ``committed a felony,'' New York Rep. Bill Paxon charged at his initial press conference, referring to the alleged delivery by Mr. McDermott, D-Wash., of the tape of the Newt Gingrich strategy conference to the New York Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It is sad to see a fine career ``disintegrate,'' said Mr. Paxon. Strong words, coming as they did from the chair of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and a participant in the taped conversation in which, as later found by Special Counsel James M. Cole, Speaker Gingrich violated his promise to the Ethics Committee not to orchestrate an effort to minimize the charges brought against him. But was there any basis for such a serious charge by Mr. Paxon? Perhaps the Florida couple who overheard the conversation on their police scanner (equipment that has been for years widely and lawfully available at retail outlets around the country) may have technically violated the Federal Wiretap Statute, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq., which was amended in recent years to cover interception of cellular and cordless calls, as well as regular phone calls. Congress apparently intended to provide for an expectation of privacy with the amendments, and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that cordless phone calls made before the amendments did not have a justifiable expectation of privacy. Tyler v. Berodt, 877 F.2d 705 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 723 (1990). What about the role of Mr. McDermott, who reportedly sent copies to the newspapers? Assuming those reports are accurate (he has declined to define the role, if any, he played), the Paxon theory goes, Mr. McDermott violated the portion of the statute that bars disclosure of an illegal tape or its contents. This theory proves too much, for if Mr. McDermott's alleged conduct was criminal, why not that of the New York Times or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? The statute in question makes unlawful not only the unauthorized interception or recording, but also disclosure ``knowing or having reason to know'' that the recording was unlawful. 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(c). Why Bill Paxon presumed that Jim McDermott had such knowledge while the newspapers, which examined the tape carefully and transcribed it in its entirety, did not, is unclear. Notably, Mr. Paxon did not charge either newspaper with criminal conduct. Though, in the context of civil claims for damages, courts have taken various views of the statute's reach, there is scant authority for finding a criminal violation based on mere disclosure by a person who had no role in the underlying recording. In 1993 a number of people associated with Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., were fined for distributing illegal tapes of personal calls of then-Lt. Gov. Douglas Wilder. Unlike the serendipitous recording of the Gingrich strategy conference, the Wilder tapes were made by a person who had systemically and unlawfully recorded hundreds of cellular calls. protective precedent But any attempt to prosecute people who had no involvement in or knowledge of the unlawful recording, such as Mr. McDermott or the newspapers--neither of whom had any prior association of any kind with the Florida couple--would face serious constitutional problems. In Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits criminal punishment for disclosure of confidential judicial disciplinary proceedings by nonparticipants in the proceedings. The mere publication of truthful information, even though confidential by law, was found protected. In dismissing a claim for invasion of privacy by a rape victim whose identity had been inadvertently but unlawfully released to a reporter by an employee of a sheriff's office, the Supreme Court later noted, ``We hold only that where a newspaper publishes truthful information which it has lawfully obtained, punishment may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order.'' Florida Star v. B.J.F., 490 U.S. 524, 109 S. Ct. 2603 (1989). Given the extraordinary newsworthiness of Speaker Gingrich's violation of a commitment he had just made as part of his plea bargain, it is hard to imagine the presence of a state interest of the ``highest order'' warranting the institution of criminal proceedings against Mr. McDermott or the newspapers. In a case similar to Landmark Communications, a California appellate court has written, ``[S]tate law cannot impose criminal or civil liability upon a nonparticipant for breach of the confidentiality required by [law].'' Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers, 177 Cal. App. 3d 509,223 Cal. Rptr. 58 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1986). As a matter of common sense, the participants in the recorded conversation plainly had a diminished expectation of privacy when Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, joined the conversation on his car phone. Surely the others were aware that he was on a car phone. Surely they were aware that cellular phones may be recorded by nonparticipants with equipment that has been sold lawfully in thousands of stores throughout the country. If Speaker Gingrich was aware he was participating in a nonsecure communication and was then caught violating his commitments to the Ethics Committee, he and Ohio Republican Representative Boehner are principally to blame. Under these circumstances, any claim that the conduct of Jim McDermott (or the newspapers) was felonious would be reckless and irresponsible.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to my colleagues' attention the loss of a unique resource in the State of Washington, indeed, the entire country. Dr. Bill Wiley, who has served in many capacities over the past 30 years, passed away on June 30, 1996. While he was only 54, he made many contributions to many causes and left us at too early an age. I first met Bill Wiley in 1984 when he became director of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, operated by Battelle Memorial Institute. While Battelle has many facilities in the State of Washington, at that time they did not have any in the Sixth District. Subsequently, the Marine Sciences Laboratory at Sequim became a part of the Sixth District after the reapportinment of 1990. Battelle also has facilities at Seattle and Richland, and Bill Wiley was the senior official for Battelle in the Pacific Northwest from 1984 until 1994, at which time he was named senior vice president for science and technology policy for Battelle Memorial Institute and his portfolio expanded to the world. Bill Wiley was a tremendous resource in his community of Richland, indeed, the entire Tri-Cities area. He was a member of the Rotary, Tri- City Industrial Development Council, and chairman of the United Way Campaign. His