Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I rise to state my opposition to H.R. 2584, the FY 2012 Interior and Environment appropriations bill. But before I state the reasons for my strong opposition, I want to, again recognize Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran and their staffs for all the hard work that was necessary to put together the FY 2012 Interior and Environment appropriations bill. I also want to repeat my gratitude to the majority for being inclusive when developing this bill. That being said, however, the low allocation foisted on the Interior Subcommittee made it impossible to develop a bill that is responsible and reasonable, so it is no surprise that the resulting bill will harm the environment and our ongoing efforts to preserve America's natural heritage. Two key examples of this potential damage are that the bill includes the lowest level of spending in the Land and Water Conservation Fund in more than 40 years, and funding levels for EPA not seen in more than a decade. Overall, the allocation for the bill is 7 percent below the amount enacted in the current year, a level that will have a negative impact on our natural resource agencies and on the Environmental Protection Agency. After the EPA took a substantial cut of 16 percent in the current fiscal year, 2011, the Republican majority is now proposing a further reduction in the agency's budget of 18 percent. You add that together, it's a 34-percent reduction in just this year. This bill would substantially diminish the capacity of EPA to carry out its responsibilities, which may actually be the goal of some of my colleagues on the other side. But the repercussions will be felt across the Nation, including an ever-growing backlog of water treatment infrastructure projects and a decline in air and water quality. As was pointed out in a recent Washington Post article, the vast majority of the EPA's funds pass through to States and localities that are already squeezed by budget cuts. These infrastructure projects create jobs in communities all across the country and provide one of the most basic services taxpayers expect--clean water. The Bush administration's EPA administrator estimated that there was a $688 billion nationwide backlog of clean water infrastructure projects, and that total is even larger today. That backlog will not disappear if we just ignore it, but as we have seen in so many cases this year, the majority has decided to push this problem further down the road. In addition to the clearly insufficient levels of funding across the board in this legislation, we were surprised that the majority also included a wish list of special interest riders to the bill that will handcuff the EPA and the Department of the Interior. These types of riders are largely ideological, have no impact on deficit reduction, and will be rejected by the Senate and the President, hopefully. It seems that special interest riders have become the new earmarks-- and I support earmarks. This bill was made even worse when the majority adopted more special interest riders with amendments that were approved at full committee, and I fear that there will be more policy amendments offered on the floor as we consider this bill. One of the riders is language that would effectively block any funding to the Fish and Wildlife Service for new listings under the Endangered Species Act. As Mr. Moran said, there are 260 candidate species waiting to be listed, and they will not receive the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. DICKS. Here is the situation that the Fish and Wildlife Service faces in the administration of the ESA. Speaking of that 260, of that total, there are just under 30 species that are poised for listing in the near future. The spending provisions in this bill would block further activity to protect these declining species. And remember, if you delay listing too long, a species will go extinct, thus making recovery impossible. I also will be strongly supporting the amendments that aim to remove these riders. These amendments include an attempt to protect Grand Canyon National Park and the folks who depend on the Colorado River for drinking water from the potential danger from new uranium mines. Another amendment that I strongly support will increase funding for sanitation facilities for Native American communities. In closing, I do want to reiterate my praise expressed at subcommittee mark for Chairman Simpson, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cole and other subcommittee members for the funding levels for programs serving American Indians. It is gratifying that this subcommittee's bipartisan commitment to tribal programs forged over the last few years has been continued by the new majority.

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I support my friend from Virginia's (Mr. Moran) amendment which would increase funding for the Indian Health Service sanitary facilities construction program. The amendment would provide $18 million for this important health program, which would bring the funding level back up to the enacted level for this year. The offset for this increase comes from a couple of programs that help support the private sector energy and livestock industries. I think this amendment is a very good deal for the American taxpayer. And, by the way, if you've ever been out in Indian country, one of the problems that they have is a lack of sanitary facilities. I can think of the Skokomish Indians in my district in Mason County, Washington, where they have a very serious need for new sanitary facilities. And across Indian country, this is still a major problem. In fact, there was a group of scientists a few years ago who were asked, What was the greatest thing that happened in the 20th century to improve health care? They came up with sewers and sanitary facilities as the thing that improved health care around the world the most substantially. The Indian Health Service program to construct sanitary facilities that would benefit from this amendment improves the lives of some of our poorest fellow citizens. The Indian Health Service program provides funding for people who often lack basic sanitary facilities, such as the delivery of potable water to their homes. For me, the choice is simple. I urge my colleagues to choose to help provide basic sanitation to Native Americans by making small cuts to programs that assist the energy and livestock industries. This is a good amendment and should be adopted. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend Chairman Simpson for opposing this amendment. This is an amendment that goes way too far. This bill is $3.8 billion, almost $4 billion below what the President requested. It's $2 billion below the FY11 level, which we just passed a few months ago, and it would have a devastating effect on our environment. When I hear people talk about growing the economy by cutting the budget, I wonder what school of economics they attended. In fact, there was an outstanding article just a few weeks ago in The New York Times that really laid out the basic problem we have in this economy, and that is that consumer spending has dropped by 7 percent. Normally, in previous recessions, it only went down 3 percent. So then when you cut State and local government funding, when you cut Federal funding, you make a bad situation worse in terms of consumption. And that is why the economy has slowed down, and that's why it's not going to go up as a result of these kinds of reckless cuts being offered by the other side. Let me give you one example. The former EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, from New Jersey, did a study of what the backlog on wastewater treatment facilities was. And it was $688 billion, and this was in 2002. It's definitely gone up. And yet we're slashing, and would slash again, the amount of money for the Clean Water Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants. Those are exactly the programs that we should be plussing up in order to get people back to work. It's infrastructure. That's one thing we used to be able to agree on, both Democrats and Republicans in this House, that we need infrastructure work. This will put people to work. How are you going to get the deficit down? Not by slashing government spending. You're going to get it by putting people back to work. When you put them back to work, they start paying taxes, they start buying goods, and that will drive down the deficit. It will drive down unemployment. This reckless amendment from the gentleman from Kansas, again, would make this bad situation even worse in terms of job creation. So I am pleased that the majority is resisting this ill-thought-out amendment, and I urge its defeat. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. I support this amendment. I can think back to when I was going to the University of Washington, when Lake Washington, which is between Seattle and Bellevue, was completely polluted and you couldn't swim in it. The people there bonded themselves and completely restored the lake. Today, that is some of the most valuable property in the entire Pacific Northwest. So these urban water initiatives are critically important for the environment and for the health of the people of those areas. I think this is a modest amendment, and I urge our colleagues to accept it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Moran

