Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, and I insist on my point of order because it proposes to change existing law and imposes new duties and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law the amendment imposes additional duties.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. DICKS. I definitely disagree with the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman has answered the question. Let me ask this. If we are going to let a handful of people block this project, how are we going to complete this immense effort? How are we going to get that done if we cannot get this small initial project started?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, why do my colleagues object to this? The President, the Governor of Florida, the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior, all think this is necessary in order to move this project forward. Are we going to let a couple dozen people, and most of which I am told are prepared to sell their property, so it gets down to a handful of people, are we going to let that block this project? I think the gentleman from Alaska who has been a great leader in terms of our efforts on the West Coast to return the salmon runs, I think of that and this as the two most important environmental efforts of our time. Why are we trying to block this?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this just jumps out at me that if the gentleman has been reading these decisions and we do not like the current law, which is what the judges are interpreting, the gentleman from Utah was in a wonderful position as chairman of the committee to try and do something about it, to clarify the law, or to make it clearer on some of these points.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the gentleman speak on the point of order and not talk about irrelevancies.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have to raise a point of order here. The gentleman is not discussing the point of order. You have to have some way to talk about the rules of the House. He is not addressing the point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments which I am not yet offering to insert two new sections related to the Everglades restoration effort. These sections are structured slightly differently but are functionally identical to the language included by the committee when it reported the bill to the House. The first amendment would add a provision to require the Secretary of Interior to be a full partner in the interagency RECOVER team which oversees the hundreds of individual projects which make up the $8 billion Everglades restoration effort. My amendment is consistent with the long-held position of the Committee on Appropriations that if this project is to achieve true environmental restoration, the Secretary of Interior must be an equal partner with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Water Management District. The second amendment provides statutory authority necessary to resolve pending litigation against the Army Corps of Engineers and its implementation regarding the so-called Modified Water Deliveries Project, the heart of the restoration effort. This language is supported by Governor Jeb Bush, the Secretary of Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers and several prominent environmental organizations. This project, which involves acquisition within the 8.5 square mile area, has been controversial. However, after a lengthy public hearing process and supplemental EIS, a final decision was made in 2000 by the Army Corps of Engineers to adopt a compromise measure, alternative 6D. This action was supported by the Florida Water Management District and the Secretary of the Interior. Alternative 6D was also formally adopted by the Congress in the WRDA 2000 Act. But notwithstanding this agreement, the file actions have been tied up in court and the language inserted by the committee and reinserted by amendment is absolutely necessary if Everglades renewal and water development in South Florida are to be successful. It really upsets me to read today again in the Washington Post, there is a very good picture of the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, that because of maybe less than two or three dozen homes, we are standing in the way of this entire Florida restoration effort. And I will tell you, the gentleman from Washington is getting fed up. We are supposed to send them something like $8 billion in Federal money to fund this project. And if we cannot get them to at least have the courage to deal with this issue and to start this project moving forward, I think the committee has to seriously reconsider funding for the Florida project. And what is happening here is that Members of the Florida delegation are quietly behind the scenes going to the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources because politically they cannot stand up here and offer the amendment themselves. In order to get, in order to protect a handful of people in their district, they are subverting the whole process of moving forward with this project. This is an important project. This may be the most important environmental restoration effort ever attempted. And if we cannot do this thing, if we cannot do mod 6, if we cannot make this initial start, then how are we ever going to move this project forward? Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we have it. We have it. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that I understand his concern. He has made a very valid point about the importance of proper funding, which this administration has refused to fund. Mitch Daniels should pull his head out of the sand and smell the smoke, okay? That is what happened: the West is burning. I quoted that from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and he got it from Archie. The bottom line here is we will try to take care of this in the conference between the House and Senate. I urge our colleagues not to destroy this other program which we need in order to do it. We have heard them, and we will help them in the conference. I think they ought to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I get the gentleman's point.