Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have waited 30 years for the honor of presenting an Interior and Environment bill to the House of Representatives as subcommittee chairman. I am very proud to present H.R. 2643 to the committee as my first Interior appropriations bill. The bill includes $27.6 billion for the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Indian Health Service and Related Agencies under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction. This is an increase of $1.193 billion over the 2007 enacted level, or about a 4.3 percent increase. Mr. Chairman, the recommendations reflected in the 2008 Interior bill are the product of a very deliberate and bipartisan process. Our Interior and Environment Subcommittee held 38 separate hearings over 3 months with more than 250 witnesses. The printed record of these hearings is included in eight volumes, totaling over 10,000 pages. During these hearings, we heard from agency officials, Members of Congress and more than 100 Tribal leaders and other public witnesses. This testimony made it clear that substantial increases in environmental and conservation programs were badly needed. These sessions also highlighted the critical health and education needs in Indian country. While the Office of Management and Budget and other Members of the House may criticize the overall size of the bill, I do not know of one increase in this package which can't be fully justified based on need or on the ability to spend the money wisely. Frankly, I don't think I have to remind Members that this bill started in a deep hole created more than a decade ago. As Members have heard me say many times, and as this chart clearly demonstrates, in our hearings and other statements on the floor, between 2000 and 2007, based on OMB's own tables, funding for the Interior Department fell 16 percent in real terms. EPA has been reduced by 29 percent, and the Forest Service nonfire budget by 35 percent when adjusted for inflation. Given that history, I believe the 4.3 percent increase in this bill is well justified. I might just mention that one of the most important powers that Congress possesses is the power of the purse. This is in the Constitution. This is one of Congress' major authorities and one way we can check the actions of the executive branch. Now, while I do not go into all the details, a few of the increases and decreases deserve special mention this morning. The bill provides a $223 million increase for our national parks, as proposed by the President, for the 10-year, $3 billion Centennial Challenge effort to restore the parks for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Park Service in 2016. The additional funds will support 3,000 badly needed new seasonal employees and 590 year-round staff. We also provide $50 million of discretionary funds for Centennial Challenge projects to be matched by private funds. These funds will support enhancements at our parks beyond the funding necessary for core operations. We provide a $56 million increase for our national wildlife refuges, a 14-percent increase above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. This will reverse the current staffing shortfall problem on our refuges, which have lost almost 600 staff members since 2004. The bill provides a total of $5.7 billion for programs serving Native Americans. This is $235 million over the President's request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. To address one of the biggest issues facing Indian country, Mr. Tiahrt and I have added $35 million above the request for a methamphetamine prevention initiative that spans both the BIA and the Indian Health Service. The bill provides $2.8 billion for wildfire programs, an increase of $200 million over the current level. The President's budget had proposed more than $100 million in reductions in critical fire preparedness activities, which I believe both sides of the aisle considered completely irresponsible. The bill restores those cuts and provides an increase of $163 million over FY 2007 for wildfire suppression. As we see on television every day, and particularly out in the Lake Tahoe area, this year's fire season is shaping up to be one of our worst. The funds in the bill are the minimum necessary for the wildfire program. We have also restored basic funding for the Forest Service, providing a total of $2.6 billion for the non-fire programs, which is $92 million above 2007 and $355 million above the President's request. This maintains important science, cooperative forestry programs, and land management, and also includes $65 million for a new Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program to repair damaged roads and decommission those that receive little use, particularly in areas where we have many endangered species. We have provided over $8 billion for the EPA, roughly a $900 million increase over the President's completely inadequate request. As Members know, the President had proposed more than half a billion dollars of cuts for the agency. We restore most of the cuts and provide a number of critical increases. Those include a $437 million increase above the request for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, $52 million above the request to clean up toxic and hazardous waste sites, $220 million for Clean Air State grants, $140 million for sewer and water grants in local communities, and $50 million for the new diesel emission reduction program. This bill recognizes the importance of protecting and restoring a number of our Nation's most important water bodies by providing an increase of $65 million above the President's request for the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, and 28 estuaries funded through the National Estuary Program and other grants for other targeted watersheds. The bill provides an increase of $50 million for our cultural agencies to get them partially back to where they were in 1994. The National Endowment for the Arts will get a $35 million increase to $160 million and the National Endowment for Humanities would get an increase of $19 million for a total of $160 million. One of our witnesses this spring, actress Kerry Washington, described the role of the arts in offering her a world beyond her inner-city neighborhood and giving her ``something to reach for and something to reach with.'' Hopefully, the money in the bill for the NEA and the NEH will give other young people the same kind of inspiration and opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I want to draw special attention to our recommendations with regard to climate change. It is now clear that global warming is occurring and that its effects will likely alter how we live in very serious ways. This reality was confirmed at hearings held by the Interior Subcommittee in April where witnesses from the Interior Department, Forest Service and other agencies described climate-related changes already occurring on the Nation's public lands. These impacts include 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. In response to this challenge, the subcommittee has made a series of recommendations. First, we included in the bill the same Sense of Congress resolution on climate change which I offered last year and which was accepted by the Appropriations Committee during the 109th Congress. This appears as title V of this bill. It recognizes in statute that climate change is a reality, that human activity contributes to it in significant ways, and that this country must take action to address this very serious problem. Second, the bill provides $264 million for various climate change activities throughout the bill, an increase of $94 million over the 2007 level; $199 million is provided for EPA climate programs; $67 million for the Department of the Interior, principally for the U.S. Geological Survey; and $22 million for the Forest Service. Third, we set aside $2 million for the EPA to begin to develop the framework for regulation of greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court ruled in April that the agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This bill does not mandate the form of these regulations or set a specific deadline for producing the final regulation, but in law it says the process must begin in earnest during 2008. Lastly, we establish a new temporary 2-year Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation and appropriate $50 million for its work. This commission will be chaired by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Ralph Cicerone, a world-renowned authority on climate change, and will focus on the science issues related to how the world adapts to the reality of climate change. Its role is essentially that of a public-private advisory committee to identify the highest priorities for climate science investment for 2008 across the government. $5 million is provided to cover the cost of the commission for 2 years, with the remaining $45 million to be distributed to jump- start climate science at the various Federal agencies. In summary, the message of this bill with respect to climate change is it is time to quit talking about the problem and start doing something about it. Members should understand that this bill is not all increases. The subcommittee bill includes reductions below the 2007 level totaling over $400 million. This includes $135 million cut from construction programs throughout the bill and termination of a number of programs, including the Land Owner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Program at the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Chairman, as Members know, consideration of this bill was delayed for a while as the committee complied with the agreement to include Member projects in committee reports prior to bills being considered on the floor of the House. House Report 110-187, part 2, filed on June 22, fulfills this requirement. This report lists 228 projects requested by the Members of the House with a total cost of approximately $114 million. The financial disclosure certifications for these projects have been made available to the public, and we believe the filing of the report meets all requirements under clause 9 of rule XXI. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that the $114 million in this bill for projects constitutes only four-tenths of one percent of the roughly $28 billion in this bill. When Senate projects are counted later, the total allocated to such projects will be less than 1 percent, or roughly eight-tenths of one percent. As I said during the consideration in the full committee last week, many Members will, unfortunately, be disappointed by the project list included in this report. Based on the agreement reached earlier this year with House leadership, funding for Member projects has been reduced by 50 percent compared to funding for similar projects in 2006. Because of this requirement to reduce funding for projects, Mr. Tiahrt and I agreed to concentrate limited funding, with a few exceptions, on critically needed water and sewer infrastructure grants and historic preservation grants. These are the two areas where we get the most requests. Projects requested in these areas were individually reviewed on a nonpartisan basis by our joint staffs working together to ensure that each project was fully justified based on both the quality of the proposal and the needs of the communities. In the end, however, due to the limited amount of funding, hundreds of worthwhile projects could not be accommodated. I wish we could have done more, but this is the hand we were dealt. I would just add to that, when Christine Todd Whitman was the head of the EPA, she said the backlog on these sewer infrastructure projects was $388 billion. So we are spending $140 million. It is just a little dent in this huge requirement that we have out there. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to other Members for remarks, I want to say how much I have enjoyed working with Mr. Tiahrt as the Interior and Environment Subcommittee's new ranking member. We sat together for over 100 hours of hearings over 3 months, and we have met together privately with many of the agencies. It has been very hard work, but I think because of these efforts, we have a very good bill which should be supported by every Member of the House. I look forward to many years as chairman working with Mr. Tiahrt as my ranking member, or vice versa. I also want to recognize the hard work of our exceptional staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked together as a bipartisan team throughout this process. I want to mention the staff: Mike Stephens, Chris Topik, Greg Knadle, Delia Scott, Beth Houser and Martin Brockman on the majority; Deb Weatherly, Dave LesStrang and Steve Crane for the minority; Pete Modaff and Kelli Shillito on my personal staff; and Amy Claire Brusch on Mr. Tiahrt's staff. Before I finish here, I just wanted to say that I am very proud of this bill. I think it is a good bill; and as, Mr. Natcher said, it is a good bill and everybody ought to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) who is a valued member of our subcommittee.

