Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I just went through a situation like this with a tribe in my district, the Elwah Tribe up in Port Angeles, Washington. There was a major State project and it was done on an Indian burial site, and when we started the project we found out that there were actually graves there, and this was a very, very sensitive matter with the tribe. What I did was sit down with the Washington State officials, with the historic preservation people, with the tribe, the local community, the port of Port Angeles, and we worked this thing out, and we protected the tribe's interest. Now, I think Federal agencies are going to be sensitive since you have an executive order. If the tribes feel that there is some problem in the gentleman's State or in my State or in West Virginia, why not get together and work it out with the Forest Service, the BLM, whichever agency it is, rather than trying to do something here with a meat ax that is going to cut off the funding and we have not got a clue of who these people are that are going to come in and make these determinations about what is a sacred site. I mean, to put this into Federal law at this point, to me it just does not make sense. Why not go through and help the people with the sites that are affected and make sure that they have an opportunity to be heard.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I just want to go back to the executive order and read so that everybody here has an understanding of how this would work. Sacred site means ``any specific discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to or ceremonial use by an Indian religion, provided that the tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site.'' So in this case, the tribe or an individual--it would not even have to be a recognized tribe--it could just be an individual identified with an Indian religion who could say, ``these are our sacred lands''; and the agency then, under the Rahall amendment, would have to protect them. This is not some way of having to come in and go through a process and explain that there is some history here or something else; it is just an individual who walks in and says, ``these are our sacred sites,'' and, therefore, no money could be spent. Now, I cannot support that. I hope that we will take time. This is why it is so bad to do riders on these appropriations bills that come right out of the wind; and in this case, I think this is going way too far. We need to have more time. The gentleman who is the ranking member of an authorization committee can get hearings on this in his committee, and that is where this should be dealt with.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the gentleman, have there been hearings and could the gentleman describe what the status of the Rahall amendment in your committee is. I am an appropriator. I would like to see the Members deal with this issue in their committee. I think that is a much better way to do it than doing it on a rider on an appropriations bill. I agree with the gentleman. I am a little concerned myself about an ability for this self- described sacred lands on Federal lands. I mean, the consequences, the possibilities of this are extraordinary. But I think we have to give some assurance to the gentleman from West Virginia that the gentleman is going to continue to look at this issue in the gentleman's committee.

Mr. DICKS. But the problem is that it is not the forest regulations that are stopping us from doing it. The forest regulations are not saying you cannot go in there and thin.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman tell me, what is the issue here? He is saying that they are using the recreation demo money that was collected for maintenance purposes and they are using that for enforcing the Endangered Species Act?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman is arguing that they should be using the money that was appropriated for listing under the Endangered Species Act for this purpose, not fee demo money?

Mr. DICKS. Maintenance and those kinds of things.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be willing to accept it if the chairman will accept it.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, have there been hearings on this issue before the gentleman's committee?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think that was clearly the understanding that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I had when we were responsible for getting this thing established some time ago. Obviously, the Endangered Species Act is still in place, and they have other money to look at these things. What the gentleman is saying is that is money they should use for this purpose.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, obviously a $60 million cut in the National Endowment for the Arts would be a disaster. I certainly understand the gentleman's concern about law enforcement and other issues in the budget, and we will be glad to work with him on those issues, but not to take $60 million out. A similar amendment was rejected by a vote of 112 to 313 last year. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues in the House to again soundly defeat the Tancredo amendment. This amendment would have a devastating consequence on the Endowment for the Arts, and I think the endowments, as I said previously, are doing a tremendous job for our country and deserve to be supported. So I urge a no vote on the Tancredo amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has been a very good friend and a strong supporter of this bill.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to tell him that I will be glad to cooperate and glad to work with him on this issue. We can call a meeting with the Fish and Wildlife Service or whatever he wants to do to see if we cannot clarify what the problem is.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Shays- Leach amendment. In order to find this offset, we talked to the Inspector General of the Interior Department. He made a recommendation that this was an area that had been very wasteful and that this would not hurt any of the programs there. I want to say this is my 28th year on the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, and I started on this subcommittee under the tutelage of Sid Yates of Chicago, who was a tremendous supporter of the National Endowment For the Arts and Humanities. And I had worked in the other body and knew, of course, Senator Pell, who was the author of both the National Endowment For the Arts and Humanities legislation. Over the years I have followed how, with the increase in funding, even though we took a major cut, that we have seen an explosion in the growth of art institutions all over this country--more operas, more ballets, more theatres, more performing arts. This funding from the National Endowment for the Arts has been like the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. We have today two of the finest administrators in these parts, Bruce Cole running the National Endowment for the Humanities, who I had a chance to talk to yesterday; and Dana Gioia, who is running the National Endowment for the Arts. These are real professionals. They are running these departments very effectively, and so we have offset this amendment completely. I think it is a choice of priorities, and I believe that what is happening in the arts and humanities is so important for the citizens of this country, and they appreciate it. Every community in my district has benefited from the National Endowment for the Arts and by the National Endowment for the Humanities. We have the Pantages Theatre and the Broadway Theatre District in Tacoma, the Admiral Theatre in Bremerton and Fort Worden up at Port Townsend. Port Angeles has a summer arts festival. These things are appreciated by the American people, and they are terribly important for the