Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. I just will wrap this up. I would say, you know, it's very unusual to say you support a program or support the arts when you offer an amendment to eliminate the entire program. It's like saying I'm for the B-2 bomber but I want to vote against it. You can't have it both ways. Either you're for the arts or you're not. When you're here, you have to demonstrate that support by supporting the program. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

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, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's project. We have looked at this carefully. As we understand it, it deals with the historic facade, and this is an important project. I think it is a very modest amount of money, which has to be matched by the locals. They are putting up a huge amount of additional money so there won't be any problem with that. I congratulate the gentleman on his project and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is truly an American treasure. This remarkably well-preserved shop is an example of the once-common, shaft-driven job shop which played an important role in maintaining and repairing the machines that built early industrial America. This rare industrial facility contains machining and foundry equipment dating back to the mid-to-late 1800s. When the shop doors were shuttered more than four decades ago, everything, the tools, drills, nails, presses, lathes, wooden molds and patterns were left behind, creating a priceless time capsule from the turn of the century. The machine shop and foundry are still able to operate, but the structure of the facility has severely deteriorated and is in desperate need of repair and restoration in order to preserve the facility and the historic equipment within. And I would assume that's why it hasn't been open; they're waiting to do the repairs. The W.A. Young & Sons Foundry and Machine Shop is documented by the National Park Service Historic American Engineering Record and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I would also point out to my colleagues that in approaching this task, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and I, and our staffs collectively, reviewed all of these projects. There were 10 requests for every project that was put in the bill. And when we added it up, at the end of the day, it is four-tenths of 1 percent. Now, that is still significant, but I think it's important for us to realize that we are dramatically reducing the number of overall earmarks in this bill, a much greater reduction than when the other party was in charge. From 1994 to 2006, it went from approximately 1,000 earmarks up to 13,000 earmarks; 13,000 earmarks. We have cut this back dramatically. I think we've done a good job. I was hoping that the gentleman would be here today to praise us, saying you have met the standard that the administration said. You cut the 50 percent that Pelosi said you were going to cut. I was hoping the gentleman would be here saying, ``Well done,'' and yet we have another amendment. So, I'm in opposition to this. I think we should keep moving. We have other legislation to do. I know a lot of people in this body want to get home on Friday, so I hope we can move expeditiously. I appreciate the gentleman's even-handedness in making selections, though I didn't notice that he had a reduction of the President's request. And again, I want to point out to the gentleman, you know, remember, the power of the purse is one of Congress' most important powers. And I think we should be very careful when we start undermining that important legislative tool that separates us from the executive branch. So, this is Mr. Murtha's project from Pennsylvania, a very senior member of the Appropriations Committee. I urge all of my Members to support Mr. Murtha's project and to oppose the Flake amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I can get you his phone number.

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

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. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's very constructive approach to this matter. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman knew that the distinguished chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Gordon, and I had a colloquy at the start of the day in which I committed myself to work with him to align our approach with the work of the Science and Technology Committee when that legislation is enacted. I would hope that the gentleman might consider that in making his decision whether to go forward with this amendment, because I do believe we have a commitment to get this important work done. As the gentleman has mentioned, and I will give the gentleman additional time, if necessary, as the gentleman has mentioned, adaptation and mitigation of the effects of climate change are terribly important to the United States, to our wildlife, to our habitat. In fact, this is an issue that is worldwide in reach and scope. I would hope that the gentleman might reconsider his amendment to strike and allow us to go forward with a commitment that I have made to the chairman, and I make to you, that we will work this out in a way that is consistent with the authorizing legislation. That's why the chairman was willing to go along with me at this point.

Mr. DICKS. I want to tell the gentleman I appreciate his hard work on this issue, and we're prepared to accept his amendment. And having had dead zones off the coast of Washington State, in Puget Sound and in Hood Canal, I can tell you this is a very serious problem, and I'm very pleased the gentleman is working so hard to deal with it and bring it to our attention.

Mr. DICKS. We want to work with the gentleman on this important issue. We are very concerned about this problem and think it deserves our complete attention.

Mr. DICKS. Yes, that is the intention of this legislation. I completely agree with the gentleman. The increase is necessary in order to deal with this very serious problem. We will continue to work with the gentleman as we go to conference with the Senate. We will do the best we can to help on this important issue.

Mr. DICKS. Yes, it is. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention. We should focus the resources on those areas where the problem is the most severe. If we have any problem with this, I'll be glad to work with the gentleman with the agencies involved to make certain that that happens.

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