Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman on her hard work on this. I can remember when we had the amendment on the floor. It was adopted here in the House unanimously. And I think your work and the work of your colleague from California in the other body on this matter, where they also won a vote there, too, was very impressive. And, you know, this is the first year our committee has had jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency, so we are all learning about these issues. I want to congratulate you on your real leadership. And I think what you did will be something that will protect children and pregnant mothers and will bring better standards at EPA on this issue. I congratulate you on this effort.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who has been a real leader on the issue of dealing with pesticides and their effect on humans. (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important moment today that we are passing this conference report before the August recess. And I want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member, who has really worked tirelessly to work with the chairman to get these bills enacted. But I think there is absolutely no excuse not to try to do this and try to pass the rest of the bills in September and show the American people that we can get the job done before the start of the fiscal year. And I think every time we have a new chairman, we do better in this regard. The previous chairman, of course, had to deal with other problems. But I think the chairman has made this a big priority. I think it is important that we do this, and I want to congratulate him for his leadership as the new chairman of the full committee.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support this conference report on the fiscal year 2006 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, and I will vote for it, in just a few minutes, I hope. With the addition of $1.5 billion in spending for veterans health care attached to this bill, I believe that this conference report will get widespread support in both the House and the Senate. After we made a decision to add this $1.5 billion, I contacted back in the State of Washington the veterans hospital in Seattle and the one at American Lake to find out what the backlog was, and I was shocked to find out that there is a backlog of some 2,000 veterans who are waiting to get an initial appointment at those hospitals. So this money clearly is needed, and I am pleased that the other body selected the Interior appropriations to add this $1.5 billion to and that we were able to present it here today to the House. There are several areas of this bill that I believe are underfunded; however, I believe these funding decisions were the result of an inadequate allocation. Although the majority cannot escape responsibility for this allocation, I believe that we here in the minority have been treated fairly during the process of developing the 2006 Interior appropriations. First of all, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for the decision to provide the Park Service operating budget another year of healthy increases. Over the last 2 years, we have provided more than $100 million in increases for the parks operating budget, and I am very proud of that accomplishment. We really were seeing a decline in some of the parks because they were not able to cover their fixed costs on an annual basis and had to lay off people and were unable to provide the American people with the services that they needed. However, I am disappointed with the overall amount for the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund. I had hoped that the conference report would end up closer to the Senate mark of $1.1 billion, rather than at $900 million, which is only $50 million above the House mark. Over the last 2 years, this funding has been cut by 33 percent. I am also disappointed that we could not retain the full $10 million increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, which was approved on the House floor in an overwhelming vote, but I am gratified that we could agree to some increase for both the NEA and the NEH. I am glad to see this conference report contains increases over the House mark for both land acquisition and the State grant program. Although these programs are cut from last year, I agree with the decision to restore some of the funding; and I am sympathetic to the argument that, during a year with such a low allocation, it is most important to protect core programs and make land acquisition a more secondary goal. I am deeply appreciative of everyone's efforts to resolve the issue concerning the use of humans during pesticide testing. I think the conference report reflects the will of both the House and Senate to stop such tests until the EPA develops regulations reflecting the recommendation of the National Academy of Science and follows the Nuremburg protocols. In addition, these regulations will prohibit such testing on pregnant women, infants, and children. I also want to praise the compromise contained in this conference report on the Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial to be built on the National Mall. The conference report contains $10 million that must be matched by private donations. This matching requirement will spur increased private donations and reflects the thinking of the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), who felt very strongly that we should try to raise as much money for the memorial from the private sector. Again, I want to say that the chairman has been very fair and his staff, led by Debbie Weatherly, has done an outstanding job in putting together this bill. I want to congratulate Mike Stevens and Pete Modoff of my staff for the exceptional work they did on this bill. I think this is, in a very difficult year, I think this is a bill that deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is one of the leaders in this House on budget matters.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule to allow for the consideration of the conference report on the fiscal year 06 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. And I intend to intend to vote for the conference bill. Although I am critical of several aspects of this bill--including the low overall spending level--without a doubt this process has been fair and open. Because of the low allocation, there are some problem areas. But the overall conference report is well worth supporting. With the addition of $1.5 billion in spending for Veterans health care attached to this bill, I believe that this conference report will get widespread support in both the House and the Senate. The conference agreement contains another year of healthy increases in National Park Service operations funding. I do wish that the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund was higher. I also wish that the Conference Report had retained the extra $10 million in NEA funding that the full House approved in a floor amendment last May. It is important to point out that this agreement contains successful compromises on the issue of pesticide testing on humans and on federal funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial to be built on the National Mall. Again I want to reiterate my strong support for this rule and the conference report on the fiscal year 06 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. And I want to thank Chairman Taylor and his staff for including the minority throughout this process.