Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is unnecessary. The country does not need a new bureau to create minerals information. The current situation in which the U.S. Geologic Survey administers the minerals information works perfectly fine. As chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, I have examined the Bush administration proposals to eliminate funding for the USGS minerals information function. Even during these difficult budgetary times, our subcommittee has appreciated the important function of the minerals assessment team at the USGS and refused the administration's recommendation to eliminate its funding. The Pearce amendment would nearly double the size of the new agency. It would create a new bureaucracy with at least 300 staff and a yearly cost of $30 million or more. So please join me in rejecting this amendment. I yield to the former chairman of the Interior subcommittee, Mr. Regula from Ohio.

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's comment. I want to congratulate the chairman for doing an outstanding job as one of my classmates.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate Congressman Hastings yielding to me, and I just want to echo his words. Our regrets go out to Jennifer Dunn's family, to her husband, Keith, and to her sons, Reagan, named after Ronald Reagan, by the way, and Bryant and Angus. Jennifer Dunn was a great leader in our State. She was the first woman Republican chairman of the State Republican Party. She was elected to the Congress, was on the Ways and Means Committee. She always was willing to reach out across the aisle and work on projects. Congressman Larsen reminded me of her efforts on the Wild Sky program which was enacted this year, something she worked on for many years. She was a leader on trade issues and tax reform issues. She will be missed. I appreciated the fact she was always willing to cross the aisle and work with Democrats or whoever to get legislation enacted. She was a great advocate for tax issues. She will be missed by all of us. We pass on our condolences to her family.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating Chairman Murtha, Ranking Member Young, Chairman Obey, and Ranking Member Lewis for guiding the committee work that brings this bill to the floor for consideration today. I expect that other committee members took as much satisfaction as I did in being able to report out this bill with unanimous, bipartisan support from both the subcommittee and the full committee. One area that I want to comment on in particular regarding this bill has to do with the classified accounts. In preparing this bill, we undertook a new approach in which Members from both the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence worked jointly in a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel. I was pleased to have been able to participate in this panel that was ably led by my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Holt. Because we cannot comment in any detail on the classified accounts in this bill, I hope it is useful to my colleagues to hear that the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel undertook thorough reviews of the classified accounts, including many probing sessions with representatives of the intelligence agencies. In the end, the panel made recommendations on the classified accounts to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and the bill before us today reflects those recommendations. Mr. Chairman, like all other agencies of the Federal Government, the intelligence agencies need to be subject to oversight and accountability. I believe that we have done that in developing the appropriations levels that are provided for in the classified accounts of this bill. I also would like to call attention to a few additional areas of the bill that I think are significant. Equipment shortfalls for our Guard and Reserve forces have been an area of real concern to the committee. In order to continue to address this, the bill adds $925 million, $700 million of which is designated for the Army National Guard. Recognizing the need to help the Army provide the facilities that it needs as it deals with the combined effects of growing its forces, rebasing its forces and transforming to the modular force, the bill adds $1.25 billion for facilities sustainment and restoration. These funds will be used to fix barracks, improve childcare facilities and enhance community services at installations around the world. The Navy has some challenges too, some of which this bill attempts to address. In shipbuilding, the bill adds $3.7 billion above the budget request to provide funds for an additional five ships. Furthermore, I am pleased that the bill fully funds the account for ship depot maintenance to ensure that the Navy can continue to maintain the readiness of its current fleet. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I point out that the bill funds a 3.5 percent pay increase for our military personnel, and it includes $2.9 billion (an increase of $558 million over the budget request) for family advocacy programs, childcare centers, and dependent education programs. There is much more that is very good about this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote to support it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3184, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a competitive grant program for the Puget Sound area to provide comprehensive conservation planning to address water quality. For generations, Puget Sound has been the most important geographic feature driving human settlement in the region--first Native American communities followed by the 4 million people who now call it home. With 2,500 miles of shoreline and 2,800 square miles of inland marine waters, it is the second largest estuary in the United States after Chesapeake Bay. Puget Sound is environmentally, culturally and economically linked to Washington State's way of life and it is truly one of America's most spectacular bodies of water, with more than 200 species of fish, 25 kinds of marine mammals, 100 species of sea birds as well as clams, oysters and shrimp. But the health of Puget Sound is in decline--its waters are experiencing the stress of growth and development and its ability to sustain the abundant fishery we've always enjoyed is in doubt. Around the Sound we have detected low levels of oxygen and