education of our children. And yet this year, even though President Bush and Mrs. Bush asked for substantial increases in the arts and humanities, our committee rejected that, completely. And, yes, we had a very bad allocation, but I do believe that in these two areas, we had a good hearing. The chairman of both endowments came up, testified before our committee; and they were so excited about what they can do with this money for the American people, especially on the humanities area, where we need to have more education about civics and our history and give our kids a better opportunity. And there are programs that are going out to all the schools all over the country that are supported by this, and it is a very fundamental part of our education. So I am going to ask our Members, as we have done for the last 4 years, to vote for this. I want to compliment all those on the other side of the aisle who spoke today. I know there is always tremendous pressure to go along with the leadership; but in this case, we did not get the job done in the subcommittee. This is a chance for the House to correct this and show the American people again that we have gotten beyond this ideological fight. We can support the endowments, because they are doing good work. They have got good leadership, and they deserve our support.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time and thank her for managing this rule every year so very effectively. I look forward to our joint efforts today to try to help the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Like her State, the State of Washington, Seattle, Bremerton, Tacoma, the tri-cities, have all benefited by this funding. I just think it is one of the most important things that we do. I remember those great days when we were at $176 million before the Reagan Revolution came to town. I would also like to compliment the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) from the Fourth Congressional District. We work together. I just want him to know we were over in the Energy and Water appropriations full committee markup today. I think the tri-cities did as well as they have ever done and even our joint project we worked on, Hammer, $8 million is very, very generous. Our delegation has always worked very effectively together. There are some things, though, that concern me about this bill. First of all, I wish we could have done more for the operation of the national parks. The administration asked for a $22 million increase. Our committee increased that by $33 million for a total of $55 million. But that simply is not enough. We need more money for the operation of our parks. I think part of the problem, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, has said, we have got a problem with the management of the Park Service and we have got to get priorities straightened out at the Park Service. I love Fran Manella. She is a wonderful person. But she has got to realize that it is the operation, the day-to-day operation and availability of those parks that the American people count on. Let me give my colleagues the numbers. The Olympic National Park is either third or fourth in the Nation in visitation. Two years ago we had 130 summer workers at that park. That is now down to 25. And we have 202 authorized FTEs for the Olympic National Park. It is down to 120. It was 146 a couple of years ago. Why is that? Because the administration in their budget request is not covering the cost of the COLA, the increase that we give in pay every year, and also there are other fixed costs that have to be paid that are not being covered in the budget request, the increase in the budget request. So what do they have? The only choice they have is to reduce the number of personnel, not to fill slots. So when people go to the park this summer, they are not going to have the same quality of a visit. There is not going to be a ranger out on the trail to tell them about the important cultural and historic areas within the Olympic National Park. They do not have people to take care of cultural assets, to take care of the buildings and infrastructure. And this is not just Olympic; this is across the country. This year even with this increase of $55 million from last year's level, we have 388 parks; 241 of them will be funded at below the 2003 level. That is a prescription for disaster; and it is coming down, down, down. And we have got to step up. We, the Congress, cannot allow this to happen on our watch. And, yes, a big part of the problem is the inadequacy of the Presidential budget request. This is not just this administration. This goes back to 1994. This has been going on for a 10-year period of time, and that is why it is even more devastating, the consequences of this. And we have to continue to work together to come up with the resources. I think this is a top priority within this bill that has not been properly met. We have made a modest increase here, but not adequate to the task. In fact, if my amendment that I brought up in committee had been accepted, we could have increased it by $45 million, and that would have meant that every park in the country would have gotten an 8 percent increase. We are talking about $45 million in the operating account would have done that. Each park would have gotten an 8 percent increase. So this is the one major thing that upsets me in this bill. Yes, we do not have money in here for land and water conservation, which I regret. I regret the lack of funding on the conservation amendment. But the thing we tried to do is protect our core agencies, the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service. And yet they have these same problems. One very good thing that we did in this bill was to deal with firefighting in a much better way. There is money in here, $500 million in 2004. When this bill is signed, it would be immediately available for the firefighting season. Another $500 million for 2005, $500 million for 2004, and I think a $167 million increase in the bill for firefighting itself. So we are trying to face up to that reality. We have got a drought out in the West. This is going to be a very serious problem. We are also working, of course, on other important issues. In my own area, Hood Canal, we are working with the USGS on dealing with this oxygenation problem. We have a problem with too much nitrogen in the saltwater, which is having a devastating effect on all the fish and creatures there, and we have got to deal with this problem; and the USGS, which is part of this bill, is helping in that respect, and it is a very important priority of mine. We are also working on the restoration of salmon runs, and we are doing a new process of mass marking with these fish so we can tell the wild fish from the hatchery fish. It is another important priority in our State. So overall, I think this bill, even though it is very deficient, below last year's level in terms of overall funding, below the President's budget request, we have tried to fund the things that are most crucially important; and I intend to vote for this bill on final passage. I hope we can improve it with several of the amendments that will be offered today.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments on the conservation amendment, but I also want to underline one other thing he said that I forgot to say, and that is that the President's budget requested an $18 million increase for the National Endowment for the Arts and for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and neither one of those has been accomplished. I think we have increased Humanities by $3 million, but this is below the President's budget request; and Mrs. Bush, who I think is a very thoughtful first lady, has been a proponent of these two increases. So I was somewhat surprised that it was decided to take out the money for these important programs, especially since they were requested by the first lady.