Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman that one of the major concerns on our side for people who represent thousands of government employees, is that there is supposed to be a competition under A76 in order to let the civilian employees try to maintain their jobs. Sometimes they reorganize into a smaller unit and then they try to compete. Part of our concern is that OMB is saying do not do competition in order to achieve these quotas, and I think that is wrong. I think that violates the existing law. That is why we are so concerned about it. We do not object to the A76 competition if the civilians have an opportunity to compete for their jobs. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. The FAIR Act was created to list these commercial jobs. It said nothing about quotas or forcing these jobs to be contracted out. That is all we are asking for. Do not set quotas. Let them go in and have a competition under A-76 for these jobs. I would say to the gentleman, I have served on the Defense Subcommittee, and I know for a fact that once we contract these jobs out, then the cost of the work goes up. OMB fought against us. We used to have postcontracting audits to make certain that once the thing was contracted out, that we actually saved money and did not pay all these contractors more money than we were paying the civil servants. This is ridiculous. This Moran amendment is needed. We do not need quotas. We need A76 competition. Let us have competition between the public employees and the private employees and let us see who can do the best job and let us do it on an agency by agency basis. Let us support the Moran amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I served for 8 years on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I have no doubt that the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) can do a fine investigation. What I think is important for the credibility for the American people is an independent commission, standing alone, with experts who can take a longer view. We all know what the schedule around here is like, and that Members have multiple responsibilities, and we understand the time it takes to do one of these jobs, to focus in on this and get it right. President Roosevelt understood this after Pearl Harbor. He set up a commission, a public commission. I think that is a very good model for this. And I would say to my friends tonight, late in the evening, does anyone have a doubt that this debate might be reversed if Al Gore were the President of the United States or if Bill Clinton were still President? I can remember all of the investigations of President Clinton, one after another. There was great energy on the other side of the aisle to have every imaginable investigation. I can remember the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence looking into Haiti, looking into Iranian arms to Bosnia, technology transfer to China, campaign finance reform, and impeachment. I think the American people understand the politics of this body, and I think we will do ourselves a great service to have an independent commission looking at this so that the people of this country will have confidence that objective people have looked at it not from a political perspective. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and I did a great job with our select subcommittee regarding the transfer of technology. We had a unanimous recommendation. But I could still see a commission having dealt with that. And I think on this issue, because of its importance to the country, the importance to our history, having a commission look at this that the American people can have complete faith in, I believe, is the right way to go, and I think we should all support the Roemer amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding naval officer, Rear Admiral Roland Knapp, from Gig Harbor, Washington. Admiral Knapp has served with considerable distinction and dedication for the past 33 years, and I would like to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to thank him for his service and his contributions to the defense of our great nation. On July 26, Admiral Knapp will retire from the Navy after 33 years of active service, and he will leave command of the Navy's Executive Office for Aircraft Carriers here in Washington, DC. During his tenure as Commander of the Navy's Aircraft Carriers Office, Admiral Knapp has overseen the christening of USS Ronald Reagan, our newest nuclear aircraft carrier, the complex refueling overhaul of the USS Nimitz and the contract awarding of CVN-77. He has also been responsible for all aircraft carrier acquisition and life cycle support programs the past 2\1/2\ years. During this tenure his command worked with the fleet to ensure our ``in-service'' carrier force was maintained at the highest possible levels of readiness. Their brilliant dedication to our force was visibly evident during the recent sustained combat-operations conducted during Operation ``Enduring Freedom.'' In addition, Admiral Knapp has ensured the success of our aircraft carrier programs well into the future through his numerous innovative business practices as well as merging the latest technological advances into our carrier fleet. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Admiral Knapp and his wife Jean for their honorable service to our nation. I Join my colleagues in the House today in wishing them continued success and the traditional naval wish of ``Fair winds and Following seas'' as Admiral Knapp closes out his distinguished military career.