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts and he is sincere in everything he says. Has the committee held any hearings on why they are having all of these financial difficulties? What is driving this increase?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, are you able to get OMB to cooperate, because sometimes the agencies try their best to do the right thing, but then they are told by OMB they cannot do that because we are trying to fight the deficit. Is OMB being helpful here or not?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and all the Members who deeply care about our veterans in this body. I am always surprised that this issue takes on a partisan tone, because I really believe each Member cares about veterans. It is just that there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of this administration to face up to the reality of how much money is needed to take care of the veterans. And with the war raging in Iraq, and with the seriousness of the injuries, any of us who have been out to Walter Reed or to Bethesda to see these heroic young men and women who have come back with these very severe wounds, I think all of us want to see the best care given to our veterans. We have been reading about post-traumatic stress syndrome and the consequences and the effect on the lives of these soldiers and sailors and marines when they come home after having been involved in the kind of violent combat that is being seen in Iraq. I had a chance to visit the VA Hospital in Seattle recently, and I was told by the people there that they still have a backlog, a waiting list of 2,500 people waiting to get their appointments at the Seattle VA. Now, that is just unacceptable. I hope that that has been reduced. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I believe the other body was correct in adding this money, but this is not something that normally would be part of the Interior appropriations bill. This is not within our jurisdiction. This is just something that happened--we were the first bill moving through, and it became a convenient vehicle in the other body to put this $1.5 billion onto. There was an effort here to put some money, I think it was, what, $975 million--or thereabouts, which the House adopted, I believe, overwhelmingly, maybe unanimously, but it is simply not enough. I think Mr. Nicholson has not been as forthright as he should have been in telling the various committees on the Hill what was needed. But in my mind there is absolutely no excuse for not approving this $1.5 billion. I hope that it will be unanimous that every Member of the House will vote for this because I think we should do as much as we can to take care of the legitimate needs of these people. As I said, this should not be a partisan issue. I just regret that the administration continues to underfund this important priority.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that explanation.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 308, a bill supporting the goals of National Marina Day and urging marinas to continue providing environmentally friendly gateways to boating. On August 13, we will celebrate National Marina Day. This annual celebration promotes the United States' 12,000 marinas and offers local marina operators the opportunity to host educational events to bring tens of thousands of people to our country's marinas. These marinas are gateways to boating and help maintain the natural environments that we enjoy. In fact, as we debate this resolution today, Americans throughout the country are using their summer vacations to enjoy their own recreational boats or to charter time on professionally operated vessels. By serving as stewards of the environment, marina owners help protect our Nation's natural resources for generations to come. Marina operators and owners realize that the success of their industry relies in part on the health and beauty of their surroundings. In addition, marina owners are working closely with the United States Coast Guard to step up vigilance at their facilities to improve security on U.S. waterways. These efforts include looking out for aggressive activities, attempts to gain access to vessels without proper identification, fixtures attached to structures, unusual diving operations, and vehicles and vessels in unusual locations. Marina owners are on the water every day and when something appears unusual they are able to alert the Coast Guard. Boating is an important pastime as well as a major business activity in my congressional district. From inside Puget Sound to the Pacific coast of Washington State and the Straits of Juan de Fuca, marinas provide access for recreational sailors and motor-powered cruising boats in addition to home ports for charter boats and commercial fishermen. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting for the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize the ongoing contribution of marina operators to our economy, our security, our environment, and most of all, for providing us with a way of enjoying a day on the water. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the only question I have, is the chairman saying that this report language has the force of law? It is advisory only; is that not correct?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, would the gentleman agree that staff affiliated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, located at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, who were never detailed to Washington, D.C., should be excluded from the list of contractor detailees referenced in this report?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should agree that provisions should not apply to scientists who are located here in the Washington, D.C., area and who have never been on detail from their home laboratory; that is, they have lived here for the duration of their employment without ever having been located at the home lab. In addition, they have not incurred additional transportation and housing costs associated with detailees for temporary assignments in the Washington, D.C., area.

Mr. DICKS. The provision applies to those who are on detail from their home laboratory location. Is that not the intent of this section?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a provision in the report accompanying this bill regarding employees of DOE contractors who are on detail in the Washington, D.C., area.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment. I do it with great respect for the chairman, but I just worry about what the consequences of his amendment would be to this bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman. I think it is a good amendment and concur with our chairman that we should accept it.

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