Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman too for his statement here tonight. I want to say, I find much the same in the State of Washington in the Tacoma-Bremerton area, that the AmeriCorps volunteers are doing an outstanding job working with young people in after-school programs, working with people, juvenile offenders. It is a program that I think has tremendous credibility. I think Harris Wofford has done a great job of it. I am just shocked that again, for partisan reasons, I guess, because people do not like the President, we are cutting out a program that has tremendous merit.

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

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, for many years I have supported the Youth Conservation Corps, which has been a tremendous organization. Our national parks, our national forests, the Fish and Wildlife Service, these young people are out there doing tremendously credible things in our public lands. Again, this is a program that we had to fight to save during the Reagan and Bush administrations. For some reason, these programs get targeted when we need to be doing these things. We need to be cleaning up these areas. The Campaign to Keep America Beautiful has kind of fallen on deaf ears here in this new generation. We need to explain to people again how important that is, and here are our young people out there doing this good work. I am stunned that we are again trying to take the funding out for this program. I think it is one of the President's finest accomplishments.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), who survived the fires; and we are glad he is here.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe that in one breath we can say we are going to delay this process now for 7 years and then complain about the fact that it has cost $56 million to do the process. If we stop delaying it, let them issue the Record of Decision, we can get on with this. We have looked at the socioeconomic consequence in the EIS. THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise both Members that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 4 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to close.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who formerly represented this part of the area, who is a distinguished member of the House and a very strong environmentalist. (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this. We have been through this. On the West side, we were enjoined by the Federal judge, no timber harvesting. Zero. The new administration came in and held a summit in Portland, and nobody was entirely pleased with the outcome, but we got the injunctions lifted. We got some timber harvest restored. We got a $1.2 billion-a-year plan to help the communities deal with these problems. And we moved on. What we are talking about here with the Nethercutt amendment is going back to the way we used to do business, and that way is going to lead us to the Federal Court's injunction. And, again, he is going to hurt his own people. That is why I do not understand why he is doing this.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not what the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service say. They say that once it is designated as a monument, this amendment applies. They cannot do law enforcement, they cannot do planning, they cannot take care of the visitor. They legally changed the designation and thus would be impacted.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is right on target, as far as I am concerned. The gentleman mentioned this Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. According to the Department of the Interior, the House requires, under this amendment, the Federal Government to prepare analysis, to their knowledge, that has never been prepared for any land use planned effort, no matter its scope. As a result, the House action will unreasonably extend the duration of planning for this project, which, in part, due to requirements placed on the Federal Government by riders to every full year appropriation for Interior since 1996, has already taken 7 years to complete at considerable cost to the American taxpayer. The thing that I worry about is that we are going to get ourselves into the same mess we did before the forest plan was put into place, and that is that a Federal judge is going to say that we have not done the right things in terms of watershed protection, that we are not protecting these fish under the Endangered Species Act. He will stop all the logging, all the mining, all the grazing, and an injunction issue. And that is the worst possible outcome. So I am saying to the gentleman from Washington, who I do consider to be a friend and a thoughtful person, that it is time now to let this process go forward and finish this EIS and make the changes that are necessary to protect the bull trout, to protect the salmon runs on the Snake River, to make sure that we are doing the watershed protection so that we do not get the Endangered Species Act implemented in an adverse way in the gentleman's area. But we cannot simply do nothing. We cannot just say we have no plan, no strategy. I have supported both gentlemen from Washington on the issue of the Snake River dams. But if we are not going to take out the Snake River dams, then we have to do other things to protect the habitat, to deal with hatchery problems, to deal with harvest. And protecting the habitat is a major part of this requirement in order to protect these fish. I am going to let the gentlemen on the other side here have a chance, because I know the gentleman from Alabama is ready to go, but this amendment is offered in good constructive spirit. I think the strategy of trying to stop any change here is simply not going to work. It is going to wind up with the Endangered Species Act being applied by the Federal judges in a way none of us want, and so we have to make some hard decisions. We cannot say no to everything. That is why I supported the protection of the Hanford Reach. Because if we are not going to take out the dams, at least we will protect these salmon in the Hanford Reach. So I appreciate my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) yielding to me on this. This is something I feel very strongly about. I think the strategy here of continuing to delay this is a mistaken strategy, and that is why I offered this amendment. And I appreciate speaking on it.