Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we certainly appreciate the gentleman's leadership, and we are very sympathetic to the problems that the gentleman is facing in Guam. We know the gentleman has done a terrific job in representing his area, and we will do everything we can to help him as the process moves forward.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to just commend the gentleman on his creative work here. This is an important issue. I think the way he has handled it will produce a real result, and we can help the gentleman if the forest service does not keep its word. The gentleman needs to make sure he lets us know. We will be following it, too.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a very lively debate today. I want to commend all the speakers who have spoken on support for the arts and I want to even commend the positive attitude of the people who have reservations about this amendment but who also say that they strongly support the arts in our country. I have been on this subcommittee a long time, this is my 26th year. Before that, I worked on the staff of Senator Warren Magnuson, and have followed the National Endowment for the Arts almost from its inception. The point that I want to make is that this investment has caused a tremendous explosion in private funds in support of the arts. Now we see with this newest study that this has become a $134 billion industry, providing 4.5 million jobs in this country, at a time when we are in a recession. I think this is a very prudent investment. We are increasing the funding here by $15 million, $10 million for the arts, $5 million for the humanities. It is completely offset by a very innocuous reduction in administrative expenses. If my friend from Washington finds that onerous, we will fix it in conference, okay? So just to make sure, nobody is being hurt here. This is a positive amendment that will do a lot for our country. I was at the opening of the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, Washington, a facility constructed at the leadership of George Russell. I saw young children in the glass art center creating glass art. We have had kids in Tacoma who used to be juvenile delinquents now are leading a program in creating glass art. This is something that is important for every young person in this country. Education is enhanced by the arts and humanities. This is a very modest amendment. It is a chance for us to say to the endowments that they have done a good job, have listened to the Congress, have adopted the reforms that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) have proposed over the years to correct the problems. They are emphasizing quality. This is an administration that is also strongly committed to the arts. I think this is a small amendment but a good one. Let us approve it and let us move on.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, is this the Rahall amendment coming up?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. How can we have colloquies going on when there is an amendment being considered? Is there not an amendment still being considered by the House?

Mr. DICKS. I make a point of order that we not have any colloquies; that we address this amendment, and we vote on the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. That is fine. I object to any future ones.

Mr. DICKS. What is it the gentleman wants to cut?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I hope that the gentleman will make certain that the commitments that were made about matching funds are made and kept on this project. From the majority staff, we have been told that there has been a question about that, but if the gentleman has assured me that those questions will be answered affirmatively and positively with his personal commitment, I will have not have any objection to the project.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want you to know we made some cuts in the subcommittee. Some of these are very painful. For example, the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, minus 100 million; Stateside Land and Water conservation, minus 46 million; Park Service Construction, minus 62 million; Land Acquisition National Parks, minus 31 million; Technology Road Maps, Department of Energy, minus 4.5 million; the Kennedy Center, minus 4 million. So we made some cuts.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the work she has done on this important issue, and for bringing it to the subcommittee's attention. I share her concern for protecting national monuments. I want to assure the gentlewoman that I will work with her and the majority to find the best source of funding for this important project.

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

Mr. DICKS. I would just say to the gentleman, I just went through this. We were looking at this. I want these Members who have been so critical of the Committee on Appropriations in a sense, although they have been very kind towards the chairman and all of the rest of us to be aware of this.

Mr. DICKS. I can remember the debate on this on the floor. Many of us on this side of the aisle said the tax cut was going to be too big and that it could result in deficits, that we could see our surplus go away. I see that OMB said today that it is lack of revenue coming in, some of it to deal with the stock transactions. These were all foreseeable things. If you want to be fiscally responsible, if somebody wants to get serious over there, why do we not have a budget summit where we go back and revisit the tax cut and then we will talk to you about spending. But to pick out one-third of the budget is hypocrisy, and everybody in this place understands that. So you can continue to pose for the holy pictures and say we are going to cut spending, but you are not going to deal with the problem except in a very marginal way. The only way this is ever going to get fixed, the budget gets fixed, is if we go back and review everything; and that is what you are not willing to do.

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

Mr. DICKS. But we have to go right at the point we are in the bill, until the bill is opened up. THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, what process are we going to go through in terms of recognition? There have been several amendments recognized on that side. There has not been an amendment recognized on this side. Is it the Chair's intention to recognize our side for amendments?

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