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, will the gentleman yield?

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. That is correct.

Mr. DICKS. That is correct.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor for me to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who has been one of the strongest environmentalists in this House.

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman is correct. It is the intent of the committee to continue the operation of the three museums, and I appreciate the gentleman's interest in artwork on this important issue.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, I want to commend the gentlemen from New York and New Jersey for their leadership, and I urge that the committee adopt this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. And by the way, we have a new director of the National Parks Service. I think it may be good to give her an opportunity to review this, too. So I think we ought to give her another chance to look at this.

Mr. DICKS. With that understanding, Madam Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Delaware for their outstanding leadership. This is a very important issue. And as we understand it, this would come out of existing funds within the park service?

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.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. DICKS. And we need to let the Mexican wolf population have the same chance. There is no doubt that there have been problems with the reintroduction, but we cannot cancel the entire program because of these isolated problems. There are programs in place that compensate livestock operators when wolves prey upon their stock. I am in favor of working to streamline and expand these programs. I am also in favor of pushing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work more closely with the affected livestock operators. Finally, I believe we cannot interfere with the Endangered Species Act, and that's what the gentleman is attempting to do here. His amendment would overturn the Endangered Species Act, something that we have never done on this House floor that I can remember, and I don't think we should start today. I have experience with the Red Wolf Program at Point Defiance Zoo in the State of Washington where we regenerated the population, and then we introduced them into North Carolina. That program has worked very successfully. We have wolves in Alaska. We have wolves in Canada. There were wolves in New Mexico. And this is part of nature. I think the gentleman is completely overreacting to this. I urge him to withdraw his amendment and not to try to overturn the Endangered Species Act here on the floor of the House. I urge all my colleagues to vote strongly against this ill-considered amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I will not yield. The gentleman had his 5 minutes. I am going to take my 5 minutes.

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

Mr. DICKS. The restoration of wolves in the United States is a conservation success story. Wolves in the Great Plains and the Northern Rockies have made a dramatic comeback.

Mr. DICKS

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. I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2643, and that I may include tabular material on the same.