Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and someone who is very concerned about the need to safeguard wildlife and ecosystems from global warming, I wish to express my strong support for the ``American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.'' I believe that the policy provisions in this legislation, coupled with a new core funding stream for wildlife and natural resources derived from a portion of the Federal revenues from expected cap-and-trade legislation will provide the policy response necessary to tackle this significant challenge. I am very much aware of the need to take action to address global warming, and I have held hearings to examine the impact of climate change on many of the agencies and resources under my subcommittee's jurisdiction. I have consistently stated my belief that climate change may be the emerging issue of our time. Climate change will alter the face of our planet in ways we cannot yet fully comprehend, and I believe it is our responsibility not only to do as much as possible to halt or slow it, but also to do everything in our power to protect the earth's resources from its impacts so that future generations will be able to benefit from them as we and past generations have done. Our Nation's wildlife is one critically important resource that is particularly vulnerable to climate change and is also a resource that is a fundamental part of America's history and character. Conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat is a core value shared by all Americans. America's wildlife is vital to our Nation for many reasons. Wildlife conservation provides economic, social, educational, recreational, emotional, and spiritual benefits. The economic value of the outdoor recreation industry--hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing, hiking, paddling--alone is estimated to contribute $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy. Wildlife habitat, including forests, grasslands, riparian lands, wetlands, rivers and other water bodies, is an essential component of the American landscape, and is protected and valued by Federal, State, and local governments, Tribes, private landowners, and conservation organizations. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the effect of climate change on wildlife will be profound. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports have made clear that global warming is occurring, that it is exacerbated by human activity, and that it will have devastating impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. In addition, a recent report, Global Climate Change in the United States, was released by the Administration and reflects the most current information from our Nation's leading scientists who agree that the impacts from climate change are already being felt and will continue to increase. Global warming is already impacting all of us: threatening the water we drink, the air we breathe, the medicines we use, the food we eat, the forests and fisheries we depend on, the special places we take our children. Wildlife is suffering from massive changes in habitat, particularly in the arctic, and shifts in ranges and timing of migration and breeding cycles. Continued global warming could lead to large-scale species extinctions. These impacts add to and compound the adverse effects wildlife and its habitat already suffer from land development, energy development, road construction, and other human activities, and from other threats such as invasive species and disease. According to the IPCC, global warming and associated sea level rise will continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized now or in the very near future. I believe that, as a nation, we must craft responses and mechanisms now to help navigate the threats global warming poses to the natural resources that we all depend upon for survival. To conserve natural resources and wildlife in the face of the far- reaching effects of global warming, there is a need for a coordinated, national strategy based on sound scientific information to ensure that impacts on wildlife that span government jurisdictions are effectively addressed and to ensure that Federal funds are prudently committed. Ensuring strategic and efficient allocation of funding is something of particular interest to me as an appropriator. To that end, I have acted within my capacity as a lead appropriator on this issue to advance steps necessary to combat the climate change impacts we have already set underway. I have worked to establish the Global Warming and Wildlife Science center at the U.S. Geological Survey, now receiving its second year of funding. Also in the recent FY09 omnibus appropriations bill and the FY2010 Interior Appropriations bill. I have provided direction to the Department of the Interior to develop a national strategy to address global warming's impacts on fish, wildlife, and natural resources. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will help ensure that the pressing needs that are faced by the agencies and programs under the Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee to help wildlife and wildlife habitat are addressed strategically, based on a foundation of sound scientific information, and that funding is driven through proven programs at the Federal, State and tribal levels in the most efficient way possible. I have also included significant funding increases. But I can only do so much in the Interior Appropriations bill. I also have one additional but very significant point to make about funding to address impacts to natural resources and wildlife from global warming. It is essential that actions to safeguard wildlife and the natural resources will all depend upon receiving adequate funding. Addressing the greatest conservation challenge of our time will require long-term investments of the magnitude that only the revenue stream created by comprehensive climate and energy legislation can provide. While I support dedicating more of the allowances under this bill to natural resources adaptation, the 1 percent currently contained in the bill represents an important start of the problem. As I have indicated, the impacts are occurring today and the need is urgent. Paying for these investments through climate revenues takes the burden of protecting these resources off taxpaying citizens and onto the polluting entities responsible for causing global warming pollution. The Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee allocation is woefully stressed just dealing with the current needs of the agencies and programs under its jurisdiction. Our Federal land management agencies have tremendous backlogs for operations and maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests, and other public lands. This situation was greatly exacerbated under the Bush administration budgets and prior Congresses. Hundreds of important biologist positions have been cut, and the agencies' budgets are far below what they have needed just to keep up with inflation. These programs have been starved to the point where they are on life support. It became apparent in hearings the subcommittee has held on global warming that the land management agencies are already seeing the results of climate change on the ground, but that they have few, if any, resources to deal with these changes. With the effects of global warming only expected to increase in severity in the coming years, I believe it is crucial to infuse a new core funding stream into our efforts to address this crisis, and I am pleased that the American Clean Energy and Security Act provides an important new funding stream. This is a great Nation with a unique and irreplaceable natural heritage. We must take steps now to protect our wonderful wildlife from the ravages of climate change. With this in mind, I plan to vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time. I just want to say to my colleagues that I believe this is an extraordinarily good bill. Mr. Simpson and I worked together on a bipartisan basis to craft this legislation. Our staffs worked together very effectively; and we had an open process, an open subcommittee markup where any member could have offered any amendment that they wanted. We had a full committee markup where any member of the Appropriations Committee could have offered an amendment, either side of the aisle; and many were offered. I just want you to know that I understand Mr. Simpson's statement here. He feels badly that we don't have an open rule. I would have preferred an open rule. But when we took control of the House, all of a sudden we had an extension of time on these bills. I can remember the last year I was the ranking member, Mr. Taylor was the chairman. I think we went about 8 hours. The next year when I became chairman, it was over 20 hours, and it was an exhaustive process. I just think we have to remember that we've got to get these 12 bills passed. The greatest sin, in my judgment, is to not do our work; and there are some people in this House who don't want to see the work get done because then they can point the finger of failure at the majority. I have to support my leadership because they have offered their hand-- they went over and they talked to Mr. Boehner. They talked to Mr. Lewis, who is here on the floor. And they said, We would like to work out an agreement on these bills on how we can proceed. And they were rebuffed. So we started out, and we found that there was going to be, on the first bill, a huge number of amendments. There was going to be a long- term delay in getting the work done. So we had no choice but to go to the Rules Committee and get a structured rule. I would have preferred an open rule, but I support what our leadership has done. I think until the leadership gets together and works out a different way, we're going to be doing it this way. It takes both sides here to cooperate and to realize that we have to limit the number of amendments, either by an agreement or by a structured rule. Now this is a very good bill. I hope that this dispute about the procedure doesn't get in the way of the fact that this is one of the best--maybe the greatest--Interior appropriations bill that has ever been enacted.

