Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the Speaker, if he would so choose.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] who has been one of the most knowledgeable Members of this institution on these very important programs. I strongly support these programs, as he does. (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the gentleman from California feels very strongly about this. He is willing to agree to 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side, if that is agreeable.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

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

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

Mr. DICKS. That is correct. This will be the last one that we will be asking for a vote on.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would urge all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to support the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, in opposition to this amendment. He is absolutely right. We turned down every single individual. We had at least 150, maybe more Members who requested land acquisition funds. We said no to everyone because we just did not have the money. We had to cut this thing back that far. To make it out of the U.S. Geological Survey, which does earthquake research, deals with volcanoes, deals with some of the most seismic disturbances all over this country. In my judgment that is, and we have already cut it back. I would say please, on this one, stay with the chairman, let us vote ``no'' and go home.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment, but the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] has a question.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me just make another point here. We asked the Park Service, can we do it? What the gentleman is asking us to do is give money to the Park Service and then make a grant to the State of Florida. The Park Service says it has no legal authority to do that, so we are going to take money away from the U.S. Geological Survey, and legally we cannot even do what the gentleman is asking us to do, so let us please, please, defeat this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would yield, he might help pass this amendment if he keeps putting that out.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Ohio, though I have the greatest respect and admiration for our friend from Alaska, but I would feel a lot better if it was the Appropriations Committee or Interior that had the oversight hearing and we brought up the Fish and Wildlife Service and spent a morning and took a look at this so we could assure our colleagues that we are doing the right thing here. As I said, I am willing to go along, it is late at night, but I think if we could have, say a one-morning hearing, we could get to the bottom of this.

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

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Regula, who has done a fine job under very difficult circumstances in developing this bill in his first year of chairing the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I would also like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Yates, who has long been a champion of many of the critical needs for the Nation that are funded through this bill. The Interior appropriations bill had to absorb a reduction of $1.5 billion in budget authority, $750 million in outlays, and an overall cut of 10 percent to base funding. So even though I am not happy with this level of reduced funding for the Interior bill, I believe that our chairman and our subcommittee did its best under difficult circumstances to hold together support for the bill's core priorities. This bill is important because it funds our national parks. The national park system is currently comprised of 368 areas, encompassing more than 80 million acres, in 49 States and the District of Columbia. This bill provides the operations money to protect our crown jewels in the park system, such as the Olympic National Park, Mt. Rainier, Yellowstone, and Grand Canyon, and the Everglades. The bill supports our national wildlife refuge systems, ensures the protection of species, and encourages ecosystems management. It ensures that the U.S. Geological Survey continues its operations, and is able to investigate and issue warnings of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other geologic hazards. The bill takes away the independent status of the National Biological Service, placing it under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Geological Survey, and reduces its base funding by $49 million. Under this bill, the NBS will not be a runaway agency as some opponents have claimed. But I believe that the mission of the National Biological Service is an important one, and we should not make critical decisions on habitat use and species protection in a vacuum. We should know as much as possible, and use that knowledge to make forward-thinking decisions which benefit all concerned. I just had a private company in my State, Murray-Pacific, produce the first multi-species habitat conservation plan [HCP] in the nation. Their experience, and the progress that others are making, demonstrates that species and humans can co-exist, and the NBS can be a positive catalyst to assist in these efforts. This bill addresses the needs of our native American citizens, and ensures that we continue to invest in their economic well-being, health, and cultural priorities through the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] and the Indian Health Service [IHS]. I would have killed to have seen the Office of Indian Education funded as well, but I understand the subcommittee's constraints, and we did manage to hold the Bureau of Indian Affairs to only a 3-percent cut, and maintained base funding for the Indian Health Service. This bill funds the President's forest plan in the Pacific Northwest, and although greater efforts need to be made in the region to reach the timber harvest levels identified in the plan, I believe we are making progress, and the funding within this bill will keep us on a positive track. The bill provides for the full economic assistance to hardhit timber- dependent communities in the Northwest, and also keeps us moving forward with watershed analysis and the ``Jobs in the Woods'' watershed restoration program, which is doing great things for the environment and helping dislocated timber workers in my district and the region. The bill also ensures that we continue to make progress on the national timber sale program. We have a severely depleted national pipeline, and there are funds provided in this bill to increase efforts on advanced timber sales preparation, and prepare an additional 400 million board feet above the 4.9 billion board feet target called for in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget submission. Finally, the bill funds our cultural institutions: the Smithsonian Institution, the Holocaust Museum, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and yes, the National Endowment for the Arts. I strongly support the Arts and Humanities agencies. They are an investment in America's culture and future. Both the NEA and NEH received 40 percent cuts in this bill and should not be reduced further.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for the rule, the aspects of the rule that I asked for. We asked for a fair debate. I am surprised, my good colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, one of the great athletes, great competitors in this Chamber, I never thought I would see the day when he would want to prevail on a technicality, would not want to come out here and get it right, talk about the National Endowment for the Arts. Let us have a fair debate. Let the Congress decide this issue. I am surprised at my good friend. I think the chairman is right; everybody can offer any amendment they want. This is an open rule. To walk away from it because you want to win on a technicality, I think, is, I am surprised.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have got the money in the interior appropriations bill to continue the jobs in the woods program, and the assistance for helping fish. I agree. We wanted to make sure this program is environmentally sensitive, the administration has said. This is not a Forest Service run by anyone other than Jack Ward Thomas from the gentlewoman's great State of Oregon. They are going to do the sales properly and in a way that will not hurt the fish.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to basically explain to my colleagues that I think the changes that were made in the timber legislation were those sought by the administration. The gentleman from Louisiana's Mr. Chairman will change the date until December 31, 1996, which is a date that the administration requested. Bascially the program will be a 1995-1996 program on timber salvage, and the administration has signed a letter, Secretary Glickman, saying they will do the very best they can to try. The base program is 3 billion board feet. They will do the best they can over the 2-year period to do an additional 1.5 billion board feet, but that requires them to have the resources necessary, the personnel, in order to lay out those sales. And this is laid out in a letter to Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a fair compromise. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and others were involved with the staff of the administration. We tried to do the best we could. There were some on the other side of the aisle that wanted a much higher number. The administration told them basically this is the best they could do under the circumstances.

Mr. DICKS. That is correct. The gentleman is correct.