Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman, is he saying if we do not sell the oil then we are going to be over our 602(b) allocation, and therefore we are going to have to cut back a whole series of other programs that are funded under this budget, whether it is the Forest Service or the Park Service, or heaven forbid, individual Member projects that have been funded in this bill?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, in essence what the gentleman is saying is one of the biggest problems has been getting the oil out of the ground, and we are going to undermine the ability to do that. So this reserve that we think is going to be there to help us in the crisis, as a result of striking out your amendment, will make it less plausible that the oil will be there because we will not be able to maintain the strategic petroleum oil reserve. I want to associate myself with the gentleman. I think he is doing the right thing here. I think if we cut $100 million out of this bill, we will make a very serious mistake, because it is going to undermine the bill and put us in a situation where we are over our 602(b) allocations.

Mr. DICKS. And we are talking about 7 million to deal with this emergency situation, and we are still going to have a very large and significant reserve. This is less than 1 day's imports.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield further, I think this is a pragmatic decision on the part of the chairman. I think we ought to support him.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last words.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin have 30 additional seconds. [[Page H 6997]]

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would suggest that we created the National Historic Trust, we told them to go out and preserve these important properties around the country which have historic heritage. Now we are saying ``We are not going to give you any money.'' Is that not an unfunded mandate?

Mr. DICKS. Does the gentleman think we should do away with the Historic Trust, Mr. Chairman?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should know, I think he does know, that it is illegal to use government-provided funds for any lobbying. It has been in this bill for years. Maybe they used some private sector money, but the money they get from the Federal Government cannot be used for lobbying. Therefore, if the gentleman is going to vote no on that basis, he is making a big mistake.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The gentleman points out that the Trust has gone out and raised at least 80 percent of the money itself. I think the American people would be very pleased if they knew that every dollar that we have invested in the Main Street organization has been leveraged by $24.46 of from other sources. Now, what does the National Trust do? One of the major programs and one of the reasons I have always supported it is because of the Main Street program. What does it do? It works with communities to demonstrate how historic preservation can stipulate community revitalization and economic development. The National Trust, national Main Street program helps revive neglected and abandoned downtown commercial districts by providing local groups with organization, design, economic restructuring and marketing assistance. Since 1980, Main Street has been active in over 1,000 communities in 39 States, creating over 23,000 new businesses, over 85,000 new jobs, over 33,000 building rehabilitation projects, and $3.6 billion in new investment and actual physical improvements. Now, I think, again, what is wrong with the Federal Government saying that as a nation we care about historic preservation and that we have certain historic buildings that we would like to see preserved? I think the American taxpayers would be pleased that they are making a small contribution to this very important effort. I hope that we will remember now that the committee, run by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], our distinguished chairman, made a significant reduction in this program and that we are going to end it in a year. This is one group that came in and said we can be phased out over a period of time. But to come here now and breach the committee's action I think would be unwise. So I urge that all of us on both sides of the aisle resoundingly defeat an amendment aimed at, I think, undermining historic preservation in this country, which the Trust has been at the forefront of and this Congress has supported ever since the creation of the Trust.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of what the gentleman has just said. I come from a community, Tacoma, in the State of Washington. And we did about the same thing. We restored a theater, the Pantages Theater, also our main train station in the community, Union Station, into a Federal courthouse. And I must tell you, it has done more to restore the spirit of that community and that downtown area. It has created jobs and it has made the city look a lot better. This idea that somehow these partnerships between the Federal Government where we put in a very small amount of money and the private sector puts in a lot of money and a lot of good things happen because of it, that somehow that is wrong, I think that is ridiculous. I applaud the gentleman for his statement, and I hope the House will remember, we have cut this program by 50 percent. We have listened to the people and said, we are going to move this budget down. We had to do it. We had to cut more in this bill than I wanted to cut. But to say in one year we are going to take it from 7 million to zero, I think is just ridiculous. I hope that we will all vote down this not-well- thought out amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing on the part of our side to accept this amendment if the gentleman is willing to accept it, and I would urge the committee to accept this amendment. [[Page H 6984]]

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we not have a quorum call and we go immediately to a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, I think the Speaker hit the right tone this evening. This is a very modest amount of money to help preserve the African elephant, the rhinoceros and the tiger. The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] I think, made a very impassioned plea. I would urge the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], I would hope in deference to the speaker, that he would withdraw his amendment. But if not, I would hope we could have a voice vote, vote this amendment down and follow the wise counsel of both the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] and the Speaker. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]. (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)