Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri for his amendment. I notice he has adjusted it up to $50 million, so anything under $50 million, where we would get special projects, things of that nature, can be struck out by the President if he thinks that it is not necessary, or unnecessary. But if we had a major thing, for example, let us say the Congress decided that we needed to have another aircraft carrier which is, say, a $3.5 billion matter, you have worked it out so you could put the money in the budget to do that. The President would not be then in a position to veto that because it is Congress, the gentleman is absolutely right, under the Constitution that has the ultimate responsibility.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today which will make small changes in the current Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA] statute, but will have significant and important consequences for those the bill is intended to provide relief. Specifically, my bill will limit the application of FACA with regard to meetings held Federal officials and representatives of State, county, local governments, and Indian tribes. This will enable Federal representatives to proceed with legitimate contact with local governmental officials and tribes for purposes of implementing cooperative programs such as the President's forest plan. In the Pacific Northwest, we have been moving forward diligently in an effort to implement the President's forest plan, particularly with regard to economic assistance to dislocated workers, businesses, and timber-dependent communities. The Northwest was hit very hard by the listing of the northern spotted owl as a threatened species. The owl's listing and subsequent injunctive relief ordered by the courts reduced harvest levels in the region on Federal lands by over 80 percent. The $1.2 billion promised through the forest plan is a key means to mitigate for job losses, mill closures, and associated impacts from reductions in timber harvest. However, in order to ensure that the forest plan's economic assistance reaches those individuals and communities it is intended to reach, there must be involvement by local and county officials in the planning process for these funds. Currently, an unintended consequence of FACA is that it makes it difficult for Federal officials to meet with local governmental officials and tribes to plan for the dissemination of economic assistance. However, the FACA problem isn't simply limited to the use of the economic assistance, it also creates problems for elements of the plan such as adaptive management areas, which hinge on local and community input in order to be effective. Numerous States and counties in the West have expressed concern with the current FACA law, and its unintended prohibition of official contact between Federal officials and legitimate representatives of tribes and local governments. Concern never intended FACA to prohibit legitimate and appropriate contact in order to carry out Federal objectives that require interaction at the State and local levels. These changes will make FACA more reasonable, tolerant, and palatable. The bill will help ensure the smooth implementation of the President's forest plan, but will also aide other States who have similarly expressed concerns with the current FACA statute. I urge my colleagues support for this important legislation.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the comptroller of the Department of Defense testified before the Committee on the Budget about the consequences of a balanced budget amendment on our country's national security. Let me tell the Members what he said. He said: This is one of the major reasons for the administration's opposition to the Balanced Budget Amendment. Unless legislatively exempted from reductions, defense spending could end up being the primary bill-payer to make Federal budgets balance. That would fundamentally undermine the security of our Nation. If the Balanced Budget Amendment were adopted, America's defense posture would be vulnerable to two different problems: the impact on defense to reach a zero deficit, and the effect on defense of the annual budget process under the budget amendment. Depending on the final provisions of the Balanced Budget Amendment, Department of Defense budget cuts from FY 1996 to FY 2002 could range from $110 billion to $520 billion, or about 30 cents on the dollar. For national defense the best case scenario would have a serious effect on national security. The worst case would be a disaster. I hope we will take a careful look to the consequences of our national security of a balanced budget amendment. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the complete statement of Under Secretary of Defense John Hamre before the Committee on the Judiciary: Statement of Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) John J. Hamre Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Balanced Budget Amendment, and the likely impact that it would have on America's defense posture. The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) could severely jeopardize America's national security, and that is one of the major reasons for the Administration's opposition to it. Unless legislatively exempted from reductions, defense spending could end up being the primary billpayer to make federal budgets balance, and that would fundamentally undermine the security of our nation. If the Balanced Budget Amendment were adopted, America's defense posture would be vulnerable to two different problems: the impact on defense to reach a zero deficit and the effect on defense of the annual budget process under the

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade bill of 1974. The amendment made history by linking most favored nation trading status to free emigration from nonmarket economies. The purpose of the amendment was to spur the former Soviet Union to ease emigration for Soviet Jews during the cold war. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was instrumental in allowing hundreds of thousands of Jews and other Soviet citizens to leave the U.S.S.R. to experience the freedom and security of life in Israel and the United States. The Henry M. Jackson Foundation, in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute, Hebrew University, the Zionist Forum, and the Jerusalem Post, is sponsoring a conference in Jerusalem this week, on January 8-10, 1995, to commemorate the anniversary of this legislation. The Boeing Corp. and Manro Haydan Trading of London are founding corporate sponsors. The conference will pay special tribute to Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson, recognizing his lifelong work on human rights and his successful efforts to secure the right of emigration throughout the Eastern bloc. Human rights veterans such as Natan Sharansky and Elena Bonner, widow of Nobel Laureate Andred Sakharov, will join Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, and other major political figures at this international event. Sessions at the conference will address the historical and contemporary significance of the amendment and assess the current status of Russian Jews in the former Soviet Union. I hope that my colleagues will mark this important anniversary as a reminder of our former colleague, Senator Scoop Jackson, and his vital role two decades ago in helping to secure human rights and freedom for thousands of citizens trapped behind the Iron Curtain.