Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I want to say that I strongly support this amendment. It is very clear to me that in California, in Washington, in Oregon, and in many States, this has become a tremendous problem. Drugs are being grown, marijuana particularly, on Federal lands. I think we have to do more on enforcement. I commend the gentleman for his leadership in presenting the amendment. Our side supports it. If the gentleman has nothing further to say, I think we ought to have a vote on his amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 119, line 15 be considered as read.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DICKS. I understand that citizens and the Carson City Board of Supervisors are concerned about the Interior Department plan to build an urgently needed new wildfire facility, but it is clearly premature to cut off funding for this proposal. The environmental analysis is still out for public review. We should not halt this important project before the analysis and the public input can be analyzed and considered. Carson City is a fire-prone area. It is really important for the Federal agencies to move ahead with an interagency center so they can be more efficient and effective firefighters. This new joint facility will support the Silver Hotshot Group, a key part of the firefighting force. The Interior Department has already spent funds for the planning and design of this particular project, so we should not stop or unduly delay its implementation. Both the Interior Department and the Forest Service have budgeted some of their limited infrastructure funding for this badly needed project. I understand the gentleman from Nevada has concerns. I pledge to work with him as this bill moves forward to be sure that his constituents' concerns are heard and fully considered. We all want to improve the firefighting capacity and protect neighborhoods and wildlands. This amendment was not brought to our attention, the committee's attention, until very late in the process. Had we known, we could have taken an opportunity to talk to the Department, to hear the gentleman's views. He did not come to the committee and testify. There was an opportunity for Members to testify. He chose not to do that. So I think that this is an amendment that comes late, is not favored by the administration, is actually going to weaken our firefighting capability and this is something that is serious because people's lives are at stake. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this misguided amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DICKS. This amendment would harm this bill dramatically and would shortchange America's vitally needed environmental conservation and Native American programs. As our former colleague, Silvio Conte, would say: This is a mindless, meat ax approach. It makes no choices based on need or the merits of the programs. This reduction is the equivalent of a 17.8 percent cut. This is completely irresponsible. This is not just an accounting change on a spreadsheet. Cutting $5.75 billion from the bill would have serious consequences on health, jobs, energy programs, young people and wild places. The Environmental Protection Agency would be reduced by $1.8 billion. This would seriously impair environmental protection, science programs, and hazardous area remediation. Funding for efforts to help local communities with repairs to their aging water and wastewater infrastructure would be reduced by $700 million. This would mean that approximately 400 communities would not receive the financial assistance they need to repair and improve water and sewer infrastructure. Despite the fact that 76 million Americans live within 4 miles of a toxic waste site, the amendment cuts $233 million from programs to clean up the Nation's most toxic and hazardous waste sites. It reduces the landmark effort to clean up the Great Lakes by $85 million, thus jeopardizing the cleanup of toxic sediments in the lakes and harming the aquatic plants and animals which humans depend upon. Our national parks would be cut by $485 million. It includes a $403 million reduction below the President's request for the basic operational costs of the 395 units of the national park system. As an example, Yosemite would lose $3.6 million; Yellowstone, $4.6 million; the Independence Mall in Philadelphia, $2.8 million. This reduction is the equivalent of closing 75 national park units. Many visitors would find closed national parks when they go on vacation or on educational trips, reducing the entire tourism industry and harming the economy of many cities and communities. It rejects $1.2 billion for programs that have received bipartisan support by cutting $721 million out of Indian health care programs. This proposal would deny critically needed services to thousands of Native Americans. More than 2 million Native Americans would be denied inpatient and outpatient health care services and more than 4,000 cancer screenings would be eliminated. It takes $90 million out of the already struggling Indian education programs, leaving even more Indian children without adequate education programs. It reduces overall funding for firefighting by $652 million at a time when we are facing another dangerous wildfire season. Many small fires would escape initial attack, leading to many more large wildfires that harm watersheds and cost far more money in emergency firefighting and recovery costs. It cuts 1,700 firefighters, shuts down more than 50 firefighter stations, and significantly reduces air tanker support. It decimates preparedness efforts by failing to provide critical support for initial attacks, and could allow as many as 600 more wildfires to escalate. This would lead to larger, more damaging and much more expensive fires, the kind that costs in excess of $100 million to extinguish. So I think this is a very bad amendment. It hurts the Fish and Wildlife Service. It hurts the Forest Service. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Again I want to say that our committee held countless oversight hearings. We made cuts, $300 million in cuts. I would also say that this part of the budget, under the previous administration was reduced, Interior Department, by 16 percent, the EPA by 29 percent, the Forest Service by 35 percent. So this will help bring back these important programs. I mean, we are talking about health care in the Indian Health Service. Mr. Obey made a decision. President Obama made a decision. It went through OMB. Many of the people on the other side of the aisle have no trust in the Congress, but this budget came from the administration. The administration looked at all these programs, And every earmark we had in this bill was vetted by the administration. So this has been carefully put together. I spent 33 years on this committee, and I'll tell you this, we know what we're doing. We support the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. These are great institutions that deserve our support, and to have somebody come in here and accuse us of not doing our work is an insult to me and to Mr. Simpson because we have done our work. We know what's in this bill, and it's a good bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back my time.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise to seek the time in opposition.