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern about the undemocratic and totalitarian actions of the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev. He has recently banned several opposition parties, arrested and exiled their leaders, and has made the formation of new parties virtually impossible. He has shut down many newspapers and television stations in Kazakhstan, preventing its citizens from having a free press. Furthermore, President Nazarbayev has reportedly placed $1 billion dollars of oil revenue into a secret Swiss bank account. This behavior should not be tolerated and I believe it is important at this time to focus international attention on this situation. President Nazarbayev needs to allow for all legitimate opposition parties and their leaders to run for public office and allow for all exiled political leaders to return to Kazakhstan. He must also allow for a free press, the foundation of any democracy. President Nazarbayev should be held accountable for widespread corruption, including the placement of government funds into secret Swiss bank accounts. I am asking that we insert into the Record a July 12th editorial written by the Washington Post Editorial Board which more fully describes the injustices currently occurring in Kazakhstan. [the article follows] [The Washington Post--Friday, July 12, 2002] New Allies, Old Formula As the United States rushed to strengthen ties to the countries of Central Asia after Sept. 11, one question that quickly arose was whether the new military agreements and economic packages would serve only to bolster the repressive rule of the region's autocrats or whether U.S. influence would also be used to bring about political and economic reform. Some 10 months later the first answers are in, and they are at best mixed. The region's most repressive ruler, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, has also proved to be the one most eager to forge a close relationship with Washington; consequently, his government has responded to concerted pressure from the Bush administration with a few modest concessions and promises of more. Elsewhere, however, a couple of new allies may have concluded that their new utility as U.S. security partners empowers them to repress their domestic opponents all the more forcefully. Nursultan Nazarbayev, the president of Kazakhstan, certainly seems untroubled by any imperative to accept Western norms of democracy or human rights. Though his huge, oil-rich country once appeared to be leading the former Soviet republics of the region in reforming the old system, it has, since Sept. 11, moved steadily in the opposite direction. Mr. Nazarbayev, a former member of the Soviet Politburo who took over Kazakhstan when it became independent and has ruled it ever since, did not take kindly to the formation of an opposition party by former government officials late last year. He arrested and tried several of its leaders, and recently he had his rubber-stamp parliament pass a new law making the legal formation of such parties virtually impossible. The president also did not like reading reports in the Kazakh media about a secret Swiss bank account in which he deposited $1 billion in oil revenue. A score of newspapers and an equal number of television stations have been forced to shut down in recent months, and a number of journalists have been attacked or threatened. Mr. Nazarbayev has arrogantly dismissed U.S. complaints about his behavior, just as he has waved off suggestions that he consider allowing more democracy. Instead, he seems to be modeling himself on the longtime U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf. Rather than reform, he signs drilling and pipeline deals that will allow his country to rake in billions in oil income; rather than respect human rights, he offers cooperation with the U.S. military. Just this week his government formalized an agreement with the Bush administration that will allow emergency landings and refuelings for U.S. military planes at Almaty's international airport. Bush administration officials say they understand that accepting a relationship on such terms is more than a political embarrassment. ``Authoritarian governments and largely unreformed economies,'' Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Lynn Pascoe told a recent congressional hearing, ``create the conditions of repression and poverty that could well become the breeding grounds for further terrorism.'' The question, then, is how to break the old model that Mr. Nazarbayev would renew. As in the Persian Gulf, admonitions from ambassadors, and even rhetoric from the White House, will not be enough; Mr. Nazarbayev must understand that his country's relationship with the United States depends on political change. Does the Pentagon really need another landing arrangement in Central Asia? If such agreements were withheld--or frozen--Mr. Nazarbayev and other Central Asian dictators would be quick to get the message.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is completely offset by a very small cut in administrative expenses. Because of the offset, the money is not going to be taken from here and moved over to some worthy cause. This is a worthy cause because we have created this enormous industry in this country that have jobs, economic activity surrounding the arts. We started this endowment back in 1964. My good friend, Livingston Biddle, was the staff person who worked with Senator Pell to get this thing created. Ever since then, we have seen the growth of the arts throughout the country because of the seed money that comes from the endowment. Even with this 10 percent increase, we are still 30 percent below where we were in 1994. If we had inflation, it would be 50 percent below. We are just trying to get back to a reasonable level of funding, and this House supported this amendment last year. I urge a vote for it this year.

