Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to tell the gentleman that I think he has got a good amendment here. Our side is prepared to accept your amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would cut a total of $138 million from environmental conservation and Native American programs. It makes no choice based on need or merit of the program, but it cuts 0.5 percent in this bill. This is not merely an accounting change on a table. Cutting $138 million from the bill will have very serious consequences. All of us have been listening on television about the big wild fire at Lake Tahoe. This bill would reduce overall funding for firefighting by $14 million at a time when we are facing what is potentially one of the worst fire seasons in history. It cuts 125 firefighters, shuts down firefighter stations, and significantly reduces air tanker support. It would decimate preparedness efforts by failing to provide critical support for initial attacks, and could allow as many as 80 more wildfires to escalate. This would lead to larger, more damaging and much more expensive fires, costing in excess of $20 million to extinguish. This amendment halts hazardous fuel reduction projects without which there is little hope for reducing long-term fire costs and harmful impacts. In our national parks, it cuts overall National Park Service funding by $13 million, includes a $6 million reduction below the President's request for the basic operational cost of the 391 units of the national park system. It drastically impacts the President's proposal to hire 3,000 seasonal and 600 full-time park ranger positions. For Native American programs, it rejects $29 million for programs that have received bipartisan support. By cutting $16 million out of Indian health care programs, this proposal would deny service to thousands of Native Americans. It takes 4 percent out of the already struggling Indian education programs leaving even more Indian children without adequate education programs. For the Environmental Protection Agency, it reduces a total of $40 million for EPA. Funding for efforts to help local communities with repairs to their aging water and wastewater infrastructure, would be reduced by almost $10 million from fiscal year 2007 enacted levels. This would mean that many communities would not receive the financial assistance they need to repair and improve water and sewer infrastructure. Despite the fact that 76 million Americans live within 4 miles of a toxic waste site, the amendment cuts almost $8 million from programs to clean up the Nation's most toxic and hazardous waste sites. It reduces the amount for restoration and protection of America's great water bodies, including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Puget Sound, and others. It would especially jeopardize the cleanup of toxic sediments in the lakes, and community efforts across this Nation to protect 28 estuaries. For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the cuts here would be $7 million for an agency which has already lost 600 staff positions since 2004. And means that many of our wildlife refuges today have no staff whatsoever because of the devastating cuts that have been imposed over the last 7 years. It would perpetuate staffing shortfall trends and reduce public service by taking funding out of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Forest Service. This amendment reduces funding for the non-fire portion of the Forest Service by $13 million. Forces up to 100 employee layoffs and closures of more than 10 campgrounds while reducing fire improvement activities on several thousand acres. It diminishes cooperative land conservation and forestry actions which serve thousands of nonindustrial private forest landowners. It freezes research efforts and compels the closure of at least four labs. So these are, I think, very substantial and important reductions that would adversely affect this bill. I have a great regard for the gentlelady. As much as I enjoy and appreciate her, I can't accept this amendment. I want her to know it is nothing personal, it is just that we have to do the job. We are in a recovery mode here. That is what I tried to explain. The gentleman who talked about the $16 billion, it wasn't $16 billion, it was a 16 percent reduction in the funding for the Department of the Interior. This has had a devastating impact. We also had a 29 percent reduction in EPA and a 35 percent reduction in the Forest Service budget. All of these budgets have been hit hard. Only the Department of Labor has been hit worse. What we are trying to do is stop this downward trend in the personnel in these agencies. The Park Service budget, 80 to 90 percent of the budget are for people. That is why we are so concerned about this. Without the people, the American people when they go to the parks are not going to have the kind of experience that they should have. That's why we have tried to stop this. The Secretary of the Interior, he got it. I told him, I said you cannot succeed, Mr. Secretary, unless you get 100 percent of fixed costs covered in your budget for the Park Service, for the Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Bureau of Land Management, the Mineral Management Agency, and he did that. But we have to recover over a period of time. Unfortunately, to make further reductions will take us longer before we can restore the services at our national parks, and restore service at our national wildlife refuges. This is a very well put-together bill. I just regret that these cuts are being offered. I think this bill should be accepted as it is. We have to go to conference, obviously we know that. So I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I now will yield my remaining time to Mr. Inslee, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. DICKS. Okay. So I just yield?

Mr. DICKS. Can you let me know when 1 minute is gone?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I may have one more speaker. I think I have the right to close, don't I?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. DICKS. I regret that I can't take that chance. If this amendment were enacted, it would have a devastating consequence on this bill. And it was subject to a point of order, and I had to insist on it. I regret that we have this controversy, but that's the reality of the situation we're in. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. The point I'd like to make, this is an authorization problem. This isn't supposed to be handled on the appropriations bill. We had an agreement that we would help you do this for 1 year, but then you would go back to the Natural Resources Committee and find the mandatory spending to offset this. This is not an appropriations matter.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DICKS. I want to say how badly I feel about this because this Secure Rural Schools program is a very important program in the northwest, as well as in California. But I just could not allow this amendment to come for a vote because it would have cut $425 million out of this bill.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, with deep regret, I insist on my point of order. I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program, and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' The amendment proposes to appropriate funds for the rural school program that has not been reauthorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I am sorry that I have to raise a point of order, but the payments for the Secure Rural Schools Act of 2000 are not authorized. This is a reachback appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, I am sorry I must insist on my point of order. I will also point out that it would be irresponsible to cut this budget bill by $425 million. Public Law 110-28 did not reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the gentleman is addressing the point of order.

Mr. DICKS. I insist on my point of order.

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