Mr. DICKS. I urge Members to oppose this amendment. The gentleman from Florida would not have believed it if I had accepted his amendment, and of course I can't accept it because this amendment is not a good amendment. The gentleman says that this amendment would reduce the EPA to the fiscal year 2009 funding level, but let's talk about what it will really do. A reduction of 38 percent to the funds provided in this bill for EPA would equal a $3.975 billion cut. That would eliminate all the funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and 27,000 fewer construction jobs would be created through construction of water and wastewater infrastructure. That means almost 1,500 communities across this country would not receive assistance to repair and build drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. It was the previous administration that reported a $662 billion gap between what our communities will need to spend and the funds they have to do it with. This reduction would mean that the great water bodies of this country will not receive the funding to help restore and protect these special natural resources. The great water bodies are not just the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico. If you represent a district that borders any of these water bodies, this amendment will cut the funding your community depends on to help protect them: Mobile Bay, Alabama; San Francisco Bay; Morro Bay, California; Santa Monica Bay; Long Island Sound; Delaware Estuary; Tampa Bay; Sarasota Bay; Charlotte Harbor, Florida; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Barataria Terrebonne, Louisiana; Casco Bay, Maine; Maryland coastal bays; Massachusetts Bay; Narragansett Bay; New Hampshire estuaries; New York/ New Jersey Harbor; Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; Peconic Estuary; Albemarle Pamlico Sound; Lower Columbia River; Tillamook Bay, Oregon; San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico; Coastal Bend Bays, Texas; and Galveston Bay, Texas. I would warn Members that 151 Members of this body whose districts border one of these estuaries that I mentioned will see that their funding will be cut for these important programs. A reduction of this size would mean the EPA would stop construction and demobilize 8 to 10 large, high-cost ongoing Superfund projects such as the Welsbach site in New Jersey, the Tar Creek site in Oklahoma, and the New Bedford site in Massachusetts. EPA would not be able to start any new Superfund sites in 2010 after years of reduction under the previous administration. EPA estimates that a reduction of this size would prohibit them from completing construction at as many as nine Superfund sites in 2010 and 2011. This reduction would mean EPA would not properly certify new vehicles, fuels, and engines sold in the United States to make sure they conform to EPA's emission standards. And 217 tribes would lose funding for their environmental programs. A 38 percent reduction to the EPA would impact every program they administer. But most importantly, this reduction would affect every American who wants to drink clean water and breathe clean air. Let me remind the Members, we all have an environment in our districts, so I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Stearns amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I will answer the gentleman's question. I want you to know, again, I have to say this again, and it pains me every time I say it, but over the last 8 years, the Interior Department was cut by 16 percent; EPA was cut by 29 percent. So this is a little bit of help to get back to an approach that can deal effectively with some of the most important and sensitive programs we have in this country: the Superfund sites, our wastewater treatment, our clean water. When you ask the American people, do you want clean water, do you want safe drinking water, it's a 99 percent issue. So to stand up here and say we're going to have draconian cuts of the money for the revolving funds that are going to provide that clean water, it is unthinkable. And I know the gentleman wants me to stop. It must be painful. The truth is always painful. Madam Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want the gentleman to know that this amendment, you put it on your Web site. We looked at it very carefully. And we feel that this is a totally justified amendment. We strongly support it. We checked with the Park Service, and the Park Service strongly supports it.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DICKS. First of all, I want to say we strongly oppose this amendment. We have checked on this project. We think this is a great project. We think it's worthy. We think it provides a lot of public good. And I'd be glad to yield to my friend from New York (Mr. McHugh) to further discuss this project.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman just yield for a moment?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to say, our side strongly supports this amendment. It was properly vetted. This is one of those incredibly important things for a local community, and we want this project to be funded.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I want to rise in strong support of her amendment and the Speaker's amendment. This is a very important project. And I urge a ``no'' vote on the Campbell amendment. I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DICKS. The ``bridge to nowhere'' was not an Appropriations Committee project. This was a project of the House Transportation Committee, and our committee had no responsibility for this.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I just wanted to say to the gentleman that the committee strongly supports his amendment. We think this is a good amendment. It's well thought out. We like the fact that the city and the State put up money. It's a real partnership. This is the way we do things today, and the gentleman is a distinguished member of the committee and we are proud of his good work.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?