Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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. Will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. While I can't predict the future of negotiations with the other body, I would be willing to take a closer look at the gentleman's specific concern at that time.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, yes, that is correct. There are presently no Member projects within the EPA EPM account within this bill.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just asked unanimous consent for the gentlelady to have 1 additional minute.

Mr. DICKS. I have a parliamentary point. Limitations are appropriate on an appropriation bill. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman from Hawaii was reminded of that technical point.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. I hope the House will defeat it resoundingly. This does not make any sense for our environmentally sensitive areas, particularly on the coast of California and Washington and Oregon on the West Coast, and the sensitive areas on the East Coast as well. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. What's the difference? I'm the chairman of the committee. I can ask unanimous consent any time I want. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for the gentlelady from New York.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank Mr. Fossella for joining with me in this colloquy today and for bringing up this issue of national importance. The Asian Longhorned Beetle not only impacts forests in the northeast but also has been discovered until several cities, like Chicago. Invasive species like the Asian Longhorned Beetle are a serious problem, and I will urge the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service to develop a plan to control the beetle. I also recommend using portions of the additional funding in the development of this plan. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Conaway

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend from Indiana, who has been a valued member of our committee for many years, that I strongly support his project. Our committee evaluated it. We looked at all the details. We think it is a worthy project that should be supported. I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman from Texas' amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I want to commend the gentleman from New York for his participation on our subcommittee and for all of his good work during the year. I must say, a performing arts facility in a town can be such a fantastic thing. One thing I hope my colleague from Texas remembers is that the local community has to match the money. I think in this case this is a grant of $150,000 to Save America's Treasures which clearly this is one of. And then the local community has to raise $150,000, and out of that there are improvements to the facility and the structure that are done over a period of time. Again, as we analyzed all of these projects, this is exactly what we had in mind. This legislation was authorized by Congress. And I would mention also that Mrs. Bush has her program, the Preserve America Program, which our committee has supported. Mr. Tiahrt has been a strong supporter of that program. I saw Mrs. Bush the other night and I told her we were working hard together up here to try and preserve this program, which does exactly the same things as Save America's Treasures. There may be a nuance or two, but basically it is the same thing. So again, I support the Hinchey project and oppose the gentleman from Texas's amendment. I appreciate the good work of my colleague from New York over all of the years we have been on this committee together.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for the amount of money in this bill to address problems in Member districts or the process through which projects were selected. I just want to tell the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Tiahrt and I did this on a bipartisan basis. We worked this out. Our staffs worked together. We went through these projects very carefully. We only approved one out of every ten projects that were requested by the Members. Now, I would remind the gentleman that in the Constitution of the United States, the most fundamental power of the United States Congress is the power of the purse, the power of the Congress to redress grievances of the American people, to help on projects that are important to the Members' districts. Now, in this budget, we also laid out all the projects that are requested by the President. I would just, as one example, point out to the gentleman that in 2004 in terms of STAG grants, there were $533 million; in 2005, $513 million. These are all earmarks. In 2006, $282 million. In 2007, zero. In 2008, $140 million. This is responsible. The administration even says we met their test on earmarks. We went through these projects carefully, we looked at them closely, and we did it in a professional way. So I would urge the gentleman to consider these facts. We are not going to be doing this the way it was done in the past, but we have the right to do it. And even the gentleman from Texas can't give away the power of the purse, because it is in the Constitution of the United States, and the Founding Fathers of this country stated that this was one of the most important powers that the Congress possessed. Throughout history, the British Parliament worked feverishly over the years to gain the power to be able to decide and limit the executive, the king in this case, of Britain. That was one of the most important powers that the Parliament developed over many hundreds of years. So I am here tonight to defend our right to take care of our constituents, and I defend the process by which we did this. We did it in a professional way. We did it with both parties sitting in the same room looking at all these projects, helping each other, so we didn't make any mistakes. I just want the gentleman to know how strongly I feel personally about this. We did a good job, and we cut it way back, and I thought the gentleman from Texas would be here applauding what we did, not attacking it. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate your yielding. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for bringing this important project to my attention. I will be pleased to consider this funding need should additional funds become available in conference. And I also want to congratulate the gentleman for his outstanding leadership on many important issues dealing with conservation and the environment. And I particularly appreciated his cosponsorship of our bill that has just been reported out of the Natural Resources Committee in protecting our wildlife. The gentleman is certainly an important leader from New Jersey, and we want to work with him.

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in improving Indian education. This is an issue that both Mr. Tiahrt and I have great interest in, and we have made a special effort to increase funding for education programs in this bill. I would be happy to work with the gentleman on the issue that he has raised here today, and thank him for his dedication to Indian country and better education for young students.

Mr. DICKS. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who is the vice chairman of our committee and very valued and esteemed member and someone whom I have enjoyed working with for many years, going back to our staff days in the other body.

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

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share your interest in seeing that the economic development and recreation accounts under the gorge act are fully funded. I will be happy to work with you on this issue which is so important to the communities in your scenic area.