Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I still have some speakers.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Holt from New Jersey, who is very concerned and one of our best environmental supporters in the House.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who has been a very hardworking Member and very concerned about the issues in this bill.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. I again want to point out that over the last 8 years, Interior's budget has been cut by 16 percent. The EPA has been cut by 29 percent, and the Forest Service by 35 percent. This budget does provide a significant increase, but it's only catchup because these agencies have been severely damaged. The Forest Service has a huge backlog of work on infrastructure, on roads, on trails. The Park Service has billions of dollars of requirements. Christine Todd Whitman, the first EPA administrator under President Bush, said there is a $662 billion backlog on infrastructure for clean water and wastewater treatment in this country, which are fundamental to the health of the American people. I am a little bit amazed to hear all this concern about the EPA when at the same time they are saying let's vote, give the EPA less money. That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense. If you are concerned about the EPA, you need to know that they need those resources to do the enforcement work that's necessary. This is an extraordinarily good bill. I have been on this committee for 33 years. This is the best Interior bill we have ever presented. The money here for Native Americans is long overdue. This is a catchup bill. I urge the House to vote for it and to reject the negativity of the other side.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2996) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the instruction.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. DICKS. I want my colleagues to know that these are two important issues. We are going to work on them, and we are going to do the very best we can. EPA has come out with a ruling on this issue that wants to make sure that the largest people who have the biggest farms with the most cows, cattle, and pigs have to report, but we are working on this. We're going to do the best we can to come out with a credible position for the House of Representatives. And we will do the best we can on the 72 hours, but we have to keep the government running. We have a responsibility to do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to give a little background on this. I think the gentleman has a perspective, but I want to make sure that everyone understands what actually happened here. The EPA administrator signed the proposed rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases from large emission sources in the United States on March 10, 2009. It was published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2009. The EPA received almost 17,000 written comments on the proposal, and it heard from approximately 60 people at the two public hearings. The final rule reflects changes the EPA made as it carefully considered and responded to significant comments. Now what has happened here is that thousands of small farmers would be exempted, and only the 90 largest manure management systems in the country would be required to report their emissions, those who annually emit as much in greenhouse gases as 58,000 barrels of oil. It is important for the EPA to receive information from these systems because the EPA needs reliable data on the greenhouse gas emissions from major facilities in all industries if we are going to be able to base our climate policy on a solid and thorough understanding of the problem. So I think this rule, which is very close to where, I think, the conferees are going to come out, does the right thing. It exempts thousands of small farmers; but for the ones who have enormous operations, where large amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted, they have to report. I think that's reasonable, and I think the process is reasonable. Congress directed that this be done. It was our committee that required a greenhouse gas registry so that we could make these decisions based on science, not on just political machinations. We did it on science. The EPA did it on science. I think it's a reasonable compromise. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. It means we got 99.9 percent of Latham. That's pretty good.

Mr. DICKS. We all agree that for these small farmers, this makes no sense. The only people that are going to be under this rule are the people who are emitting the equivalent of 58,000 barrels of oil in these emissions. These are the biggest farmers in the country. They can afford to do this. This is a compromise. The spirit of Latham has been adopted, but we regulate the small number of people, around 90 in the country, who have these very large emissions. I think it makes sense. I think it's a decent compromise.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend my colleague from Kansas for the extraordinary statement about Russ Meyer, who I have known over the years as you've stated, one of the true leaders in general aviation. And I'd also like to mention my good friend, who was very sick out there in Boise, Idaho, Ed Stimson. Ed was the head of general aviation manufacturing and worked with Russ, and they were a great team. Your colleague, your predecessor, Dan Glickman worked very hard on the general aviation liability legislation, which was an extraordinary piece of work that completely changed the dynamics and helped general aviation recover. And I was a cosponsor of that legislation. But Russ Meyer is just one of the great leaders in general aviation history. I commend the gentleman for his remarks and urge the passing of this resolution.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. If, in fact, we do wind up competing these projects, which is the intent of our committee, wouldn't the gentleman say that that is a major step forward in correcting his concern, if they were, in fact, competed?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DICKS. Because, again, the gentleman may not understand the process. It is because that is the company that has made the request of the Member of Congress. The Member of Congress now realizes that it is going to be competed, that it isn't going to necessarily go to that company. I think that is a good reform. I supported it in the Appropriations Committee. Also, by the way, for the gentleman's knowledge, all of these earmarks, every single earmark, was vetted with the Department of Defense before the committee staff and Members considered those amendments. They were looked at by the Department of Defense.

Mr. DICKS. They're the ones that made the request.

Mr. DICKS. I think we ought to fight for that language in conference to do the very best we can to prevail and to keep that language.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?