Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Turner].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation, a noted expert on these matters.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. DICKS. I object.

Mr. DICKS. What about my amendment, Mr. Chairman? I think we have to object. I think it is too short. I think we are not ready yet.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would object. I think that is too short a time frame. I think there are a lot of Members who want to speak on this and I am just afraid we will not be able to take care of everybody who wants to speak.

Mr. DICKS. Is the gentleman saying that it is an hour on the Dicks amendment?

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the gentlewoman that there is nothing in my amendment and I do not believe anything in either amendment that would adversely affect prior timber purchaser credits. We would certainly work to put language in at some point to make sure that that is a clear understanding. We will work with the chairman and the administration to make sure that is taken care of.

Mr. DICKS. If my amendment is adopted, of course, we will keep the program going. Even if it is not, I am confident that there is nothing in the Kennedy-Porter amendment that retroactively takes away anybody's right.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho.

Mr. DICKS. I never said the administration supported my amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DICKS. No, no. Dan Glickman is a longtime member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. DICKS. All of them are used. When we do reconstruction on those roads, it is to keep those roads available for recreational purposes. The gentleman is taking out a big part of that money. I am surprised that we even have, and I think it is 5 percent, by the way. Look at what we have done to timber harvesting in this country. We have taken it down to here. I know that someone will not rest until it is probably below this line. That is simply not right because we have a responsibility. We can manage these forests on a sustainable basis. This is not James Watt running this place down there. It is Jim Lyons who used to be on the staff here of the Committee on Agriculture, it is Dan Glickman, it is Albert Gore, it is Bill Clinton, it is Bruce Babbitt. These are the people that are managing these forests. All I want to say is that these people are managing this properly. They have also said that the Kennedy-Porter amendment goes too far. We have a letter here today and let me just read a couple of salient paragraphs: ``Small timber business purchasers would be adversely affected because of potential financial troubles they may encounter as they operate timber sales if the purchaser credit program is eliminated. Accordingly, the administration urges Congress to allow the Forest Service to do the purchaser election. The administration also supports reducing the construction of new roads on national forests as reflected in its budget. However, the $41.5 million reduction the amendment proposes goes too far in eliminating important construction and reconstruction efforts that provide public safety and environmental benefits.'' The administration opposes the Kennedy-Porter amendment because it simply goes too far. This is a decent compromise.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, first of all, all these roads are used by people for recreational purposes.

Mr. DICKS. Of course it does.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the counties get hurt and the small businesses who have used this program. That is why instead of eliminating it as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] do, I have kept it in at $25 million.