Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. First of all, we had no hearings in the committee about this. I believe that on a subject of this importance, if we are going to take back this protection that we have had on the books almost for the last 25 years, we have to have hearings. We have to bring in the parties and give people good information about what this is all about. That was not done. This amendment came up for the first time in the full committee. So I believe just on process this amendment should be defeated, and I would tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that we should take a look at this. The committee should have some oversight hearings. But to come here now without having those hearings, the benefit of those hearings, and to present this and reverse 25 years of Presidential and Congressional cooperation would be a serious mistake. So I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), who is deeply concerned about this issue, as well as his colleagues from California.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair give us a breakdown of the time.

Mr. DICKS. Four minutes would be fine.

Mr. DICKS. Yes, I am in opposition.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some time on this side, if we could have 5 minutes of the 10 minutes, if we could work that out.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for his commendable work for putting together this Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill for next year. This bill is basically good, considering the budget allocation that our subcommittee received. As always, the chairman and his staff have included me in the process of putting together the bill, and for that I am very appreciative. Such cooperation is a hallmark of the Interior Subcommittee, and it is the chairman who sets the tone. While the bill we are considering today represents hard work all around, I must note that it falls short of properly funding many programs. The reason for this failure is the inadequate budget allocation we have. The shortfall compared to the 2005 Interior bill adds up to more than $800 million. As you know, this is the first year that the Interior Subcommittee has funded the EPA, and what a challenge it is proving to be with the President's budget proposing a cut of more than $500 million from last year. These are very deep holes to fill. Let me switch to a positive note by praising the decision by the administration and the chairman to fully fund uncontrollable costs such as pay COLAs and rent. Now, this may sound like just a matter of fact, but it makes all of the difference in the world in our national parks on whether they can operate properly. Over the last few years the administration has been proposing unrealistically low funding levels to pay for these uncontrollable costs. This year the budget did include the funding to meet these costs, and I applaud the chairman for including them in the bill, and I hope that the administration will continue to propose full coverage of uncontrollable costs in future budget submittals. I also want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for the continued effort to increase funding for the operation of our national parks. I think we have a great team to make sure that the national parks, certainly the most beloved of our Federal public lands, receive enough money to provide our constituents the visit they expect and deserve. The $30 million the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) has added to the $22 million increase contained in the budget will mean a second consecutive year of very healthy increases in the Park Service operations budget, and I want to pledge to continue to help my chairman to make sure that the Park Service Partnership Program stays on track towards better management. The biggest concern that I have in this bill is the reduction in spending for clean water activities. First, I must commend the chairman for his decision 2 weeks ago to agree to add an extra $100 million to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund from unobligated EPA funds from previous years. But even with this additional funding, the Clean Water Revolving Fund will be $240 million lower than this year. If you compare the proposed funding in 2006 to the level in 2004, there is a decrease of nearly $500 million in just 2 years. I know that many of you are hearing from your State and local officials about the effect this cut will have on plans to construct and improve water treatment facilities. The Federal Government should not be retreating in this fashion from such an important responsibility. For that reason I am going to support an amendment to increase funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. I must also register my disagreement with the decision to continue to retreat from the commitment made in 2000 to increase funding for the Conservation Trust Fund. If the Lands Legacy conservation agreement was being followed, this bill would have $1.8 billion for the various conservation activities under our jurisdiction. Instead the bill contains only $750 million. I wish this bill did not contain the President's proposal to eliminate funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Stateside grants program. I also disagree with the decision to provide no money for land acquisition within the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but I do sympathize that those decisions were tough due to the situation our allocation has caused. Core programs, such as agency operations, must come before grant programs such as these. Even