Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DICKS. Is this a discussion on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, or are we wandering around?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. The principal purpose of this amendment is to block the long overdue increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts provided in the bill. The gentleman is correct that the bill reported by the committee provides $160 million for the NEA, an increase of $35 million over the 2007 enacted level. I am very proud of that increase, which I think is fully justified and broadly supported by Members of this body. It is important for Members to realize, as they consider the committee's action, that the $160 million recommended only partially restores cuts made to this agency a decade ago. In fact, the amount in this bill is just $16 million below the level provided in 1993. After adjusting for inflation, the amount recommended is $100 million below the level in 1993 as displayed on the chart in front of the Members. As we debate this amendment, Members should also note the National Endowment for the Arts has been transformed since the arts' funding debate of the 1990s. Two gifted chairmen have reinvigorated the NEA into an agency with broad support. Chairman Bill Ivy, appointed by Bill Clinton, negotiated, then implemented bipartisan reforms in NEA's grant structure to ensure that funds go to activities for which public funding is appropriate. Dana Gioia, the current chairman, then energized the agency with many new programs and a commitment to reach beyond the culture centers of our major cities. Last year, every single congressional district received NEA support through innovative programs such as American Masterpieces, Operation Homecoming and the Big Read. Today, NEA is truly a national program with outreach efforts to every corner of America and every segment of our society. Each of us has different reasons to support the arts. Some will describe their support in terms of the inherent joy of the arts as a personally enriching experience. Others support the arts as an engine of job development and economic growth. It is equally important to emphasize that here in the House we've had votes on this issue year after year after year. In fact, in the last 2 years, the votes on the Slaughter-Dicks amendment have been accepted on voice vote. As far as I'm concerned, one of the things that I'm proudest of is the fact that we had a hearing this year and brought in artists from all across our country to testify about the arts and what it means not only in terms of educating our youth, but also what it means to the American people. I'm always surprised that there are some on the other side of the aisle who always want to beat up on the National Endowment for the Arts. In fact, when Mr. Regula was chairman of the committee, an outstanding chairman, he put into place some very significant reforms which I supported. And what we emphasized was quality, that we don't have enough money to fund every single project, that we must emphasize quality. And that's what Mr. Ivy has done; that's what Mr. Gioia has done. And I want you to know the endowment is thrilled about this increase. They think they can spend this money wisely and effectively. I just urge the gentleman to reconsider his amendment. I wish he would withdraw it and recognize and join all of us who support the arts here in the United States. I'd like to see us have a bipartisan approval of this bill, and particularly this particular increase for the Endowment for the Arts. And we also increase funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. The humanities are very important to our country as well. So I urge that we oppose this amendment and keep moving along.

Mr. DICKS. I commend the gentleman for his efforts on the part of his constituents and for all the rural water users who are facing similar problems. I commit to work with the gentleman to see what can be done to address the problems as this legislation moves forward to conference with the Senate. I might point out that we did put $16 million in the bill for the rural water. There's going to be a competition. This had been an earmark in the past, but it got thrown out in 2007. I have been calling over there to Mr. Grumbles at the EPA to try to get this thing moving as fast as possible so that the money gets out to the rural communities. And I commend the gentleman. This is a major problem. I have a lot of rural areas in my district, and every single one of them is having a terrible time getting the money to do the clean water issues. Now, remember this too: When Christine Todd Whitman did her study, she came up with a backlog of $388 billion. So we are going to need a new authorization program. And I commend the gentleman for having one that focuses on the rural areas. And we have got to at least do that as a priority. So I commend the gentleman and we will continue to work with him.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman has been urging me to try to figure out ways to reduce the size of this bill. We have already increased PILT by $43 million. I mean, when does this end?

