Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and rise in strong opposition to the Paul amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania will continue to yield, the point I was trying to make was that the gentleman said that the guarantee was given to the Chinese company. It was not given to the Chinese company. It was given to these three American companies.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we had gotten last year's level, we would be at $15 billion in export support, so it is about a $2.5 billion cut which the gentleman will make worse with this $18 million cut.

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

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, but $100 million less than last year.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman gets me additional time, I will yield to the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, my concern is we are punishing another sector of the economy which is crucial to our economic health. In my State of Washington, one out of every three jobs is an export job. So my State would be punished by this amendment. In fact, we are $100 million below last year's level in terms of the loan guarantees. This administration has cut it. I would also point out that this is a new administration that is not responsible for what the previous administration did on this particular loan; and they have said that they are going to review this matter. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman he has won his victory here today. The gentleman has convinced the new administration that this is something which should not be done in the future; and so do not punish the Export-Import Bank where jobs in my State will be lost. (On request of Mr. Mollohan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment. I believe my colleagues are well intentioned here today. I would argue that they should take their case to the authorizing committee, and I would join them in trying to change the law so we would not be in this position in the future. I also think that the Department of Commerce in the anti-dumping case is already directing real attention at this problem. That is what we should be focusing on. Mr. Chairman, to come in here today and take $18 million out of the Export-Import Bank, $3 million of which comes from the administrative funds which were only increased by $1 million over last year's level, means an actual cut of 2 percent. This is salaries. This is health care. This is the fixed cost of the agency. I would say that is a very brutal cut. The other money would come out of the money that is used by small businesses and large businesses to support U.S. exports. My concern with this amendment is we are punishing America's exporters who are also creating jobs. I feel for the gentleman for the loss of jobs to steelworkers. The gentleman has to admit that not all of their losses are due to the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this amendment. As I understand the gentleman's amendment, it would take $200 million out of the National Marine Fisheries Service's budget. I think that would be devastating to their budget. The whole problem we have got in the Northwest is difficult, but we have got to work with the National Marine Fisheries Service because Congress gave them the responsibility of administering the Endangered Species Act. They are doing their best. In fact, I think we should be giving them additional support so that they can get the job done and deal with these regulatory problems. Also in these situations like this, the way to approach the problem is to do a habitat conservation plan, work with the regulators, and come up with a plan under which you can go forward. I know this is a tough problem, and if you want to deal with it, you have got to change the Endangered Species Act, which I do not favor, but to come here and to take $200 million out of the National Marine Fisheries Service would be a disaster.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this important legislation. I want to first of all thank the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), in his first year as Chairman of this important appropriations subcommittee, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking Democratic member and his staff. I particularly want to tell them how much I appreciate their cooperation in funding the so-called ``conservation amendment.'' Last year, the Congress adopted a provision that started at $1.6 billion last year and will increase up to $2.4 billion by 2006 based on the Violent Crime Trust Fund model, which keeps the authority for spending for these important conservation programs, of which there are $443 million in this bill, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, and allows us to have annual oversight. But what it has done is double and now even more than double the amount of money that is available for conservation spending. There were some last year who were advocating an entitlement that would have taken this off the budget. I just want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for helping us keep our commitment and telling the people of the country that we, the appropriators, are just as interested in conservation. We have programs like coastal zone management, the Pacific salmon recovery initiative, and they go on and on and on, that will be benefited by this important provision. I am pleased that, when we add this up, it is $1.76 billion for conservation this year between the Interior appropriations bill and State, Justice, and Commerce. Out in my part of the world, we are fighting to try and restore the salmon runs in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and in Alaska that have been severely hurt. This money, 110 million for the Pacific Salmon Recovery program, goes back to our Governors and then through programs for habitat recovery which is absolutely essential. The bill also provides an additional 25 million to the U.S. Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty program. I want to say how much I support this bill. I urge the House to give overwhelming support for this important legislation.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to close. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues would not do what we did last year when we reversed this vote. I would ask everyone to use good common sense. This amendment was offered. We had a good hour debate. Everybody had a chance to present their point of view and clearly the people of this House, by a good majority, 221 to 193, voted to give modest increases to the National Endowment for the Arts, for the Humanities and Museum Services. Now the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) comes in and tries to reverse that decision. We increased the budget for energy programs by over $300 million. So the budget is not lacking in funding for energy conservation, where the gentleman tries to add the money. So this is done strictly for a political purpose. I would say let us stay with this. This is a good decision. It is a modest increase. This House has sent a strong message to the NEA and they have responded. They are now making grants that are quality grants, and so I think this is a vote that we do not want to have to repeat in the House. Let us just vote no and sustain the position in the committee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), a cosponsor of our amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. DICKS. No. This is the end of this bill. The gentleman is having the second shot at this.