Mr. DICKS. I want to say something. Over the last 8 years, between 2001 and 2008, during the previous administration, the budget for the Interior Department was cut by 16 percent. The budget for the EPA was cut by 29 percent; and the budget for the Forest Service, if you take fire out, was cut by 35 percent. These were huge cuts in these programs. The Park Service was in trouble. The Fish and Wildlife Service was in trouble. We had to step in, and we did this on a bipartisan basis. In fact, when I was in the minority, Mr. Taylor and I, Mr. Regula and I worked to try to increase the funding for the Park Service so we wouldn't see it deteriorate. Now we have a better budget, and it helps us correct some of the problems. Still we have huge backlogs of work that have to be done in the Park Service, in the Fish and Wildlife Service, at the BLM. So even with a better budget, we still do not have enough money to take care of all the issues that we need to address. But this is a good bill that deserves our support, and this rule deserves support.

Mr. DICKS. Thank you for yielding. Is this the Cascade ecosystems in Mount Baker, Wenatchee?

Mr. DICKS. And this is in the Forest Service?

Mr. DICKS. This is the first I have known of this. My colleague from Washington State, I understand your very long and very principled position on this issue. I would be delighted to take a look at this and report back to the gentleman on what I have found out and see what the situation is with the Forest Service.

Mr. DICKS. Yes. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention, and we look forward to working together, as we have on many projects throughout the years.

