Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding to me on this issue.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say I oppose the Istook amendment for a number of reasons: No hearings on this sweeping change in Indian policy, and for that matter, it has not been referred to the Committee on Resources for consideration or review. No tribes have had the opportunity to comment on this major change in Federal Indian policy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this language is legislating on an appropriations bill. Once again, we are setting ourselves up for the problems we experienced last year with legislative-type riders. This may technically be a limitation, but it certainly has policy implications to go far beyond what we in the Committee on Appropriations have considered this year, and that got the bill in trouble last year. Indian tribes have always been recognized as sovereign nations. The U.S. Government recognizes Indian tribes as independent nations and has encouraged self-determination. This legislation is not only a breach of our trust responsibility to the Indians but a violation of the right of self-governance. Indian tribes, under treaties and agreements with the United States, were guaranteed the right of self-government within their own territory. This includes the right to regulate and tax or not to tax commercial activity which takes place on Indian land. At the same time, the Congress is reducing Federal spending for Indian programs and encouraging tribes to become more economically self-sufficient. We should not be enacting legislation that clearly would discourage such economic development. The Istook amendment prohibits BIA from transferring any land into trust for a tribe unless the Secretary of the Interior has been informed that a binding agreement is in place between the tribe and the State that the tribe will collect and pay sales and excise taxes on purchases made by nonreservation members for as long as the land is held in trust. The language would apply to lands already in trust status. As independent nations, tribes are exempt from State laws, including payment of State sales and excise taxes. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this amendment. This is a major civil rights act and should be done much more carefully.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to tell my colleagues that many of us have had serious reservations about the cuts that have already been made. I think if we look at it, it has been something like $1.5 billion and $2 billion in a $12 billion bill over the last 2 years. This year the committee has cut by 4 percent. We are talking about parks, we are talking about wildlife refuges, we are talking about the Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, we are talking about some of the most important programs. I would say to my colleagues, I have a real problem knowing that the reason we are going to have to make these cuts is to finance a big tax cut, which nobody in my district wants. I do not think we should have to cut these sensitive programs further. I do not see any of these people coming here and saying, let us do something about entitlements. Why do we want to continue to go after discretionary spending to solve the entire problem of the deficit? I am with the gentleman from Missouri, Harold Volkmer, last night when he got up and said, you know, we would not have to do this if it was not for the big tax cut. That is what it is. We are going to have to cut into some of the most sensitive programs, Indian health, in order to finance a tax cut that nobody in my district wants. They want us to balance the budget. We are on the course to balancing the budget. I regret the fact, and I know others will mention defense and other things of that nature. But we have done zip on entitlements, and we continue to pound away on discretionary spending. I wish some of the people who are always up here wanting to do across-the-board cuts, who do not come to the hearings, do not testify before the committee, want to take a meat-axe approach, would put a little of that effort into some of the areas of other Government spending. I think we have done our job here, as we have done every single year I have been on this committee. It is not discretionary spending that is the problem, it is the entitlements and the tax cut. That is what the gentleman is not focusing on.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage my colleague from Oregon. The provision in the bill he seeks to address stems from the Forest Resource Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990. The gentleman and I both had extensive involvement in the development and passage of that legislation, which had bipartisan support in both the Oregon and Washington delegations.

Mr. DICKS. I would be happy to work with the gentleman and other members of the Northwest delegation toward that end. One of the objectives of this provision of the bill is to prompt the administration to make a serious effort to address the concern of the exporting segment of the industry. I would also ask the gentleman to help me to engage the administration in this discussion and hopefully find a solution that satisfies congressional intent and the legitimate concerns of the industry.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 1 minute.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the only point I wanted to make that I could not make in the colloquy is that we have had kind of a tradition in the Pacific Northwest where we prohibit exporting off of our Federal lands and exporting off of our State lands, and one of the positive aspects of the amendment that is in this bill is that we have 100 percent ban on log exports from the State of Washington, and I would remind my good friend from Oregon that because of that ban companies in Oregon are able to buy timber sales in Washington State, which I sometimes regret, but that is the reality of this amendment. Now, I would also point out that working out this issue is a very complicated one, but I am committed to trying to work it out. But the policy has been, let us not export off of public lands and let the private companies make a decision about exporting off of their private lands, and we will work out the substitution problem. We have always been able to work these things out in the past. Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to correct myself. The gentleman, Mr. Shadegg's, amendment does not eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities, it just reduces it by $13 million. But we have already dramatically reduced this program, I think almost by 50 percent, and I think to cut it further would be a very serious mistake. I would say to the gentleman who was just in the well: I am not sure; he said the National Endowment for the Arts. I assume he meant the National Endowment for the Humanities. But if we cannot spend a small amount of money to understand our history and civilization, I think that is a tragic mistake.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong opposition. I have been a strong supporter of the humanities. This is one of those programs where basically most of the activity occurs out at the State level, and we thought the new majority party was interested in restoring power and restoring programs to our local areas, and if we cannot spend this small amount of money compared to what other countries spend, on our history, our civilization, our culture; I mean I think it is just a tremendous mistake. So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, to support the money in the bill which is there for humantities, and to support the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. I think we have worked out a good agreement. I do not like the cut that has been made thus far. I think it is too severe. But, please, do not adopt this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it looked like the gentleman was going to add to his over there.