community service was highlighted in 1989 when he was selected by his fellow community leaders as Tri-Citian-of-the-Year. Bill Wiley had so much enthusiasm and so much to give that his talents were sought by the entire State of Washington. Since Bill Wiley was a perfect demonstration of what educational opportunity can provide, he spent a good deal of his time on this issue. Education was a primary interest of his and, therefore, it was not surprising that he was selected to be a member of the first Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board. He also served as a member of the Board of Regents of Gonzaga University, a member of the Board of Overseers at Whitman College, and was most recently a member of the Board of Regents of Washington State University, having also served as Chairman of this Board. Additionally, he served as a member of the Washington Board of the Mathematics, Engineering, and Science Achievement [MESA] organization which is chartered to enhance the capabilities for young students of minority populations to pursue science and engineering careers. Bill also served on the Board of the Commission for Student Learning for the State of Washington. Bill Wiley was also a good corporate citizen. He was a member of the Board at Trustees of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, as well as a member of the Boards of Directors of the SAFECO Company, the Washington Business Roundtable, ``Forward Washington,'' the Seattle branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and the Pacific Science Center. When Governor Lowry was elected in 1992, he asked Bill Wiley to serve on his advisory committee for addressing statewide issues. Soon the Pacific Northwest region sought out this man of many talents. He became a member of the Board of the Oregon Graduate Institute, and was later named to the Board of the Pacific Northwest Natural Gas Co., and he provided many years of service to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. Not surprisingly, the Nation learned about this man of remarkable skills, and many organizations recognized his contributions to science and technology issues as well as education challenges. He was selected to be a member of the Government-University Industry Roundtable [GUIR]; he was asked to serve on several task forces of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Office of Technology Assessment. He was a lifelong member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] and had been named cochairman of the upcoming annual meeting to be held in Seattle in February 1997. He also was an invited participant in the Economic Conference convened by President Clinton and Vice President Gore in Little Rock, AR in December 1992. Bill Wiley was recognized for his talents by being selected Black Engineer of the Year by Black Engineer magazine as well as receiving a distinguished associate award from the U.S. Department of Energy in 1994. Bill Wiley had recently been selected to serve on the Smithsonian Institution's National Board and been elected president of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Society of America. I think, Mr. Speaker, you can begin to get the sense of this man and his contributions to society at all levels. I will not stop there. The man had a vision that covered the globe. He was instrumental in supporting Battelle's efforts to create Energy Efficiency Centers in third world countries. He was a driving force in Battelle's efforts to develop these centers in Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Poland, and China. What I have omitted in this statement is the fact that Bill Wiley was the director of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for 10 years, from 1984 to 1994. This, itself, is a full-time job with many challenges. His vision as director of this laboratory was to build a great national laboratory. The raison d'etre of this vision was the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, which I have had the pleasure of supporting and helping make happen over the last 5 years. When this laboratory opens later this year, it truly will be a monument to Bill Wiley's vision and what science can do to solve mankind's problems. Mr. Speaker, this son of a shoemaker from Jackson, MS, through education and dedication, made his community, his State, his Pacific Northwest that he loved, so dearly, his country and, indeed, the world a better place to live. He was memorialized by the Tri-City Herald newspaper following his death, and I am inserting for the Record the text of that editorial, suggesting that the EMSL should be named in his honor. [From the Tri-City Herald, July 30, 1996] EMSL Should Carry Bill Wiley's Name It was 10 years ago when Bill Wiley proposed his vision of a laboratory where top scientific experts could collaborate on molecular science. His vision was of a new era of innovation on the molecular level with far-reaching implications in a variety of fields, including medicine, energy and environmental cleanup. That vision is coming to fruition as the Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory is readied for occupancy with installation of state-of-the-art equipment for the cutting- edge work that will be conducted there. The workers are building on a foundation that is Wiley's heart and soul. But he will not be there to cut the ribbon. The former director of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory died June 30. At Wiley's funeral earlier this month, a colleague, Jack White, proposed EMSL carry the name of the man who conceived it. It's a good idea and one we hope Martha Krebs, the Department of Energy chief of national labs, will consider. She arrives tonight in the Tri-Cities to review EMSL's progress. After October, about 210 permanent staff will move into EMSL, which also will accommodate scores of visiting scientists and students. The lab is expected to be 100 percent complete by fall 1997. The annual research and operating budget will be about $70 million. On a 1994 visit, Krebs gave Wiley credit for steering EMSL along the bumpy path of congressional approval and financing. ``Battelle, especially under the guidance of Bill Wiley, has exercised extraordinary leadership in the past 10 years in anticipating the direction that national labs must go,'' said Krebs, who spent seven years on the House of Representatives' Committee on Science and Technology. Under Bill Madis, Wiley's successor, this laboratory is positioned to make worldwide contributions that go beyond Hanford. The entire thing started in Wiley's imagination and was rooted in his conviction that the molecular revolution will be just as critical to human advancement as was the industrial revolution and the atomic age. It is fitting such a visionary and groundbreaking facility be named after such a visionary and groundbreaking man.