Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief here. The reason I offered this global warming amendment is because I believe this is a serious problem. When you have six former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency saying this is a reality, when you have just heard Congressman Gilchrest talk about the increases in parts per million of carbon dioxide, and when you have the visible evidence of our glaciers melting, the Greenland ice sheet is melting at a faster rate, the polar bears are dying because there is not enough ice. I mean at some point can the majority here not figure out we ought to have some study, we ought to look into this, that this is a real issue that affects everyone on the Earth? While Alaska melts away, their Congressmen will be down here in D.C. and everybody will be wondering whatever happened to Alaska. All I am saying is this is a serious problem, and it is time for serious people to get serious, including the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentlemen, our committee has been a great advocate for money for fire. There is $2 billion, 579 million, for fire in the bill. $500 million of the fire emergency funds are still available. We just increased the NEA by $5 million to $129.4 million, and NEA still is $40 million below its high point back in 1994. We fund programs in all States. This would be a devastating cut, and we do not need the money for fire. And I have offered amendment after amendment after amendment to put emergency fire money in when it is necessary. Also, the agencies can borrow money internally if necessary to deal with the problem. So I urge a no on this amendment. I think it is well intended, but simply not necessary and would do great damage to the NEA. Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think you and I will be here to figure out who was right. I would rather do some serious research about it now than wake up 10 years from now and find out if we would have acted back in 2006 and done something about this, we might have been able to save all of humanity. I mean, this is real and it is an important issue, and I hate to see it be treated so frivolously by the gentleman from Alaska.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the chairman's remarks and the gentleman's remarks. These are very serious issues. I would just say one thing: also in this bill is a sense of Congress on global warming, on the warming of our climate; and one of the things that the scientists talk about is more severe droughts. And this warming will exacerbate this problem if we don't do something about it. So I just would say to the gentleman, because I know he is extremely sincere in his efforts to deal with protecting and allowing the clearing out of this understorage, you have got to also think about the severity of these droughts which is being made worse by the warming of the climate. So they are interrelated.

Mr. DICKS. I just want to rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the position taken by the chairman and the committee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, even from Washington State we understand the severity of this problem because we have seen it on national television, but I want him to know we are very willing to work with the gentleman on this issue before the conference and during the conference.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Are you suggesting a public hearing?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. DICKS. I want to rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment. She has been a leader and a valued advocate on this issue for many, many years; and I am very proud to be associated with her on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for this amendment offered by Mrs. Slaughter and myself to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The amendment would provide an additional $10 million to be split equally between the two Endowments. The increase would be offset by a series of small cuts to several Interior Department programs. I am gratified to note that the debate over the last few years has calmed down. The votes in favor of this annual Arts and Humanities amendment had been growing by an increasing margin. And last year, Chairman Taylor accepted this amendment without the need for a rollcall vote. Although we offer this amendment each year, it is important that we again discuss the importance of how this rather modest Federal support can have such large impact on our home districts. Most importantly, this seed money spurs private donations to the arts and humanities. I still wish that we could restore the funding levels for the NEA and NEH back to their level 12 years ago but this amendment will get us closer. I urge your support on this important amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida who has been a leader on this issue. We all know the sincerity of Congressman Peterson on this issue. It is a very important issue. But I want to say, I agree with you. I think to do it in an appropriations bill, and especially when it is part of the President's budget and the plan, to me this isn't the right way to proceed. I realize that there is some history here but it is 25 years since this was done and I think this has worked very effectively. Let's try to work together to maintain this provision.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment. As I understand the situation, because of the price of crude oil, energy companies have made profits over the last three years totaling more than $125 billion. Exxon alone had profits in one quarter last year of $9.9 billion and are estimated to have had a profit of $36 billion in a single year. A portion of those profits--about $7 billion according to the New York Times--came because of an administrative error made by the Mine and Minerals Service. At issue is a set of oil and gas leases entered into during the 1990's when oil was selling for $10 a barrel. As an incentive for oil companies to drill, the U.S. government said it would waive its right to royalty payments if oil prices remained low. These royalty forgiveness leases also, however, typically had a clause that said if oil exceeds $35 per barrel, the deal is off and you have to pay the royalty. The error occurred in about 1000 leases when, evidently by accident, the $35 cancellation clause was not included. This small clerical error has created an enormous windfall estimated at, as I said, $7 billion over the next five years. GAO estimates that this problem could result in the loss $60 billion over the next 25 years in lost royalties. This amendment merely calls on these companies to renegotiate in good faith to include the proviso included in all other leases. It does not actually void any lease. On the other hand it does say that if a company does not want to be a good citizen, the government may not want to do business with you in the future. I don't know all the legalities of contract law in this case or the issues of constitutionality. But I think the amendment does nothing more than try to recover $7 billion of excess profits which this country needs and--the oil companies don't. I urge adoption.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DICKS. I want that to be repeated: 23 feet. I want my colleagues from Florida who are sitting here on the floor to think about what that would mean in Florida, what that would mean in the coast of California, the coast of Washington.

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman on his statement. This is not an issue that should be partisan in any way. We have had six former EPA administrators in both parties say that this is the issue of our time. A former Member, former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, has made a national issue out of this. I would like the gentleman to repeat what he said about Greenland. I thought that was very dramatic. I would appreciate it. I think we have more Members now. If you would repeat that, I think that would be important to the debate.

