Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I told the gentleman that I would be glad to join him for this GAO investigation. I think it is a good idea.

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

Mr. DICKS. We agree to the amendment on this side.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. Chairman, we had a vote on this today. We had, I thought, a very vigorous discussion. There was an hour set aside by the House. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) had 30 minutes. I had 30 minutes. We had a number of speakers in the House voted on this issue, and we defeated the amendment by a very substantial majority. Now, I am somewhat surprised that this late at night we would go back to this amendment again, but apparently we are going to do that. So let me say again why what the gentleman is trying to do, I think, is wrong. First of all, the gentleman has had an amendment every single year to either block or slow down the administration's policy for developing a scientific program to protect the aquatic habitat, to protect the watersheds of the Western Pacific Northwest on the east side of the Cascade Mountains. This affects 7 States. This has been going on, this process has been going on, 5 years. The purpose of it is that we have in the Northwest a number of seriously endangered species on the Snake River, which is in the heart of this area. We have four or five different species of salmon that were listed under the Endangered Species Act. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), from eastern Washington, from the fifth district, has been a strong opponent of taking out the Snake River dams. I have joined in that effort, along with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), and others in our delegation, but I also believe that if one is not going to take out the dams then they have to do some things to protect the habitat of these areas in order to try to bring back these important endangered species. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has offered an amendment that would block, after 5 years, the draft environmental impact statement from being implemented. That means we are not going to make any of the protections necessary. It is an environmental rider that has been used repeatedly in this particular bill. The administration is opposed to it. They have promised that this bill will be vetoed if this was in it, and we had a vote today. The vote was 221 to 206 on this issue. So I feel that we are wasting the time of the House here, especially at 20 minutes to 11:00, and I would urge the House to again reject this amendment. I think we had a good, fair fight earlier today. I think this amendment is unwarranted and unjustified, and I would urge the House to stay with its previous position.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by the leadership, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) who I have the highest regard for, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), to bring this to a close and to have a vote on the amendment. I think we should do that. I want to say that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has not been treated well here tonight on this process. I think it is very unfair. I will ask this. We are going to have a motion to recommit in which the gentlewoman's amendment will be the central piece. I am urging the 25 Republicans who had the courage today to vote with us on this amendment, to vote for the motion to recommit. That way we can accomplish what the gentleman from California wanted. We can fund the $22 million to help the Indians in this country who desperately need the help, and also fund the arts. I think this is a fair compromise. I would like to see that, and I would hope that other Republicans would join with us tonight to make it more than just the 25 that joined us earlier today. I ask for a vote on the Nethercutt amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we asked unanimous consent to present this amendment en bloc so that the House would have a chance to work its will, could have a vote up or down, a vote to take $22 million of the Clean Coal deferral and give it to these other programs. Every time the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) stands up to offer that amendment, the side of the gentleman from Arizona objects to it. I just think we are trying to have a spirit of comity here to work with my colleagues on getting these bills passed, and this is not the way to do it.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain to the Members here that we are going to have something happen that, in my 24 years here, is unprecedented. We have had a good working comity with the other side. I have throughout my career tried to work effectively with the Republican side on every piece of legislation that I have ever been involved with. But just a few hours ago, we won an amendment. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) won an amendment to take $22 million out of the clean coal deferral account. She wants to then have an amendment to add this $15 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 million for the Institute of Museums and Library Services. I am told, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has confirmed, that he is going to offer an amendment to take the $22 million and give it to the Indian Health Service. I just wish that we were not $507 million below the President's budget request. I think this is very unfair. We have offered offsets on all of our amendments here today. This amendment that he is offering is not offset. We have tried to play the game by the rules. But I really regret that we are going down this road, and it is going to make it hard to cooperate on this bill.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. I want to tell the chairman that I think he is absolutely right. The administration suggested a higher level of deferral. We gave 67. The House in its good judgment added 22, or 89; something a little higher than that if necessary might be appropriate. But to do the whole thing, to defer the entire program I think would be a mistake. I think we have to continue this important research and work towards a cleaner coal technology. Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote on the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, of course the gentleman, who has done so much on this particular issue, realizes also that the administration requested a much larger deferral; that we can defer this money until the end of the fiscal year and the testimony is that it will not have any effect whatsoever on the programs, the substance of the programs. All the projects will go ahead, but it does make the money available for this amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment. I had hoped that we could do this swiftly for our colleagues. I know many of them would like to be heading home this evening. Except for this one amendment, which we could not get agreement on, we could have had an agreement on every other amendment in this bill. But if we have to do it this way, we have to do it. I think this issue is crucially important to our country, and I believe that the gentlewoman's amendment, which would increase the deferral by $22 million, would then allow us to have the room necessary to vote for an increase of $15 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 for the museums and libraries. Now, believe me, that is not a lot of money. I do think it would send a signal that after 8 years of holding down funding for the Endowment of the Arts that we see that Bill Ivey and his people have done a good job and that they deserve this small amount of additional money. I want to commend the chair of the Congressional Member Organization for the Arts, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the vice chair, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), for their leadership on this. It is bipartisan. There are people on both sides of the aisle here that support the arts in this country. When I go home to my State and I look at what has happened in Washington State in the arts, and it is not just in Seattle, it is Tacoma, in Bremerton, in Port Townsend, it makes me proud that that small amount of Federal money has been used all over this country to create performing arts' groups, ballets, and symphony orchestras. And, also, we have been able to get funding from the private sector because they see the government involvement, they see that Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, and they are willing to match those monies, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) previously talked about. So I think this is a solid amendment. Unfortunately, we have to offer it in three different steps. But I hope that on each of these steps everyone in this House will recognize that this is the amendment on the National Endowment for the Arts. If my colleagues support it, they support the Slaughter amendment. If they do not, then they do not. But I think there is a majority in this House. If given a chance to vote up or down on this issue in this House of Representatives, I think there is a majority here in support of the National Endowment for the Arts and for the National Endowment for the Humanities. I regret that we are forced to offer this amendment in this convoluted fashion because the majority is so nervous about this issue. What is wrong with the arts? What is wrong with the humanities? Why are they afraid of this issue, when in every community in this country there are great examples of where the arts and humanities are helping the American people, and our museums as well? I am very upset that we could not work out an agreement here. This is the only issue we have not been able to resolve amicably, and I hope that people will stay with us, vote for these amendments as we have to go through this process. We will clearly identify which ones are for the arts, and we appreciate the hard work of the gentlewoman from New York who is chairman of the arts caucus.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time on our side to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, now the gentleman understands we are having a separate discussion here?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hansen amendment. The President of the United States clearly has authority under the Antiquities Act. Clearly, if the majority party wants to, they could repeal that act. They could pass it here, but they do not seem to want to do that. What they want to do is use an appropriations bill with a very cleverly drafted rider to prohibit the President from implementing these monuments. I think it is terrible. I think the Federal government will wind up being embarrassed because we cannot do law enforcement. We cannot do planning. We cannot do anything once these monuments are designated. And try as you want to with report language, it does not nullify the effect of this amendment, which is to take away from the President the authority to name these monuments and then to have them properly implemented. Again, I believe that these riders are wrong. We should do it only when we have had thorough debate and hearings, and we have not had that here. I would suggest to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) in his own committee that people want to work on this, if they want to improve the Antiquities Act, do it there, not on the Interior Appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so he is going to get funding for his monument?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) kidding me? Is he telling me that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) exempted his monument?