increasing concentrations of toxic substances in aquatic animals. With the overall health of this great ecosystem in decline, we have launched a cooperative effort involving all of the local government entities around the Sound, as well as the State and Federal governments, to curtail any harmful substances from being introduced into its waters, to change unwise industrial and agricultural practices and to continue aggressively our research into the causes of pollution in this historically pristine inland sea. One of our responses must be to encourage innovation and action at the local level and to help local communities recognize the importance of incremental actions in the overall solution. Congressman Rick Larsen and I have introduced H.R. 3184, the ``Puget Sound Watershed Comprehensive Conservation Project Act of 2007.'' This legislation is supported by all Members of the Washington State congressional delegation. It would authorize a total of $25 million in grants to assist non-Federal governmental or non-governmental organizations, Tribes, and individuals in implementing land management practices and projects that improve water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife in the Puget Sound watershed. H.R. 3184 authorizes conservation projects that will target innovative conservation measures where they do the most good. The program is intended to stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies while leveraging Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection, in conjunction with agricultural production. Mr. Speaker, the Federal government is playing a very important role in restoring the health of Puget Sound, and I believe H.R. 3184 can make a vital contribution to this effort. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the chairman for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to be a conferee, and also Mr. King of New York for his good work. Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am very proud to be a member of this committee. Over the last 4 or 5 years, whether it has been on the Republican rule or under Democratic rule, this committee has had incredible oversight. I commend the two chairmen for that. Congressman Daniel E. Lungren was on the floor earlier. He was very vigorous in oversight. This is another part of the accomplishment here is it's strengthening congressional oversight, the speaker in the chair today, Mr. Murtha, and Speaker Pelosi created a panel on the Appropriations Committee with HPSCI. This is providing additional oversight. I think it's one of the most important things we can do. But getting this bill finally passed is a great accomplishment. You should be very proud of it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would be glad to yield to the ranking member.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to the gentleman that the precedent on this Save America's Treasures has been to split the money 50/50; 50 percent would go to the administration and they would then make decisions on a competitive basis. The other 50 percent would be earmarked by the Members of Congress. I think that process works well. Congress has the right to do this under the power of the purse. This is one of our most important constitutional rights. There is nothing wrong with it. The Supreme Court has never questioned it. It is part of our constitutional history. I just want to also join my friend from Kansas and say that I support this project. I urge that the Flake amendment be rejected and that we support this project. It has been carefully vetted. I think we could have straightened out the name of the title here and helped ourselves, but that is a lesson learned for next year. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his interest in addressing the threat posed by invasive species to our natural resources. I will certainly work with the gentleman to help address this pressing need as we go through this process. I know how important this invasive species issue is. Out in my area we have a major problem with Spartina, and we have had to fight it in the Willapa Bay area and Grays Harbor area. So I am very sympathetic to this. Also with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I guess there is an interagency group that is working on invasive species. So let's look at existing programs, and we will try our best to find a way to help the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman has discussed this amendment with all of us. The bill includes an increase of $11.8 million, as you have mentioned, above the President's request for EPA enforcement. That is enough money to bring the EPA's enforcement level back to levels that we saw earlier in this decade. The majority has no objection and accepts the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Am going to be brief here. This would be a devastating cut on this bill. I want to say something to the gentleman. These bills do have consequences. Over the last 7 years, since this administration took power, the Interior Department's budget has been cut in real terms by 16 percent. The EPA's budget has been cut in real terms by 29 percent, and the Forest Service budget has been cut in real terms, taking fire out, by 35 percent. This is one of the few bills that has been devastated by this administration, and it's a regrettable fact. All our bill does is stop this downward trend in our national parks, our downward trend in our national wildlife refuges, and our downward trend in enforcement and clean water and clean air in the environmental protection area, and the reduction in personnel, not covering fixed costs until Mr. Kempthorne came in, and he is only covering the fixed costs for the Interior Department. This is a devastating cut that would reverse all the good work in this bill. I just think it's totally irresponsible, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this. We need the money for the firefighters, there is a huge fire out there in Lake Tahoe right now. We need to get this bill passed. This kind of across-the-board meat-ax approach will not be successful, I predict. I just tell the gentleman that his amendment goes way too far and would have devastating consequences. It would undermine the President's Centennial Challenge that Mr. Kempthorne has worked so hard to create. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. Yes, we have speakers. How many speakers do you have?

