Norm Dicks

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. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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. 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, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for highlighting the issue and for his concern for improving Indian health care. We agree this is an important issue, and we will work with you to address it. I might mention that one of the programs over the years that I have been a big supporter of is the National Health Service Corps, which allows people to be trained and work in rural areas. I think there is a multitude of ways to attack this problem, and I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this issue and guarantee him that we will work hard to do as much as we can because we agree with you that the need for dental care is a very high priority in Indian country.

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman is correct.

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. Yes, the gentleman is correct, I share his concern.

Mr. DICKS. Yes, the gentleman is correct.

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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS

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

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

Mr. DICKS. This is an amendment that affects a project in my hometown of Bremerton, Washington. The downtown Bremerton library building opened in August 1938. Now, that may sound recent, but, remember, Washington has only been a State since 1889. The building was funded under the Works Progress Administration. The WPA was one of Franklin Roosevelt's principal public works programs that helped America recover from the Great Depression. The building is constructed in an art deco style which was a signature style during the twenties and thirties and a favorite today of preservationists across the country. The building has a large rotunda with skylights. Because of its distinctive style, the library remains one of the most attractive buildings in downtown Bremerton. Like many art deco buildings, the library has a very bright color, in this case a vibrant yellow. The downtown Bremerton library was constructed on land that has housed a library for nearly a hundred years. When this library opened in 1938, it served as the main library. The City of Bremerton and Kitsap County combined their library system in 1955. In 1978, a new headquarters library was built for the regional system and the downtown library became a branch library. The library in downtown Bremerton has been undergoing rehabilitation for the last 1\1/2\ years. The city invested $100,000 last year in general fund money and $100,000 from its community development block grant funds. These were matched with $100,000 from Kitsap County and $100,000 from the Gates Foundation. The moneys were spent replacing windows and doors, remodeling bathrooms, rebuilding the roof and other structural improvements which brought the building, to a reasonable degree at least, up to current building codes and took care of pressing life/safety concerns. This year, the city is spending an additional $200,000 in general fund money to replace the existing heating, cooling and air ventilation system, to remove asbestos from the heating plant and associated piping, replace much of the building's plumbing, and to rewire the entire building for additional electrical capacity and other modern communication equipment. When I was a kid growing up in Bremerton, Washington, this was the library that I used to go to with my mother and father and my younger brother, Les. Bremerton is a city where we have the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, probably the most effective and productive shipyard in the United States. We have about 10,000 workers working there, and we have thousands of sailors who are home-ported in Bremerton and at the Trident submarine base at Bangor. I would like to think that this facility would be available to those men and women serving us in the military and for all of those thousands of government employees who work in the Kitsap County area. This is a good project. The money that we are providing, $150,000, will be matched by the city of Bremerton. They've already put in a lot of additional money. And this is a partnership. This is one of those good projects where there's a partnership. I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment and to support this worthy project. I would also say, again, to the gentleman, this is such a dramatic reversal, what we have done on this side of the aisle on earmarks from the comparison when the other side took power. In 1994, there were about a thousand earmarks. In 2006, there were 13,000 earmarks. The other thing I would suggest, too, it's one thing to go after the projects of your colleagues, but the President has what we would call earmarks, executive branch earmarks in this budget. If the gentleman was evenhanded in his approach, and I think he has been very fair in how he has selected these projects, but if he was evenhanded, he would go after some of the things that the President requests. As I said, the Preserve America Program is almost identical to Save America's Treasures, but I don't notice the gentleman offering an amendment on that particular project. No, I don't want to incentivize him, but I guess we can't because there is a unanimous consent agreement. But, again, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and it is important. Dealing with the entitlements where two-thirds of our spending is has got to be done, and I hope that we can approach those problems just the same way as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and I have approached this problem, with approving only one in ten of the projects that were requested from our colleagues. Again, it is our power. Don't give up Congress's power of the Constitution, which is the power of the purse. That would be a tragic mistake that would haunt this House for many years. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the concerns you have raised. I commit to you to work with you to resolve this issue in conference so that this program can continue to be implemented as is authorized by the Congress. And I would also point out to my good friend from Texas, both of my good friends from Texas, that there is still $47 million in 2007 money that has not yet been obligated.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Yes, that is correct. As written in the committee record, the committee believes it is important to address the shortfalls in staffing around the Nation, and we have provided the largest operational increase in the history of the refuge system to do so. We have also included language directing consideration to those areas, like Great Bay, that have pressing shortfalls and needs.