Mr. DICKS. No. No.

Mr. DICKS. Well, then, we have a bipartisan consensus that we made these changes. Then let us give them back the money they so desperately need to fund the program all over the country. They need this money.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thought that the study was very professionally done, and I think the arts generate probably more than $134 billion in economic activity. The most important number was the Federal revenues, $10.5 billion for a $116 million investment. I do not think we are going to do any better than that on return in investment. The other thing I would point out, when the House of Representatives was under the control of the Democratic Party in 1994, we provided $162 million for the National Endowment for the Arts on a very bipartisan basis. I see many Members here on the floor supported that level of funding; and then, of course, in 1995 that was reduced to less than $100 million, we had this dramatic Draconian cut in funding. We have come back, and last year we had a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives for an increase of $15 million: $10 million for the endowment for the arts, because it was cut more severely than the endowment for the humanities, $3 million for humanities, $2 million for museums and library services. We do not have museum services anymore in this bill, so it is $10 million for the arts, $5 million for the humanities this year. We can go to every part of this country now and we can see the consequences, the impact of these efforts, the Challenge America program. These moneys are going all over the country. We made sure that all the arts are not in the big cities. They are now everywhere; and that is why they are creating all this economic activity, creating these jobs and giving audiences all over the country a chance to enjoy the arts and the humanities. This is a good, positive thing to do. Let us support it. Let us get back to where we used to be back in the good old days in 1994.

Mr. DICKS. And we would split it 30-30, or would it be 15?

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, is it his amendment and all amendments thereto?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to inquire of the chairman if this is on the Hayworth amendment?

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it would not be just the Indian programs. All the programs of the Department of the Interior would have to be taxed for the $80 million to pay back to the claims. The point I am making is the gentleman from West Virginia stood up here and said that it is an automatic deal for the Justice Department to have to take care of this settlement. That is not an automatic deal. I want the House and the Members to understand that.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the one thing I want to correct, and I know the gentleman from West Virginia did not intend it, but there is an assumption being made by the proponents of this amendment that any claim in this issue will be paid for out of the Justice Department funds. We have had just recently a Ramah settlement, $80 million, that came out of the claims fund, and OMB directed the Department of the Interior to take money from their accounts and put it back into the Justice Department. So this is not a clear-cut case. And there could be an effort to make the Department of the Interior pay this.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it was not you. It was the previous speaker.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are not doing very well the way we are going, and again, the prospects are we are going to spend between 500 and $700 million on the historical accounting. It could go to $1 billion if we go the way we are going; and if we try this approach, we may be able to limit the amount of money spent to $100 million on the 1985 to the current accounting, then work out an approach pre-1985. It has got to be a settlement because they do not have the records. It has got to be a settlement, and we ought to work on the language. I resent the intonation that it is some vague promise. The gentleman from Washington has never ever made a commitment that I have not kept in my years in this Congress. When I say we are willing to sit down and work on something, that is not a vague promise.

Mr. DICKS. Yes.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman wants to make his speech, make it on the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Rahall) time.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think we made some progress here today. I want to make sure there is clear understanding that the committee, this committee has been one of the strongest advocates for Native Americans. We have increased every year that I have been on this committee; we have had added money for Native Americans. This is not an effort by the committee to do something to harm the tribes that are affected here. What we are trying to do is to get them money in a reasonable period of time without decimating the interior appropriations bill every single year. I want that $143 million to be used for other programs that will help Native Americans. I do not want to waste $1 billion in going out and trying to do accounting that is not going to give us the information pre-1985. I have talked to the chairman and the staff. We are prepared to work with the authorizers on language that would deal with the pre-1985 period between now and the conference committee and maybe we can put together a package as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has laid out previously, which I think makes some sense, so that we can move expeditiously on the period between 2000 and 1985; and then we craft an approach for a settlement of some sort pre-1985 so that we move the game forward, get this thing moving in the right direction so that the tribes will get some money. To do just historical accounting every single year and let this litigation fester is not accomplishing anything to help the tribes. They are not going to get the money. It is going to be years and years and years before this will be resolved. It will go through litigation. It will go to the circuit court of appeals. It will go to the United States Supreme Court. We need to work out a settlement; and this amendment was offered in the spirit of trying to break this logjam, trying to move this thing forward. I would like to see the authorizers agree with us today that we should work together collectively to try to come up with some pre-1985 language. The chairman and his people are willing to work with us on this, and I think we could make some very significant progress and move this thing forward.