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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. I certainly agree with the gentleman that rural communities are unfairly burdened by the high costs associated with Federal clean water regulations and that families in such communities are shouldering alarmingly high rates of increase.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe the report language beginning on page 100 very adequately describes and justifies the new Commission on Climate Change, adaptation and mitigation. As I noted in my opening remarks, we have tried in this bill to move the climate change debate beyond talking about whether global warming exists and, instead, focus on what we must do to deal with this as a reality. The recent reports of the international panel on climate change make clear that warming will persist for many years irrespective of any regulatory actions or technology breakthroughs which may occur in the near future. Testimony before our subcommittee in April describes significant impacts already occurring. These impacts included increased wildfires, changing precipitation and water availability patterns, increasing presence of invasive species, changing migratory patterns for many animals and birds, and significant loss of habitat for many species. The 2-year Commission established in this bill is intended to help identify and jump start the science which can help our country and the world adapt to these changes. The Commission brings together a panel of 15 of this country's science leaders, and is headed by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Ralph Cicerone. Dr. Cicerone, who I have met with personally on this proposal, is one of the world's leaders in climate change studies. While the use of advisory panels is common in guiding federally- funded science, this panel is different in two ways. First, it cuts broadly across all areas of Federal science in looking at the climate problem. I make no apology for that. This is a national and worldwide problem, and I think we need to think beyond the traditional agency or subcommittee's stovepipe approaches. Second, the Commission has $45 million to begin implementation of its recommendations. Giving the commission implementation funds will make it both more credible and more effective. This is not a large amount of money, but we believe it could get a few of the most critical science initiatives going without having to wait for the 2009 funding cycle. Chairman Obey has asked our subcommittee to be aggressive and imaginative in approaching the climate change challenge this year. We think that the funding, provided in this bill for the climate change adaptation and mitigation science, responds to that need, and I urge the funds be preserved. The committee is aware, however, that a number of other committees are working on legislation in this area. Chairman Oberstar, from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has written us in support of our Commission, which he believes can be supportive of efforts in his committee. We are also working closely with the Natural Resources Committee, and we understand how Science, as I mentioned earlier, will mark something up in July. I want to assure the Members that when we get to conference on this bill, presumably in September, I am going to try for July. We will give full consideration to any new legislation which may be adopted as we finalize fiscal year 2008 spending for climate research in our committee. I think it would be a real tragedy for this House, on the first major amendment this year on climate change, to have a negative vote, to show that we still don't get it, that we still don't realize that the planet is at risk here. So I urge the committee to stay with us. This was approved in the Appropriations Committee, and I think it's a very good Commission, and I think this thing will work and will help us adapt to the problems that we are going to face because of this. We have these problems on all of our Federal lands. We had a hearing on that. I think this is an important amendment. I urge everyone to defeat the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, one approach might be for the gentleman to go to the EPA with the money that they get that is unearmarked and make a presentation there about the importance of this program. I'm not certain he's going to do that, but that's a suggestion we have from our staff.

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

Mr. DICKS. We are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, I want to point out to the gentleman that we really do not need to lift the moratorium now. The protected areas do not have substantial reserves. The total technically recoverable resources on the OCS, the areas where we are drilling off of Alaska and in the Gulf are estimated to be about 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of gas. The amount under moratoria, or Presidential withdrawal, after January 9, 2007, is estimated to be 17.8 billion barrels of oil, which is about one-fifth, and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of gas, which is about one- eighth. So the reason we have the moratoria is because we think those areas are more important from an environmental perspective, that we need to protect our oceans and beaches. The gentleman from California was here and talked about the north coast of California. I represent the northern coast of Washington State, and I put this moratorium in place, I think, in 1984 for both Washington and Oregon. Mr. AuCoin and I did at the time. I have yet to have one citizen in my State ever come up to me and say, why don't you let us drill for oil and gas off the coast of Washington? Nobody has ever asked us to do that. They want it protected. It has got fisheries. It is one of the most beautiful beaches and coasts in the entire Nation. I went up to see what happened with Exxon Valdez and see that oil spill and all that oil in and around the waters up there and how it destroyed the herring reproduction and all of the other species. I want to protect the coast of Washington. I want to protect the coast of Florida, the coast of Virginia. Yes, we will drill off of Alaska. We will drill off the areas where the oil and gas exists. And if the gentleman from Hawaii is so interested in this, I am sure we can work out something for him out in Hawaii.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at this point, so I would like the gentleman to finish and then I will finish.

Mr. DICKS. I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania briefly.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut for his leadership on the land trust. This is close to my heart. My youngest son, Ryan Dicks, works for the Cascade Land Conservancy in the State of Washington, and I'm very familiar with the work that these important agencies do. And I want you to know that in our bill we have $62 million in the Forest Legacy account, and we also have $268 million for land and water conservation grants, of which 50 million is for the Stateside program. And though I can't accept your amendment this year, I want the gentleman to know that I want to work with you and see if there's some way that we can help these important entities do the job that is so important in preserving lands that are important to the American people.

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

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, the amendment filed by the gentleman may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI. The rule states in part that amendments may only be considered en bloc if they do not increase either budget authority or outlays in the bill. While the amendments proposed by the gentleman are offset fully in budget authority, the combined effect of the changes would increase outlays by $8 million, in violation of paragraph 2(f). The amendments are, therefore, not in order to be considered en bloc.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order.