Mr. DICKS. This could be a catastrophic event. Yet we are not even willing to have a sense of the Congress resolution that says that human activity may be part of the problem. I mean, we have got to wake up on this. It is time to wake up. The former Vice President has been out making speeches all over the country. There was a movie which opened last night on this issue. This could be the issue of all time. If we don't get busy and start realizing we have got a role and a responsibility to play here, it may be too late. For every one of us who either has grandchildren, or may have grandchildren, we have got to think about this. What legacy are we leaving if we don't face up to this reality? The authorizers simply haven't done it. That is why the chairman, I thought, was very kind to accept this amendment. But now I understand they are going to knock it out on a point of order. This is like putting your head in the sand. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, who is one of the more enlightened Members of this body, for all the facts that he has brought to this debate today. I hope somehow working together we can resurrect this at some future point. I would hope even that maybe the chairman of the Commerce Committee might rethink his opposition to this sense of the Congress resolution.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that this restriction, which has been in the law since 1981, was also in the President's budget. This was part of the President's budget. So we are not only overturning this congressional restriction, but we are also doing it in the face of the Bush administration's budget.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlemen from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I want to thank Interior Subcommittee Chairman Charles Taylor and his staff for the fairness with which the minority has been treated in the development of this bill. We have been consulted throughout the process. As a result, the bill reflects our input in a number of places. From a process point of view, this bill is a model for how the majority and minority should work together to produce legislation. Unfortunately, as Chairman Taylor and I have discussed throughout the year, a fair process cannot produce a good bill when the Interior Subcommittee is given an inadequate allocation. What we were given to work with for 2007 is, once again, inadequate. The $25.9 billion allowed by the full Appropriations Committee for Interior and environment programs is essentially a hard freeze at the FY 2006 enacted level. This is roughly $800 million below the level necessary to maintain current services for the programs funded by the Interior Subcommittee. The result is a bill in which our parks, refuges and forests are again to be squeezed to cover fixed costs. It means funding for clean water and clean air programs at the EPA are going to be substantially reduced. It means critical new investments requested by the President in areas like homeland security and diesel emissions reductions are dramatically reduced or in some cases not funded at all. Assistance to our States with their environmental and conservation programs is dramatically reduced. It means the very real problem of global warming will not be adequately addressed. And I assume that when consideration of the bill is completed, the provision approved by the Appropriations Committee acknowledging the existence of global climate change and the human involvement in that change will no longer be part of it. I will talk about my disappointment over that later. I won't go through all the numbers today, but I think it is important that Members are aware of some of the most troubling recommendations. Despite facility maintenance backlogs of at least $15 billion in our parks, refuges and national forests, funding for construction projects throughout the bill are cut by $216 million below last year and more than $400 million below the level in 2001. There is no funding at all for new schools on Indian reservations. Park Service construction is cut by $100 million. In most cases, this bill has only been able to fund 70 percent of the increases mandated by law for Federal pay and for other fixed costs. As our recent GAO report on the parks made clear, this inevitably will mean cutbacks in staff and cutbacks in visitor services for people who visit our parks, refuges and other Federal facilities. Staffing in our wildlife refuges has been cut by more than 700 FTEs over the past 5 years. Funding for the Clean Water Revolving Fund is cut by another $200 million below the 2006 level. Over the last 3 years, the Clean Water Program, which EPA cites as one of its most effective, has been reduced by $662 million, or nearly 50 percent. This means either that essential infrastructure repairs for this country's aging water infrastructure won't occur, or that local water and sewer rates will increase as communities pick up the Federal share of these costs. Other State grant programs broadly supported in the House are cut below the current rate. This includes a $14 million cut in PILT, as well as a significant reduction in State Wildlife grants and the North American Wetlands programs. Stateside Conservation grants are completely eliminated. Over the past 5 years, assistance to States for these environmental or conservation programs have been reduced by more than $750 million. Funding for Federal land acquisition and to help States preserve open spaces is cut by $98 million in this bill and by more than $400 million since 2001. Funding in this area has been cut by more than 80 percent in the last 4 years. These are not vast stretches of new land for the Federal Government to manage. Unfunded acquisitions include smaller parcels in icon parks such as Valley Forge, Grand Teton, and Acadia. These purchases are the highest priorities of the Bush administration and are ready to go in 2007 if we had funding. I want to express my strong support for the cuts totaling $20 million to the Smithsonian contained in this bill, which Chairman Taylor and I believe is the best way for the Interior Subcommittee to express our extreme displeasure with recent actions taken by the Smithsonian. This situation involves the recently negotiated commercial venture with Showtime, the details of which have been kept from Congress by the Smithsonian. On a more positive note, and one our constituents who visits D.C. certainly will appreciate, the bill makes an important down payment towards the much needed improvement of the infrastructure at the National Zoo. This will be a multiyear task to upgrade the zoo's facilities to a level where they should be. In a smart move, tackling the most important tasks first, this bill has placed significant emphasis on replacing and upgrading the fire protection and suppression systems. As I mentioned earlier, Chairman Taylor and I have discussed previously the problems with the Interior subcommittee repeatedly being given inadequate allocations to meet the needs of this country in terms of taking care of our Federal lands and protecting the environment. This is not a pretty picture. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can improve the bill as it moves forward, but this is not a bill in my opinion which adequately addresses our country's needs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.