Mr. DICKS. I am not going to yield you any time; so you might go ahead and start.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, again, the former ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Conte, when he was here in the House of Representatives, used to say that this is the ``meat-ax approach.'' An across-the-board amendment doesn't make any selectivity between the national parks and other issues. It's just an across-the-board cut. Again, I must say that the reason we object on this particular bill is because over the last 7 years the administration has cut the Interior Department by 16 percent in real terms. And the cut for EPA is 29 percent and that cuts the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. I mean, it's hard to believe that this administration wanted to cut the Clean Water Revolving Fund by $670 million. How do you do that and go to bed at night and actually get sleep? I mean, it's shocking to me, these cuts. The Forest Service funds all the programs for taking care of our multiple-use Forest Service land. More recreation is provided by the Forest Service than actually the Park Service, and they cut that by 35 percent since 2001. This is a crisis. These agencies are headed down a devastating path, not having enough staff to do their work. The refuges didn't have enough staff. The Park Service didn't have enough staff. Every one of these agencies were losing people year after year because their fixed costs weren't covered. So this was a crisis situation. I think everything we've done in this budget is totally responsible. And I reject the idea of any across-the-board meat-ax approach, using the language of the former ranking member, Mr. Conte from Massachusetts. And I just hope that we can move on here and get to the rest of these amendments. There are a lot of people on the other side who told me they would like to go home on Friday morning, they would like to see us get done on Thursday night. So I don't want anybody to think that we're not in opposition to all these things. I just want them to know that we're trying to work on a bipartisan basis to get the job of this committee done as quickly as possible. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the committee (Mr. Israel).

Mr. DICKS. And I would just add, if the gentlemen are so confident of their position, why don't we just have a vote on this and move along and get the committee's work done. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the subcommittee (Mr. Olver).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again I want to say to my colleagues, the reason we have to make this increase in the Interior appropriations budget is because over the last 6 or 7 years the budgets for these agencies have been reduced dramatically. The Interior Department has been cut by 16 percent. We have lost rangers at every national park in the Nation. The summer workers have been cut back. The services there are not as good as they used to be. This was a crisis. The National Parks Conservation Association had a pamphlet, ``The Endangered Ranger.'' Here it was, our national parks, our national treasure, in decline. I am no extremist. I am a moderate in this House, and I always have been. But this was a true crisis. And what we had to do was stop this decline, this downward trend of our national wildlife refuges, our national parks, and we put a little extra money in to get it turned up, so we could hire a few more people, so we could cover the fixed costs of the rangers and the people running these wildlife refuges. That is why we had to do this. It was a crisis. And it is going to take us a number of years to get back. We only increased this budget by 4.3 percent. With a 16-percent cut, it would take 4 years to get back to where we were in 2001. With EPA, it would take about 7 years to get back to where we were. And with a 35-percent cut in the Forest Service, it would take about 8 years to get back. So we have a long ways to go, and I don't want to have any downward direction here. I do say to the gentleman from Georgia that he is right, the 1 percent could be taken anywhere, and that might mean that all of the projects of interest to the Members would be eliminated by the administration. Now, I hope they wouldn't do that. I hope they wouldn't fall into that trap. But that is one possibility. So, again, I resent the gentleman from Georgia even suggesting that we aren't over here fighting against your amendments. We just looked at the Record last night and how the votes went, and we thought maybe some of the Members would like to get home on Thursday. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I can guarantee I think that this amendment will be treated properly by the membership.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.