though the awful fiscal situation we are faced with is the direct cause of these decisions, I do hope that we can better meet the obligations of the Lands Legacy agreement when we ultimately finish the 2006 Interior and Environment bill. It is gratifying to note that we seem to have come to a consensus on funding on the NEA and the NEH, in that this bill provides level funding compared to this year. I again will be joining with what I predict will be a majority of my colleagues in support of an amendment to increase both of these endowments. Last year the Interior Subcommittee made a wise decision to be better prepared for the cost of firefighting. We provided $500 million for both fiscal year 2004 and 2005 in emergency funding to prevent the painful borrowing from other Interior and Forest Service programs that has occurred in past years when more fires than were expected depleted the annual firefighting budget. Although neither the President's budget nor this bill contains such contingency funding for 2006, there is an increase of $120 million over the nonemergency spending level in fiscal year 2005. I hope this is sufficient to meet the challenge of what could be a busy fire season with estimates of higher than average threats in several areas of the country, including Washington State and the Northwest. I also agree with the decision to restore some of the cuts in the budget to the Indian school and construction account. Even with this added money, this bill contains a cut of $75 million to those important programs, and it is important that we are freezing the funding level for the Indian trust accounting program. I believe we should not spend money at the expense of other Indian programs on a historical accounting exercise that cannot produce the desired results. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and his great staff, led by Debbie Weatherly for their hard work on the 2006 Interior and Environment appropriations bill. I also want to commend Mike Stephens on Mr. Obey's staff and Pete Modaff of my staff for their part in helping to put together this bill. I hoped we could do better, but this is a difficult situation that we are in, and I appreciate the cooperation, the bipartisan spirit in which this bill was created. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who also cares deeply about this issue.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I rise to urge support for the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and myself to increase the funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. The amendment would provide an additional $15 million for the endowments--$10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, and $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. The increase would be offset by reductions in various accounts. My colleagues may recall that a similar amendment passed the House last year during consideration of the 2005 Department of the Interior bill by a vote of 241 to 185. The amendment provided an additional $10 million for the NEA and $3.5 million for the NEH. Once again the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and I are asking for support for this amendment, and perhaps we can obtain a greater margin than last year. I have sensed over the last few years that the battle over this amendment has cooled and we can move on knowing that a healthy majority in the House agrees that these two important programs deserve our strong financial support. This debate presents a good opportunity to make sure our new colleagues understand the importance of this modest Federal support and how it has such a tremendous impact on every one of our congressional districts. Each of the NEA and NEH grants is modest in size, but it is vitally important to the communities they reach. The Federal money serves as a catalyst to draw in private contributions. In fact, we now know that higher levels of Federal money will leverage even greater private support. Unfortunately, since 1996, the endowments have been underfunded. The endowments are still being funded below their level of 10 years ago. In 1996, Congress reduced the NEA by 39 percent and NEH by 36 percent. Our amendment does not restore those funding levels of a decade ago, but it does provide an opportunity for the Members of the House to show their strong support for the endowments by approving this modest amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a good supporter of this bill.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. While I agree that our counties would wisely use increased PILT payments, I think that this bill provides the proper funding for PILT, considering the very tight allocation the subcommittee was given. Like many of my colleagues who represent districts with large amounts of Federal lands not part of the tax base, I understand the difficulties our communities face. That is why I have always strongly supported PILT. But I believe that the $3 million increase that PILT receives in this bill compared to 2005 should be defended, considering the many other programs facing cuts. In a healthier budget climate, I would gladly support funding PILT at an amount higher than the $230 million contained in this bill. Unfortunately, we are facing a much bleaker budget reality. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources. (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the full Appropriations Committee, who has played a very constructive role, along with the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), in trying to help us move this bill forward today.