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

Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, what about this side over here?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, there is a way to work this out by a compact between the tribe and the States. That is what should be done.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. DICKS. Sweet Home, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is my amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one minute. Mr. Chairman, again, let us just talk a little bit about Pacific Lumber Co. Pacific Lumber Co. was once an outstanding practitioner of sustainable forestry. In 1985, Charles Hurwitz' Houston based holding company Maxim Corporation orchestrated a hostile takeover of Pacific Lumber using junk bonds financed by the notorious Michael Milken and his firm, Drexel, Burnham, Lambert. Almost immediately after the take over, Hurwitz raided the PALCO employees' pension fund and practically tripled the rate of cutting redwoods to pay off the loans and junk bonds used to finance the takeover. In justification of his actions, Hurwitz was quoted by Time Magazine as telling his new employees, ``There is the story of the golden rule: He who has the gold rules.'' Now, this seems to me not to be a company that deserves our help here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from Washington, and he is my friend, that habitat conservation plans are a voluntary thing. A company like Murray Pacific, my good friend Toby Murray from Tacoma, WA, worked hard with my office, the Fish and Wildlife Service, everyone over an extended period of time to negotiate out a habitat conservation plan. I was there the day that that plan was approved. Toby Murray got up, conservative Republican, a business guy, solid as anyone. You would love him on your side of the aisle, and we would love him on our side of the aisle. He is providing good jobs for people. He said this was the proudest thing that he had ever done, to be able to sit down with the Federal officials and to work out an agreement that would allow him on his private lands to protect salmon, to protect murrelets, to protect owls, to protect species, and yet still be able to do harvesting for the next 100 years. That is a win-win. Now, that is not an Endangered Species Act that is broken. That is an Endangered Species Act that is working. I applaud this administration. I have opposed them on many things, and I think sometimes that they are, you know, too zealous. But in this area, they have been willing to sit down with the private sector, roll up their sleeves and come up with these habitat conservation plans. That is why I object to this approach, while all of my companies up there are doing it the right way, the way that the law lays out to do it, and they are succeeding. Plum Creek is going to be next, then Weyerhaeuser and the State of Washington. Then if we can get this protection with the Federal option nine at the core, we protect the major Federal lands, the big landowners, then we can exempt most of the little landowners that both the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and I are both concerned about. They can be exempted because we will protect enough species on the Federal lands and on the major private landowners and the State lands to let the little people off without any requirements whatsoever. That is my goal. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to work with the majority side in strengthening the habitat conservation provisions of the Endangered Species Act. But let us not go down the road of an exemption for one company that was taken in a hostile takeover, who comes here and asks for legislation and now they are not even satisfied with what the gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs] is trying to do for him. I think this is a terrible precedent. We are all going to regret the day we do this. The administration says it will veto the bill over this. We have got a lawful way to proceed. We do not need to do this. This is a terrible mistake and we will rue the day that we did not protect the murrelet, did not protect the old growth redwood, and that we did not protect the Endangered Species Act. I thought this was going to be the new majority now that we are going to look at environmental things in a little more responsible way, and that is why I was so upset by the comments that were made by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], when he said flat out, as chairman of your Committee on Resources, that he does not support the Endangered Species Act. I think we have got to sit here and say to ourselves, how can we say that? If biodiversity is not important, if protecting species is not important, even some of the most conservative Christians today in the church movement were standing up and defending the necessity to protect God's creatures. I say to the gentleman that protecting species is a responsibility of this Congress, and protecting the Endangered Species Act is the tool to do it. Can we improve it? Yes. But to come in here today for one company and try to pass a social exemption is wrong, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] said it better than I can say it, but it is not the right way to proceed. If we want to change the ESA, let us go to the authorizing committee and change it. Let us not do it here in an amendment that has had no hearings, no process, no procedure. It is simply wrong.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I must, unfortunately, oppose the Kennedy amendment. In my judgment, there is a correlation between how much money we spend in roads and how much timber harvesting we are able to do. If we cut the timber road purchaser credit program by 60 percent, we are going to drastically reduce timber harvesting in the States that use the timber purchaser credit program. We are also going to cut back the other construction program. Now, I agree with the gentleman from Minnesota, but if we cut the money for roads, then we are also cutting road maintenance and we are cutting recreational roads. These things all are affected. These roads are used for multiple purposes. The Forest Service provides more recreational opportunities than our entire National Park System, and we have to have roads to get into these recreational areas. So we cannot walk away from the truth here. The truth is, if we are going to cut the road program by 25 percent, total, then we are going to dramatically reduce the level of timber harvesting. Mr. Chairman, I must tell my friend from Massachusetts that there is no subsidy here that I know about, because what happens is, we have two different programs. In some areas, the Forest Service builds the roads, and when they do that, people bid on this timber and they will bid a certain level. In some cases, the timber operator builds the roads, and in that case, he bids less for the timber. That is called purchaser credit. There are two different systems, but both of them are based on the economics of how much this timber is worth. Now, I must remind everyone that we have cut timber harvesting in this country by over 50 percent, and in the Pacific Northwest, we have reduced it by 85 percent. This has had a dramatic negative effect on the economies of many areas. To come in now and again cut these timber roads, many of which are used for maintenance and recreation and other purposes, simply is going to cause additional problems. In fact, most of the money in the President's program for watershed restoration is to take out roads. A lot of this money is used to take out existing roads.