Mr. DICKS. I want to point out that in this bill, at the request of the local cities and counties of our country, we have appropriated some money that will be used for climate change and to deal with the impacts of climate change. And I would just point out, since this issue was raised on the other side of the aisle, that if we were going to do meaningful work on climate change, it's going to take our local communities to be involved, to work with their transportation systems and their energy systems and do all the other work that's necessary to deal with the consequences of climate change. So I think this was a very wise investment. The local communities, the League of Cities, the counties, are all very enthusiastic about this. Administrator Lisa Jackson put out an announcement the other day about this program. I am sure there will be hundreds of applications from all over this country. Climate change is one of the most serious issues facing our country. We held hearings and brought in representatives from all the Federal agencies, and they all tell us unequivocally that they can already see the impacts of climate change on the Federal lands across the country. I mean, people are talking about bug infestation and they are talking about the effect of this bug infestation, which has a devastating effect on our forestry and our trees. And then we have the fire issues that relate to this. The fire season now is 1 month longer on each end. So we have drought, bug infestation. We have longer fire seasons. So we have all these things that are happening because of global warming and climate change, and we have to deal with that. And we have to have our communities involved. We have to have our rural communities involved. So I think the investments that we are making here and the research that we are doing is very necessary. There are still some people, it's amazing to me, who still have some doubts about this from a scientific perspective. So that's why we are doing all these things in the Interior bill.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2996, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my privilege and pleasure to present the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to you today. This very fine bill is the product of many hours of hearings and briefings, always with bipartisan input and excellent participation. I am particularly pleased to present the bill with my friend, Mike Simpson. The bill before us provides historic increases for the environment, natural resources, and Native American programs, especially Indian health. It also includes significant allocations to protect our public lands, invest in science, and support important cultural agencies. At a total of $32.3 billion, this bill is an increase of 17 percent above last year. Chairman Obey recognizes that the programs funded through this bill have been chronically underfunded and provided the allocation necessary to reverse that trend. From 2001 through 2009, when adjusted for inflation, the budget request for the Interior Department went down by 16 percent, the EPA went down by 29 percent, and the nonfire Forest Service accounts went down by 35 percent. This bill invests taxpayers' dollars in our natural resources, and for this investment all Americans will see great returns. Some will argue that we are spending too much in this bill, but let's look at the facts. The largest increase by far is for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. The demand for assistance to repair, rehabilitate, or build new infrastructure is immense. This subcommittee received 1,200 requests for such assistance from both sides of the aisle. Every one of us wants clean and safe drinking water for our constituents. This increase is long overdue. In fact, the first administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, under President Bush in 2002 did a study that showed that there was a $668 billion backlog for these kinds of programs. This kind of infrastructure is desperately needed. That's why we added money here and added money in the stimulus package. Yes, this bill includes a $4.7 billion increase above the 2009 level, but let me remind my colleagues that the programs in this bill will return more than $14.5 billion to the Treasury next year. That's revenue. The Department of the Interior alone is estimated to return more than $13 billion to the Treasury through oil, gas and coal revenues, grazing, timber, recreation fees, and the revenues from the sale of the duck stamps. I should also note that the EPA's Leaking Underground Storage Tank program, financed by a 0.1 percent tax per gallon of gas sold, has a balance of more than $3 billion that offsets the deficit. Clearly, the programs in this bill go a long way towards paying for themselves. But let me be clear. This bill is not all increases. We had to make difficult choices. Through hearings and briefings, we carefully reviewed the proposed budget and have recommended a number of reductions and terminations. Some of these were the result of recommendations made by the GAO and the Inspector General. In total, we recommend program reductions or terminations of over $320 million from the 2009 levels and $300 million from the budget request. The bill before us today provides historic increases and focused funding to protect the environment. Clean water and drinking water infrastructure received $3.9 billion, enough to provide assistance to more than 1,500 communities. We included authority for subsidized assistance to those cities and towns which cannot afford conventional loans. These funds would provide drinking water that meets public health standards and clean water to restore important ecosystems. The bill invests $667 million to restore major American lakes, estuaries, and bays. It fully funds the President's request of $475 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and makes significant investments to protect other great American water bodies such as Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chesapeake Bay. To address global climate change, this bill provides $420 million for climate change adaptation and scientific study. This includes $178 million for research, planning and conservation efforts within the Department of the Interior and $195 million for EPA science, technology development and regulatory programs, including grants to local communities to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I am especially proud that the bill includes $15 million for the National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center at the U.S. Geological Survey. The bill also addresses our Nation's commitment to Native Americans with increases for health care, law enforcement, and education in Indian country. This bill provides a total of $6.8 billion for Indian programs, an increase of $654 million above the 2009 level. We recommend an historic increase of $471 million above 2009 for the Indian Health Service to improve the quality and availability of critical health care services. It also includes $182 million above 2009 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support justice, law enforcement, education, and social services in Native American communities. We recommend a major investment in Forest Service and Department of the Interior programs that fight and reduce wildfires. The bill has an unprecedented total of $3.66 billion for all of the fire accounts. We have increased overall wildfire suppression funding by 39 percent over 2009, including $357 million for the new wildfire suppression contingency reserve accounts. In response to testimony received at a number of hearings, we also recommend a $611 million investment in hazardous fuels reduction. It is clear that focused fuels reduction is important if we hope to reduce the number and severity of wildfires in the future and protect communities and watersheds. The bill provides a $198 million increase above 2009 for the National Park Service to invest in the iconic lands and infrastructure that comprise our national heritage. I am also particularly proud of our efforts to improve the National Wildlife Refuge System. We have provided $503 million, a $40 million increase over 2009, for the refuge system to reduce critical staffing shortages, implement climate change strategies, and improve conservation efforts. The bill also supports land management, State assistance, and science programs at the Forest Service by increasing nonfire programs by $160 million above 2009. The bill provides $100 million for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation program to protect streams and water systems from damaged forest roads. This is a key part of our effort to protect the national forests and grasslands. And finally, we have provided an increase of $86 million above the 2009 level for the cultural agencies supported by this bill. We recommend $170 million for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The endowments are vital for preserving and encouraging America's creative and cultural heritage. The bill also supports the Smithsonian Institution, the world's largest museum complex, with an increase of $43 million above 2009. I'm especially proud of the way we produced this bill. Mr. Simpson has been an outstanding ranking member whose thoughtful contributions over the course of 20 hearings has helped us to make this a better bill. During those hearings, we heard from 37 government witnesses and 99 members of the public. We received written testimony from an additional 94 witnesses. I was most impressed with the minority's attendance at those hearings. This bill is the product of a bipartisan effort, and I truly believe it is a better bill because of that. I want to take a moment to thank our staff who have worked long hours without weekend breaks to help prepare this bill. Delia Scott, our clerk; Chris Topik, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, Juliette Falkner, Melissa Squire, and Greg Scott on the majority staff have worked in a bipartisan manner with David LesStrang and Darren Benjamin on the minority staff. In addition, Pete Modaff and Ryan Shauers on my staff, and Malissah Small and Megan Milam from Mr. Simpson's staff have worked hard and have been a great help to the subcommittee staff. In closing, I want to remind members that although the increases I have outlined are substantial, their impacts will be even greater. Our subcommittee funds programs that span a broad spectrum of issues, from our cultural and historic heritage to the water we drink and the land we walk on. Our agencies fight fires, protect great water bodies, and tend to the needs of the first Americans. These programs are vital to every American. They will improve the environment for everyone. And they work to fulfill our Nation's trust responsibilities. I'm proud of this bill and ask that you support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. It is my understanding the community went forward with the necessary work in light of the Federal delay and now would like to use the money for a waterline. Is that correct?