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend and colleague that 7 years is hardly a rush to judgment. I want my colleagues to hear the language of this limitation in this appropriation bill. It says right here, ``None of the funds made available under this act may be used to issue a record of decision or any policy implementing the interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project not prepared pursuant to law, as set forth in chapter 6 of Title V of the United States Code.'' In all my years of being on the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the relevance of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act has been somewhat questionable. But let us talk about the analysis that is done in an Environmental Impact Statement. It looks at the socioeconomic impact of the EIS. Now, either we can get serious and decide we want to really pass legislation, and this bill. Frankly, it is fatally flawed, but these limitations are objectionable to the administration every single year because they offend the process. We do not have hearings, we do not get into great detail on these things and, frankly, and the gentleman, of course, has been here for a number of years, but that is why we have authorizing committees and that is why in most instances we should let the authorizing committees deal with these substantive issues and not deal with them in the appropriations process. I think on both sides of the aisle there has been a consensus that we should not do these limitations unless there is just absolutely no other way to deal with the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monument status also involves an extensive community involvement process so that programs can be established for all public uses. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing are all allowed in these areas. But they would all be stopped if we could not do necessary wildlife surveys and environmental programs. This provision would not allow any funds to be spent for law enforcement and staffing in the monument. In the areas where there are visitors' centers, they would be closed because the provision would preclude any funds from being spent to operate, maintain, or staff them. I understand that some of the President's recent designations have been controversial. But he has had, in each instance, the complete authority to act under the jurisdiction of the 1906 Antiquities Act. If the authorizing committees, and I note the presence of the chairman of the authorizing committee, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction wishes to reexamine the Antiquities Act or wishes to pass legislation to cancel any specific monument designation, then they should do so. But the inclusion of this provision and the other provisions are ill- advised and ensure a veto by the President. I urge support of my amendment and hope the House agrees that these provisions should not be included in this bill. Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which would overcome section 334 and 335 of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. My amendment seeks to overcome the funding limitation imposed in the bill under section 334 and 335 relating to the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning, and management of national monuments. Both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed. Section 334 of the bill would stop the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ICBEMP, from going forward. The author of the provision included report language to the bill language stating concern that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis. The administration, on the other hand, believes that such an analysis is not required. This is a major issue in this debate. Now, I understand that the author of the amendment may have concerns about the agencies complying with all laws, but I have been assured by the administration that they are, in fact, in compliance with all existing Federal laws and, therefore, object to the inclusion of this provision which would basically stop their work on this particular project. Further, I do not know whether the author of the amendment does or does not support the Columbia Basin Project's goals, but I think it is vitally important to articulate why it should go forward and not be stopped with a rider in this Interior appropriations bill. The Columbia Basin Project was initiated by President Clinton in 1993 to respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull trout protection, and treaty and trust responsibilities to the Tribes in the area. It also sought to bring more certainty and stability to the communities located in the Columbia River Basin, which were impacted by these events. What we had before were literally dozens of smaller management plans that only addressed specific areas within the basin. The goal of ICBEMP was to better assemble each individual plan into a more coordinated watershed-based program. ICBEMP has several goals. Among them is to better protect the habitat important to threatened and endangered species and also to provide a long-term plan for mining, grazing, and timber harvest, all of which are still allowed under the project. It is not a land grab, nor does it take decisions out of the hands of local communities and local management offices. It is an important step to better manage these critical lands, and it has had several years in development and has received extensive public comments and participation. Section 335 prevents the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture from using any funds for the purpose of designing, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments which were designated since 1999. This provision attempts to restrict the designation of monuments by the President under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act by using a back-door method: funding limitation. A prohibition on spending funds for these monuments would not change their legal status, but it would prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas as defined by law. I would say to all of my colleagues who had monuments declared, that the author of the amendment chose not to cover his monument, but he is covering our colleagues' monuments. The author of the amendment included language in the Interior Appropriations report to accompany the bill which states: ``Nothing in this language prevents either Secretary from managing these Federal lands under their previous management plans.'' But the bill language clearly states that no money shall be expended for the purpose of design, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments. Once the President has acted to designate these lands, they are legally designated and would thus be subject to the spending limitation. All this provision would do is ensure that no Federal dollars by our land and resource management agencies could be spent in these areas. A monument designation does not lock up these lands. Quite the contrary, monument status does not preclude such activities as grazing or mining.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I was proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. What this would do would be to take the Slaughter amendment, $15 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 million for museum services.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to give us some perspective on the importance of this issue.

Mr. DICKS. In its present, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).