Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this 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 the 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 still $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 the amendment, Members should also note that 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 Ivey, appointed by President Clinton, negotiated and 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 cultural 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 engines of job development and economic growth. It is equally important to emphasize that except for a few members of the Flat Earth Society, there is little opposition to Federal funding for the arts and for the humanities. The culture wars are over. For each of the last 7 years, with the help of many Members in this Chamber, a bipartisan majority of the House has voted to increase funding for the NEA. During the last 2 years, Ms. Slaughter's and my amendments to add funds were adopted by voice vote without opposition. Mr. Chairman, I do not normally include quotes in my floor remarks, but I was struck in preparing for this year's arts debate by a quote attributed to actor Richard Dreyfus at the Grammy awards ceremony: ``Perhaps we've all misunderstood the reason we learn music and all the arts in the first place. It is that for hundreds of years, it has been known that teaching the arts helps to create the well-rounded mind that Western civilization, and America, have been grounded on. America's greatest achievements in science, in business, in popular culture, would simply not be obtainable without an education that encourages achievement in all fields. It is from that creativity and imagination that the solutions to our political and social problems will come. We need that well-rounded mind now. Without it, we simply make more difficult the problems we face.'' I believe Mr. Dreyfus is right, and the committee has acted to provide the funding so arts can reach even more broadly into American communities with a richer variety of programs. I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment. Point of Order

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

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. I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania briefly.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman's project. Our committee looked at it very carefully. We think it is an outstanding project and one that deserves to be funded. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Campbell amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady from California yield?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. We are prepared to accept this amendment. We spent $52 million in EPA's budget for the Energy Star Program, so we agree with you that this is a worthy cause. Energy conservation is a big part of our initial effort on climate change and global warming. I appreciate your leadership on this important issue, and we're prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his strong statement in support of the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I would point out to my colleagues that in 1993 we had a $176 million budget for the NEA. That was cut by almost 50 percent, and over time this budget has been built back up. We have had many votes on this. The Slaughter-Dicks amendment has been voted on many times by the Congress and in strong support of the National Endowment for the Arts. Now, we didn't do this frivolously. Mr. Regula, when he was chairman, and I worked together and came up with some guidelines for the NEA. And I think the NEA has done a better job under Bill Ivey, Dana Joya, Jane Alexander, who have all been outstanding leaders of the Endowment. This is important for the education of our children. This is also important because, as the gentleman from Connecticut mentioned, all 435 districts received a project. And when I was first on the committee, it was the big cities that got funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. That is no longer the case. Also, it is a very major economic tool. The gentlewoman from New York has pointed out many times how the funding for the arts has caused a tremendous economic expansion in the country. And I think it is a very important point. So let's continue to support the National Endowment for the Arts. I wouldn't want you all to go home and have to explain why you made this terrible, outrageously big cut on the arts. But I just wanted to say that this is an important amendment. These groups all over the country are excited about Congress stepping up and increasing the funding.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if we were just at a cost-of-living increase, we would be at $259.2 million. We are at 160. We are fighting to get back to where we were, but we have got a long ways to go.

