Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. And then it would be split, the time in opposition?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, what efforts have been made by the Committee on Resources to foster a settlement?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, then the litigants go after the people doing the work, saying they are not acting in good faith, and then they have to be recused, subject to litigation, personal liability, I might add, which we have tried to take care of in this bill. This thing is broken; and somehow all the people that are here today expressing their wonderful concern, there is going to be a tomorrow, and we will see if anybody really wants to stand up with the majority side obviously having to be involved and work on this. This has to be done. We have got to get something done here.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I completely concur with the gentleman. I think the gentleman laid this out correctly. That is what needs to happen in terms of having some mechanism created to deal with pre-1985 so that we get some expert estimate, and negotiate that. Our hope was to take to the present, forward where we believe the records are sufficient, and get that done as quickly as possible. I do not know how we are going to have to that structured, but that is what we need to do. I would love to work with the gentleman on this to try to see if we cannot move something like that forward.

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

Mr. DICKS. There is $143 million this year in this budget for this activity. This is broken. We need somehow to get our hands around this and try to come up with a settlement. Congress is going to have to do it or we are going to spend billions on something that we cannot do.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a very tough problem and there are some who may not realize that this is already hurting all of the other tribes because this money comes out of the Interior budget and is not available for other programs. Now, Babbitt tried as hard as he could. I believe that Norton is trying as hard as she can. But you have litigants who are going after the people in the agency who are trying to do the work, forcing them to be recused and threatening them with civil liabilities. This is an outrageous act of legal activity aimed at trying to destroy the Department of Interior and its ability to function. In fact, people are being held personally liable under lawsuits because of their work in this particular matter. I just think that this is broken. We have got to fix it here. It is a possible way to move forward with a reasonable amount of money. We could spend a billion dollars and still not get the information because it is not there, the information pre-1985 is not there in any definable way. You cannot do this job. And if you just keep throwing money at it and say, do it, and they cannot do it, then we cannot get anything done. I am a very practical guy. At some point if it is broke, let us fix it. Let us come up with a settlement. Let us get the authorizers to do something and create a settlement here and pass it through the Congress that is fair and equitable. Listen to all the witnesses. Listen to the best information you can get, the best estimates you can. Do a settlement, not this litigation which is broken. We have a judge that is out of control who is saying the Department cannot use the Internet. To me it is one of the most outrageous things that I have witnessed in my career. We have to stop it. If the Democrats are worried about saving some money, this is a place to do it.

Mr. DICKS. I think the thing we want to emphasize here is that we are trying to get this thing resolved without spending what has been estimated. If we go the route we are going, it could cost from $500 to $700 million out of the Interior Department budget to do this historical accounting. What we have proposed is let us take the period from the year 2000 going back to 1985, let us do that first, that is going to cost approximately $900 million. That is still going to come out of the Interior Department budget. Then, if the Congress, if the authorizers who we see here today, want to, we could then have a subsequent congressional act that would, go back 100 years and try to reach some kind of an accounting, estimate, or settlement on what would be fair considering the facts that we do not have the accounts. What we are faced with is we have got a broken main here. And money is gushing out because of this lawsuit. It could be up to a billion dollars, $500 to $700 million up to a billion. On 5 individuals they spent $20 million. And that is the finding that the judge will not release to the Congress.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) have 1 additional minute to answer the question.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this is why they cannot get this done, they do not have all the records. There is no possible way to do this. Someone is going to make an estimate of what is there, and it can either be done by the court, which is not helping us, by the way, or by the Congress. If we do not do it there, between the parties, then it has to be done by the Congress. Congress has to step in, the authorizing committee has to step in, and come up with a legislative settlement of this issue.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is going to cost about $900 million just to do the accounting back to 1985. The department does not have all of these records, or they would have done it. We have to have a settlement. At some point this Congress is going to have to impose a settlement on this issue. I have done one before, the Puyallup Indian land claim settlement, a very comprehensive settlement which Congress supported. We are going to have to craft a settlement. Now, if these gentlemen who have come here to the floor today to help us, if their committees would get busy and develop a compromise and do a settlement on this issue, it could be coming from the Congress. Somehow we have to resolve this, because we do not have enough money. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking that suggests that this is all going to come out of the Justice Department. It may not come out of the Justice Department. If there is malfeasance, Mitch Daniels is going to say, Interior, you repay this $2.5 billion, 5 billion, whatever the number is. So that is a possibility.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, they are directed by the judge to do this.

Mr. DICKS. As I understand it, the gentleman from Arizona would have 30 minutes and the chairman and I would split the other 30 minutes, 15 minutes each in opposition.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point we tried to make before, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) did a good job, as has the gentleman from Georgia, in going back to those issues, but we reformed those things. We put provisions in the bill that emphasized quality, and those have all been adopted.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I know that this is a major concern in Hawaii, and I want to work with the gentlewoman on this issue and will work with our friends in the other body to seek a solution. I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this to our attention.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman is willing to exercise his points of order when he needs them.

Mr. DICKS. I will just say the final thing since the gentleman has covered my second amendment, and I think the gentleman from Alaska will object to both of them, I would let the gentleman now proceed with his point of order which I will concede. Point of Order

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I also commend the gentleman from Vermont. This is a very good amendment. The gentleman every year has had a constructive addition to this bill, and we compliment him for that.