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Well, I appreciate very much the very kind comment of my distinguished friend from Colorado, who will also be missed from this House, and who has done so much for women's issues in this country. Dr. Lein, of course, would appreciate those remarks, and I appreciate them very much as well. I would also like to say this: You mentioned the Huskies. Dr. Lein and I, I hope over many, many years to come, will be able to spend a little time on Saturday afternoons watching those University of Washington Huskies, and hopefully they are going to have a great future, as they hopefully will have a great season this year. Dr. Lein, you will be missed. Thank you for the great job you have done for the University of Washington and for our country.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor Dr. Jack Lein, who has been a great friend to me and my office over the years during his long, distinguished career at the University of Washington. During Jack's 32-year career at the University of Washington, he has served in many capacities which encompass most aspects of modern medicine, medical and health sciences education, university administration, and Federal relations. At the end of this year, Jack will begin a well- earned retirement. The many skills that he brought to his job will be hard to replace. I want to join the many people in the University of Washington family to express our debt of gratitude to Dr. Lein for his decades of conscientious service. Jack has spent most of his life in the State of Washington, having been born in Spokane. He received his MD degree from the University of Washington in 1955. After finishing his internship and residency in 1960, Jack returned to Spokane to begin an obstetrics and gynecology practice. After 4 years in his medical practice, Jack began his distinguished career at the University of Washington. Although Spokane lost a good physician, the university gained a tremendous asset and advocate. Dr. Lein founded the University of Washington School of Medicine Continuing Medical Education Program and was its first director for 19 years. He was also assistant dean and then associate dean of the school of medicine. From 1965 through 1969, he was the director of the Washington/Alaska Regional Medical Program and was one of the founders of the widely acclaimed WAMI Program which set up a regionalized medical education system for Washington, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. From 1970 until 1984, Jack was the State legislative liaison for the Health Sciences. For the past 29 years, he has coordinated all Federal relations for the university. Dr. Lein served as vice president for health sciences for 10 years making him the highest ranking administrative official ever to graduate from the University of Washington Medical School. Since ending his service as vice president in 1992, he has been the first full-time director of Federal relations, reporting directly to the university president. At the same time, he has continued to be a professor of obstetrics and gynecology. During the years that Dr. Lein has headed up the Federal relations efforts, the University of Washington has become the No. 1 recipient of Federal contract and grant dollars among State universities nationwide. When Jack began his tenure, the university received $40 million in Federal dollars. For each of the last 3 years, these Federal moneys have totaled more than $400 million. Dr. Lein's understanding of the relationship between a world-class university and the Federal Government reminds me of the dedication of the Warren G. Magnuson Health Science Center. Jack always known for his sense of humor, remarked to Senator Magnuson and the assembled crowd that he had better keep the Federal money flowing to the university or else we had just dedicated the world's largest Christian Science reading room. The research that this money has helped fund has produced some very impressive results. Over the last decade, the University of Washington research programs have produced Nobel Prizes in medicine and physics, along with medical advances in bone marrow transplantation and a hepatitis B vaccine. Other achievements include assisting key State and regional industries through research into advanced materials and methods for aerospace and electronics manufacturing and for the growing bio-technology industry. The university has been key to advancements made in developing new methods for sustainable management of our fisheries and forest resources, which is vitally important for the district I represent. The university's research has led to patented technologies for more than 20 startup companies. And perhaps most importantly, this research has provided training for more than 8,000 graduate and professional students each year. These successes testify to the legacy that Dr. Lein is leaving at the University of Washington. As Jack prepares to begin his retirement, I want to wish him all the best. I know, Jack, that you will be missed. Every happiness to both you and your family. As a graduate, I want to thank you for your dedicated service to the University of Washington. And for being such a good friend and advisor. I look forward to being with you at many University of Washington football games.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to concur with the gentleman from Texas. In my service on this committee, and as a member of the Committee on Appropriations over the years, the professionalism, the competence, the hard work, and the dedication of the people in the intelligence community is extraordinary. They have done a tremendous service for this country. Having said that, I still believe we have to look at these charges seriously. I will remind everyone here that there were some extralegal questionable activities during this whole Iran-Contra period run right out of the White House. So it is conceivable that there may be some explanation besides the one that the San Jose Mercury has come up with. That is, again, another reason why we need to get to the bottom of this. Even if it was not the CIA, I am very interested to know, how did crack cocaine get introduced into this country, who was behind it. And maybe that is not even our jurisdiction, but that is something this Congress should be interested in as well. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I urge Members to pass the conference report.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald], a new Member who is very concerned about this subject and has talked to me about it on several occasions.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] who is a valued member of our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I approrpiate that courtesy and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], my good friend and colleague.