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California, for yielding to me, and I would like to thank Chairman Crenshaw, Chairman Rogers, and the staff on both sides for what they have been able to do to accommodate some of the priorities of Democratic Members as they have assembled the bill. This bill would fund the legislative branch, minus the Senate, at $3.3 billion. This represents a 6.4 percent reduction from fiscal year 2011 and a 9 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010. I appreciate the overview that Congressman Honda has provided. And at this point, I would simply like to join him in expressing serious concern on behalf of our colleagues regarding security for our district offices and for official events involving Members as well as the general public. After the tragic shooting in Tucson, the Congress was left to reevaluate security in Members' districts. While it is of utmost importance to ensure that citizens continue to have access to their Representatives in Congress, the Tucson event is a reminder that we must be vigilant in providing security to Members, to our staffs, and to our constituents who attend our events. The effort by the House to improve district security after the shooting put much of the burden on the Members' offices, including the payment for that security. As Members' office budgets are being cut for the second time in a year, there has to be reconsideration of that policy, perhaps with an eye towards a more centralized approach to security. While we have not seen specific estimates of the costs involved here, it would clearly represent a substantial expense, especially if the budget of the Secret Service is used as a guide. The Capitol Police appropriations recommended in this bill is $340 million, equal to the fiscal year 2011 level. The Capitol Police protect the entire Capitol Complex, with primary security responsibilities for 541 Members of Congress, Resident Commissioners, and Delegates. By comparison, the House-passed Secret Service appropriation bill included over $1 billion for the protection of 50 to 70 individuals, including the President. If the Capitol Police are going to be required to assess more threats against Members and take a more active role in district security, the Capitol Police budget should reflect these increased demands. Conversely, if Members' individual office budgets are going to continue to assume these additional security costs, their budget should somehow reflect this responsibility. Again, I thank the ranking member for his work on the bill and the chairman and Mr. Rogers and our staff. We have a great staff, and they do great work for this institution.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. I just wanted to have the American people understand why we are opposing this amendment. ``The United States Botanic Garden is rooted in the Nation's heritage. During the late 18th century, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison shared the dream of a national botanic garden and were instrumental in establishing one on the National Mall in 1820. ``In continuous operation and open to the public since 1850, the Botanic Garden moved to its present location in 1933, a complex located along the north and south sides of Independence Avenue bordered by First Street and Third Street. The garden includes the Conservatory; the National Garden, which opened in 2006; and Bartholdi Park, which was created in 1932. A plant production and support facility opened in Anacostia in 1933 includes greenhouse bays and maintenance shops.'' This is a very important thing to the American people when they come here from all over the country. They want to see the garden, the Botanic Garden, and I just feel that we have to figure a way to fund this and to take care of the facility. This was a dream of the Founders of this Republic, and I think we should honor that dream and we should defeat both of these amendments and do the work that's necessary to keep it in a first-class condition for the American people.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the ranking member yield?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to add my support for this effort. This is not a perfect bill, but I want to say how much I appreciate working with Congressman Frelinghuysen, especially on modernization of our new reactor for the follow-on Trident submarine. This is an enormously important program, and the chairman has worked with us to make sure that the funding is appropriate and timely so that we can keep this program on track. And for that, I appreciate it. To all the staff and Chairman Rogers, thank you for regular order and staying with this. Fortunately we were able to get a unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to this amendment, too. The bill would provide $100 million for ARPA-E, which is already $80 million less than FY 2011 funding--and of course we have to take into account the amendment that was just passed--and $450 million below the President's budget request. ARPA-E is a promising new program that can drive innovation to support our scientific competitiveness. As I stated previously in my opening statement, ARPA-E has shown potential as a new organizational model. And I am disappointed that the same vigor that led to its creation has been largely absent when it comes to addressing the systemic and organizational problems in other existing applied programs, which was an element of the justification used for ARPA-E. ARPA-E is modeled on DARPA. And as the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, DARPA has been one of the great leaders of innovation in the national security area. So again, I'm sorry to say it, but I think we have to defeat the Flake amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Close.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I would just point out that there are no amendments left on our side that I know of, and I hope that your side can be more expeditious. Thank you. Some of us have important ball games to go to. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. If they don't take into account Corps of Engineers projects on the possibilities that the seas are going to rise, I mean, this could be catastrophic. It could be another Katrina. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the City of Tacoma for ensuring that sustainable policies and business practices are considered in utility operations and all departmental decisions. I was gratified to see that the City of Tacoma has partnered with the Institute for Environmental Research and Education and local businesses to become a ``Life-Cycle City''--making a formal commitment to evaluate the life cycle environmental impacts of goods and services. Those environmental costs added up over time are significant to our constituents and I commend Tacoma's efforts to ensure that we are making the best possible investments with taxpayer dollars while being responsible stewards of our environment.