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to do what the gentleman is suggesting, what the gentleman has suggested, that we need more money for firefighting. We do. The agencies are telling us that they have to borrow money from other accounts in order to pay for the firefighting; that they are going to be completely dislocated in the last quarter of this year because they have not got the resources. Once they give the money for firefighting, all kinds of other things are going to stop within the BLM and the forest service. The gentleman has a stake in that, and I do. Many in this House have a stake in that. What I suggest to the gentleman, what I would suggest to the gentleman, is let us try to work on that issue with both of our leaderships on that committee to try to get the $700 million, it actually needs to be a couple more hundred million than that right now, into the supplemental. What we do here in the land acquisition account is completely disrupt the program that the President of the United States sent up. The President asked for $44,686,000. The committee added a small amount of money. There is, on page 21 of the report of the gentleman from Washington, the gentleman from Arizona, a list of the projects that will be affected, and these are all projects that I think are very well thought out. I notice there is one in Moses Lake, Washington, for example; one for Lewis and Washington Historic Trail in Montana; the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail in Idaho. These are well thought out and very important projects; so I would urge the gentleman, he has made his point. We want to help him on the firefighting deal, but do not go in and disrupt this other program and slash the money that the President asked for. Yes, there are a few congressional projects in here, but this is well thought out, well balanced. The majority staff works with all the Members on this. This is not the place to take the money. What we should do, this should be emergency money. We should not have to take it out of this account. This should be emergency money.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona mentioning the fact that our committee, when we looked at this in the full committee, added $200 million for the BLM for this purpose as a 2002 supplemental. I would like to see us in the supplemental, the one that is moving now in conference committee, and the administration suggested that we do that, add the $700 million in the 2002 conference so we will get the money back faster for the agencies, because they desperately need this money.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) yield me time?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation, could the gentleman state how many other speakers there will be on this amendment?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, does the gentleman think we need that much time on this amendment?

Mr. DICKS. In a couple of days.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this, but we are supposed to be talking about the point of order, not the substance of the amendment. I would hope that the gentlemen would restrict their discussion to the point of order.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for her outstanding amendment. We have had similar problems in the State of Washington. We passed numerous amendments to deal with that problem and, of course, the issue now is that of equity between California and Florida. In May of this year, President George Bush reached agreement with Governor Jeb Bush to buy back a series of oil leases which had been awarded many years ago, but which were under a moratorium from development as a result of public opposition to drilling near the Florida coastline. This agreement, which we support, will cost $235 million. I would note, however, that the National Environmental Trust has described the deal as a $235 million campaign contribution to the incumbent Governor of Florida. California is faced with very similar circumstances but has so far received no similar accommodation from the Federal Government. There are currently 36 Outer Continental Shelf leases off the California coast which the Governor of California does not want to develop because of threats to the beach and coastline. They have taken the Federal Government to court as did the State of Florida. But a court case could take many, many years due to the uncertainty with regard to the Federal Government's position on drilling in California waters. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California and others would send a clear signal that the Federal Government will not permit drilling. This action, while effective for 1 year only, would push both the State and the Department of the Interior to reach a settlement so that the people of California will know that these areas remain free of risk from drilling and potential environmental damage. The amendment should be agreed to.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in very willing opposition to this amendment. This amendment is not about adding money to anything, it is about cutting the minimal funding which is currently in this bill for the arts. In light of the vote just taken by the House of Representatives, in which 234 Members voted for the arts, I think it is also very untimely. This amendment would cut the NEA below the $116 million requested by President Bush and recommended by the Republican leadership of the committee. The $116 million provided in this bill for the National Endowment for the Arts is only 1 percent above last year. It is $46 million below the level approved in 1994 for the agency. The gentleman's arguments against NEA are outdated and do not reflect the many reforms implemented by the Congress and former NEA chairman Bill Ivey, and the new chairman, Eileen Mason, to address public concerns about controversial arts projects supported by public funds. Anyone who knows about the arts realizes that there will always be controversy. These include broader distribution of funds throughout the United States, elimination of general operating support for organizations with no control on content, and prohibitions on regranting of NEA funds to other organizations. Today, funds at NEA flow to over 300 congressional districts with great enthusiasm and very little complaint, and with an emphasis on quality. Essentially, the same item was offered last year on the Interior bill by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). It failed on a vote of 145 to 264. I hope an even larger number of Members will vote ``no'' on this amendment and finally declare an end to the culture wars which started 8 years ago in this House. It is over. Let me also say that the gentleman from Washington was the author of an amendment to increase the firefighting funds available to this administration in a supplemental attached to this bill by $700 million with $200 million for the BLM and $500 million for the Forest Service. Obviously, we recognize the need to deal with forest fires. I would say that those who were voting yesterday to kill the cut of the BLM funding are the same people who should be looked at in terms of their commitment to having adequate funding at the BLM in order to do the firefighting. This amendment is bad, it is wrong, it is unnecessary, and I think we should voice vote it and move along.