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman is correct. Last year, when Mr. Taylor was chairman and I was the ranking member, Mr. Taylor wanted to accept this amendment, and I went along with Mr. Taylor. However, this year, I am the chairman, and the Congresswoman, Ms. Solis, is concerned about this amendment and is opposed to it. And let me just give you a little text of what she said. This amendment is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the study process incorporated in the legislation which she authored, which was signed into law on July 1, 2003, and would result in a change in the study design. The San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act was signed into law on July 1, 2003, after a lengthy effort to build consensus, an effort which included outreach to and coordination with all the members of the San Gabriel Valley delegation, including representatives of Diamond Bar, La Habra, Industry, Chino Hills and the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and the community of Rowland Heights. As a result of this effort, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives with broad support. Congressman Radanovich noted in a letter to the editor on August 4, 2002, that, ``legislative process works best when those with differing views get together to resolve those differences and arrive at solutions that are responsible, workable and widely acceptable. That is what happened in this instance.'' The process by which this legislation was drafted and enacted was iterative and compromising. In fact, upon passage, Representative Pombo noted that this bill enjoys the broad support of both the majority and the minority and urged his colleagues to support it. During this process, the boundaries of the study were clearly defined. According to the legislative text, the Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a special resource study of the following areas: the San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and including the City of Santa Fe Springs, and the San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, as defined in section 32603 (c)(1)(c) of the State of California Public Resource Code. This study was directed to be done in consultation with Federal, State and local governments, including the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles River and Mountain Conservancy and other appropriate Federal, State and local government entities. These areas were chosen for their importance in the regional watershed. During consideration of this legislation, the Department of Interior recognized the need for this study. It noted that: ``The watershed of the San Gabriel River contains important natural resources which are disappearing throughout Los Angeles County. Continuous greenbelt corridors provided by the river serve as a habitat for breeding, feeding, resting or migration birds and mammals, which allows migration to take place throughout developed areas. The rugged terrain of the higher reaches of the watershed contain different vegetations, including rock outcroppings and vegetation native to the Pacific Coast foothills. This area also has a rich cultural heritage, which is evident by the large number of historically significant properties within the proposed study area. Among them is the Mission San Gabriel Archangel, founded in 1771 by the Spanish missionaries who were moving up the coast of California.'' The Department of the Interior also noted that this study would have to examine a number of alternatives for protecting resources in the area. Specifically, the Department of the Interior stated: ``Alternatives to Federal management of resources are often considered in a special resource study for this type of area including national trail designations, national heritage area designations, and the provision of technical assistance to State and local governments for conservation of rivers, trails, natural areas and cultural resources. A study of an area where land ownership and jurisdictional boundaries are as complex as they are in the San Gabriel River Watershed would likely emphasize public-private partnerships.'' What I can't do here, because the gentleman and the gentlelady from California have not been able to work this out, I can't accept this amendment when the gentlelady is in opposition to it. And I think what she's basically saying is that you should not be able to take out all of your jurisdictions from this study because they need to be in there to do a comprehensive study. That's how I view it.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and a number of distinguished Members from the Border Caucus. The committee has supported EPA's Mexican Border Program since its inception in 1995. Since that time, we have provided over $800 million for infrastructure projects along the border. I am proud of that and believe this program is an important one. The bill as reported by the committee included $10 million for water and waste water infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexican border. This is the amount requested by the President, but $40 million below the level provided last year. Our committee took this action because of concerns about a slow spending rate in the program. Since that time, a number of Members, including a distinguished member of the committee, Mr. Rodriguez of Texas, have provided new information on this program. Specifically, the reforms recently made to the design, approval, and construction process will ensure the funds are spent more quickly. Because of that information, I am pleased to offer this amendment on their behalf, which provides an additional $15 million for this program, for a total program of $25 million in fiscal year 2008. It is never easy to find offsets for these types of amendments. That said, my amendment includes three programs in order to provide the necessary increases for the border program. The reductions are as follows: Within the Department of Interior Salaries and Expense Account, $5 million from the Financial and Business Management System, which has been delayed by the Department. Within EPA's Science and Technology Account, $5 million from the new Water Technologies Breakthrough Fund. Within EPA's Environmental Programs and Management Account, $5 million from Operations and Administration. With this additional funding, I hope we will see many new water and waste water infrastructure projects along the border. This committee has been and will continue to be very supportive of this important program. Again, I thank the Members from the border States, especially Mr. Rodriguez, a member of the full committee, for bringing this issue to my attention. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman has raised an important issue here, and we are prepared to accept his amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, first of all, I appreciate the gentleman's support for our overall bill, but I want to acknowledge his leadership on the Great Lakes. We have some incredible programs in the Great Lakes. The gentleman has come to us and offered a very positive amendment. We are concerned in my part of the world about Puget Sound. Our vice chairman, Mr. Moran, is concerned about the Chesapeake Bay. We are concerned about all of our National estuaries. But the Great Lakes are particularly important, and I appreciate the gentleman's input on this issue.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I rise to say that we will be willing to accept this amendment. I do want to point out to the gentleman, though, this bill already funds PILT $43 million above the level requested by the President. We have heard over and over again from various speakers on your side of the aisle that we have to get this bill down, not up. But this is a very important program in the West, and therefore I am willing to accept it. But I want the gentleman to think about this in that context.

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