Mr. DICKS. I understand my colleague's problem. We're going to work with him and try to work this out with the other body. But I realize how serious this is, and we'll work with him until we get a satisfactory solution.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, if I could be recognized again, I want to yield 2 minutes to Congressman Gerald E. Connolly of Virginia for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for acknowledging this important program. Would the gentleman agree that a critical component to freeing up additional dollars for the partnership program would be to have our existing heritage areas move towards self-sufficiency?

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia on this very important issue.

Mr. DICKS. I would like to yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of having a colloquy with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, it is our understanding that the Member's statement of our intent is correct.

Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 1 additional minute. The gentleman from Oklahoma has contacted me, and I have assured him, Chief Pyle and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma that the ranking member and I share with the entire subcommittee his desire to support these efforts to provide quality educational opportunities for the students from many tribes nationwide who attend Jones Academy. I will work towards inclusion of the Jones Academy, should the BIA be untimely or unresponsive to the committee's directive. But I doubt that they will be.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Buyer, I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to light and I would like to work with you to improve the standards of these cemeteries. I do agree that we must improve these cemeteries to ensure that our appreciation for our veterans' sacrifices is appropriately expressed by maintaining their final resting place to the highest standards. I want to assure the gentleman that the National Park Service is taking steps towards better maintenance of the cemeteries. The national office of the Park Service is assembling a team with expertise and cultural resource preservation and maintenance. This team will conduct a review of these two active cemeteries and make recommendations to the national office regarding appropriate corrective actions where deficiencies are found. I would follow up this effort to ensure that the services provide a level of care befitting a national shrine. I look forward to working with you to address this issue.

Mr. DICKS. I cannot do that.

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Unfortunately I can't do that. But I will do everything I can, not only to address the two that you've mentioned, but all 14; and we'll work together on this. If it isn't to the gentleman's satisfaction, we will address it with legislation next year.