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. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have fought over the last few years to reinsert funding for the Park Service to take care of their uncontrollable costs, and we had a hard time doing that. We find out that 1 percent, when it is added up, is $261 million. That is a very significant hit on these accounts in this important agency. I would urge that Members support the chairman and we vote this amendment down.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Make no mistake, the principle purpose of this amendment is to cut the National Endowment for the Arts. I absolutely share the gentleman's concern that the forest system and BLM have sufficient funding to meet the challenge of fighting fires. In fact, last year I worked closely with the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) to provide 2 years of emergency funding to fight wildfires which totaled $1 billion. This bill does not contain that emergency money, but non-emergency firefighting is increased by $116 million when compared to the non-emergency funding in 2005. Of course, I do worry that an extremely bad fire season could exhaust this increased funding. However, I do not think the NEA is the place to augment firefighting funding. But again, I think the purpose of this amendment is more to raise issues about the NEA. I appreciate the gentleman saying he is a supporter of the arts. I wish we had the emergency money that we have had the last 2 years, but we do not. I think I would say to the gentleman as we look and see how the season unfolds, we may have to do something further in conference; but I think this amendment is the wrong approach. I strongly support our chairman and urge that the committee defeat the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. In general, I do think we should fund the Superfund cleanup program at levels higher than what is contained in this bill. However, the budget allocation that we are dealing with today prohibits us from agreeing to the gentleman's proposal to increase Superfund by a whopping $130 million at the expense of the EPA's science and technology programs, which he uses as an offset. This bill provides Superfund with $1.26 billion for 2006, which is an $11 million increase over this year's funding level. I understand that there are transfers contained in this bill from the Superfund program to EPA science and technology research and to the EPA Inspector General's Office, but these transfers are for Superfund-related activities. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to advise that we do agree with the amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation and the Democratic Substitute being offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. I would like to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security for bringing this bill to the floor--the first authorizing bill for the Department of Homeland Security since the Department was created. This bill does many good things. It authorizes additional funding to cover the full cost of hiring an additional two thousand border patrol agents in order to meet the first year target established in the Intelligence Reform bill last year. Regrettably, the appropriations bill that passed the House yesterday fell short of actually finding these critically needed personnel by 500. But that does not diminish this accomplishment in the bill. This bill contains several important provisions that will help to fix the Directorate for Intelligence Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, which, in my judgment, has struggled the most to find its direction in the new department. And the bill raises the level of our government's top cybersecurity official to an Assistant Secretary within IAIP, something that should have been done when the Department was created. This bill makes progress in some key areas, and I intend to support it, but I regret that it falls short in a number of critical areas, leaving us terribly vulnerable on many fronts. Cargo security, both in the air and on the sea, have not been adequately addressed in this legislation. Our Nation's plan to secure cargo containers, I believe, makes sense; but it relies entirely on knowing--and trusting--the people that are packing the containers overseas. Customs and Border Protection is way behind in certifying participants in the C-T PAT program, and this bill does not authorize adequate funding to accelerate the process of validating the applications of those who are already gaining the benefits. My friend from California, Ms. Sanchez, sought to propose an amendment to address this problem, but the rule did not allow for its consideration, a serious oversight. And there is absolutely no excuse for permitting unscreened cargo onto passenger aircraft. This is a problem we have known about since Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland killing over 270 people. My good friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, wanted to offer an amendment to the bill that would require this cargo to be screened, and it is long overdue. A similar amendment had been approved previously by the House, but the leadership has refused to allow its consideration today. This bill also fails to take sufficient steps to meet other critical needs that we have been talking about here in the House since 9/11. The installation of in-line explosive detection systems at all of our Nation's passenger airports is one of the top technological solutions to improving the performance of our TSA screener force. Given what terrorist were able to perpetrate in Madrid, providing funding for real rail and transit security must become a higher priority. And we must work harder to improve security at our Nation's chemical plants-- especially those that are located in heavily populated areas. Some of my Democratic colleagues offered amendments to accomplish these goals, but each has been blocked from consideration by the Majority. But we now have an opportunity to vote on these items en bloc. The Democratic substitute, proposed by Mr. Thompson, addresses all of these issues, and is a much more complete blueprint for combating terrorism than the underlying document. The House must move aggressively to fill the gaps that we see everyday in the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. We do our constituents a grave disservice if we do not.