Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again I want to say to my colleagues, the reason we have to make this increase in the Interior appropriations budget is because over the last 6 or 7 years the budgets for these agencies have been reduced dramatically. The Interior Department has been cut by 16 percent. We have lost rangers at every national park in the Nation. The summer workers have been cut back. The services there are not as good as they used to be. This was a crisis. The National Parks Conservation Association had a pamphlet, ``The Endangered Ranger.'' Here it was, our national parks, our national treasure, in decline. I am no extremist. I am a moderate in this House, and I always have been. But this was a true crisis. And what we had to do was stop this decline, this downward trend of our national wildlife refuges, our national parks, and we put a little extra money in to get it turned up, so we could hire a few more people, so we could cover the fixed costs of the rangers and the people running these wildlife refuges. That is why we had to do this. It was a crisis. And it is going to take us a number of years to get back. We only increased this budget by 4.3 percent. With a 16-percent cut, it would take 4 years to get back to where we were in 2001. With EPA, it would take about 7 years to get back to where we were. And with a 35-percent cut in the Forest Service, it would take about 8 years to get back. So we have a long ways to go, and I don't want to have any downward direction here. I do say to the gentleman from Georgia that he is right, the 1 percent could be taken anywhere, and that might mean that all of the projects of interest to the Members would be eliminated by the administration. Now, I hope they wouldn't do that. I hope they wouldn't fall into that trap. But that is one possibility. So, again, I resent the gentleman from Georgia even suggesting that we aren't over here fighting against your amendments. We just looked at the Record last night and how the votes went, and we thought maybe some of the Members would like to get home on Thursday. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I can guarantee I think that this amendment will be treated properly by the membership.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, again, the former ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Conte, when he was here in the House of Representatives, used to say that this is the ``meat-ax approach.'' An across-the-board amendment doesn't make any selectivity between the national parks and other issues. It's just an across-the-board cut. Again, I must say that the reason we object on this particular bill is because over the last 7 years the administration has cut the Interior Department by 16 percent in real terms. And the cut for EPA is 29 percent and that cuts the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. I mean, it's hard to believe that this administration wanted to cut the Clean Water Revolving Fund by $670 million. How do you do that and go to bed at night and actually get sleep? I mean, it's shocking to me, these cuts. The Forest Service funds all the programs for taking care of our multiple-use Forest Service land. More recreation is provided by the Forest Service than actually the Park Service, and they cut that by 35 percent since 2001. This is a crisis. These agencies are headed down a devastating path, not having enough staff to do their work. The refuges didn't have enough staff. The Park Service didn't have enough staff. Every one of these agencies were losing people year after year because their fixed costs weren't covered. So this was a crisis situation. I think everything we've done in this budget is totally responsible. And I reject the idea of any across-the-board meat-ax approach, using the language of the former ranking member, Mr. Conte from Massachusetts. And I just hope that we can move on here and get to the rest of these amendments. There are a lot of people on the other side who told me they would like to go home on Friday morning, they would like to see us get done on Thursday night. So I don't want anybody to think that we're not in opposition to all these things. I just want them to know that we're trying to work on a bipartisan basis to get the job of this committee done as quickly as possible. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the committee (Mr. Israel).

Mr. DICKS. And I would just add, if the gentlemen are so confident of their position, why don't we just have a vote on this and move along and get the committee's work done. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I am not going to yield you any time; so you might go ahead and start.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the subcommittee (Mr. Olver).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. DICKS. The only thing I would say here is that you can raise a point of order against the gentleman from Oregon's amendment, but that is going to hurt the other gentleman from Oregon. I mean, this is a partial help as a place holder in this bill. And the distinguished chairman and I were just talking about we put $425 million in the supplemental to take care of this problem. Now, you've got to go get this done in the authorization committee. And I'm not going to risk this bill, which we fought so hard to create, on a chance that we might pass this amendment and cut all this other spending that's important in the bill to my constituents.

Mr. DICKS. Yes, we have speakers. How many speakers do you have?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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