David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the fiscal 2012 Interior and Environmental appropriations bill. I do want to start on a positive note. The bill would restore the President's proposed cuts to mitigation fish hatcheries. That's a good thing. It would increase funding for the Indian Health Service, and it would largely maintain funding for the National Park Service operations and the Smithsonian. So I commend the subcommittee for those decisions. But I'm afraid the list of positive things is pretty short. So I want to, in the time I have, list some of the devastating cuts that this bill includes. And while our friend from California has suggested that these really aren't deep cuts, I believe the content of this bill belies that notion. The bill before us picks up where H.R. 1 left off last spring making numerous and deep cuts to the programs that protect our air, water, public lands, and wildlife. Here are just a couple of the most egregious cuts in this bill: First to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This funds the acquisition of public lands so they're protected from development and can be enjoyed by future generations. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a dedicated revenue stream from offshore drilling royalties. It takes nothing from the General Fund. And yet this bill would cut Land and Water Conservation funding by 80 percent--the lowest level for the program in 45 years. It threatens completion of the acquisition of the Rocky Fork tract in Tennessee and several treasures in North Carolina that need protection. Every Member of this body should ask: How many acquisition projects would this halt in my State? There is no reassuring answer. Secondly, the Environmental Protection Agency, the bill continues the Republican majority's assault on the EPA. After imposing a 16 percent cut in the current fiscal year, the majority is now proposing a further 18 percent reduction in the agency's budget. That would push agency staffing to 1991 levels. The goal of a cut so massive is plain and simple: to ensure that the EPA doesn't have the resources it needs to fulfill its core mission, and that mission includes lifesaving and life-enhancing research, largely based in my district, that Research Triangle part. Third, the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The SRFs provide funding directly to the States to fund water infrastructure projects that enable communities to better manage wastewater and polluted runoff and to protect clean and safe drinking water. This provides one of the most basic services taxpayers expect-- clean water. And yet this bill would cut funding for these two programs by nearly a billion dollars combined. Given how essential water supply is to economic growth, this is ironic at this particular time as our communities struggle to retain and regain jobs. I suggest to colleagues, ask your State and local governments how they're going to make up this difference. Mr. Chairman, as if these cuts weren't bad enough, the majority has loaded this bill with legislative policy riders and funding limitations that will roll back 40 years of progress towards clean air and clean water. These anti-environmental riders have no place in an appropriations bill. They will not save the country a penny, and they will cost tens of thousands of lives. They will expose our children, families, and communities to unnecessary illnesses, and they will degrade our irreplaceable natural resources. The majority claims that these cuts are needed to demonstrate fiscal discipline. Mr. Chairman, this book is a textbook case in false economies. In gutting critical environmental protection programs, it piles up frightful economic and human costs for the future. Our constituents and our environment today and in future generations deserve better than what this bill is offering. I urge my colleagues to oppose this shortsighted appropriations bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill, although, with an inadequate allocation, there are decisions that have been made that I believe will adversely affect our work, and that I hope can be revisited down the line. That's not what I want to talk at this moment, though. I want to talk about an unusual feature of the Legislative Branch bill that I hope also can be revisited down the line. I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the elimination of a program that has served this body and our Nation's interests well, the Open World Leadership Center, a unique enterprise, sponsored by the legislative branch of our government, something that I think should make us very proud of this institution and its international outreach. The bill before us today provides only shut down expenses for this program. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer an amendment to restore the program's funding because of the extremely low subcommittee allocation and the absence of acceptable offsets. There simply isn't money lying around to apply to this purpose. But I cannot let this body's commitment to the Open World Program end without voicing my disappointment and my hope that this matter will be reconsidered and can be reconsidered in the context of the Senate bill. The Open World Leadership Program is a unique program administered by the Library of Congress that, over the years, has earned bipartisan and bicameral support. Since 1999, the program has brought emerging leaders from former Soviet States to all 50 States of our country, providing them a firsthand look at the U.S. democratic process, enabling them to exchange ideas with their American counterparts, and encouraging them to relate what they learn to their home environments. The participants in Open World are not the people that typically participate in international exchange programs. They're not just the political or business leaders in the capital who venture to other nations frequently. No, they're teachers, they're judges, they're health workers, they're young activists. They're all sorts of people who live often in rural areas and smaller cities. The program penetrates deeply. In my experience, uniquely so. It penetrates quite deeply, rather than just being another run-of-the-mill exchange program. I know about this, and many other Members in this body do as well. I've participated personally with these leaders as they've come to my district. This is a well-designed program. It's a program that has made and can make a difference. It doesn't just merely scratch the surface. It involves Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Serbia. These countries remain strategically linked to U.S. interests because of their history and also because of their location in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The Open World Program is an effective diplomatic tool.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The Open World Program is an effective diplomatic tool, and one of the legislative branch's few direct democracy promotion programs. My colleagues, Open World is not about us. It's not about us. It's not about our institution. It's an instrument of outreach, a unique one. We should be proud of this, a unique instrument of outreach to a critical part of the world. And its loss would be deeply felt. Now, in previous Congresses there has been some question of whether the Open World Program should be placed where it is administratively, or in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. I've looked at this. I've concluded that the program's very placement in the legislative branch is, in fact, an asset, making clear the program is not tied to a specific administration with its foreign policy goals and priorities and politics. This, in fact, we're told has sometimes reduced obstacles to participation and has made the program more accessible. Mr. Chairman, Congress' sponsorship of Open World has made me proud of this institution. We've assumed responsibility, very directly, for projecting our democratic principles and values to countries with histories of oppressive rule. We need to reflect further. We need to think long and hard on what it would mean to drop this program. What does that say about us? What kind of opportunities would we forego? If we do think long and hard, I have some confidence that we would reconsider what the subcommittee has recommended, and I very much hope we will have that opportunity.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, This ``Cut, Cap and Gut'' proposal isn't just a retread of the policies our colleagues voted for in their extreme budget resolution that would end Medicare as we know it; it's worse. This bill holds an increase in the debt limit hostage to passage of a radical GOP Constitutional Amendment that would require even deeper cuts after ending Medicare as we know it. It arbitrarily caps federal spending at 18 percent of GDP. To say this is unwise is an understatement. The last time federal spending was 18 percent or less of GDP was 1966. The problems of 2011 don't call for a rigid ideology 45 years behind the curve. Why would we tie Congress' hands in the event of future economic challenges? In economic downturns Congress should be able to cut taxes or increase investments to stimulate growth. This is basic economic policy. This proposal turns a blind eye not just to basic economics, but to the two pressing and related challenges facing our country: growing the economy and charting a course back to fiscal balance. It would necessitate across the board cuts in the domestic programs--education, research, infrastructure and Medicare--that make us strong and ensure our economic success. We know that the best cure for a budget deficit is a growing economy, but this bill requires deep spending cuts starting in October that could stall the recovery and put more Americans out of work. The budget surpluses we achieved during the 1990s were the result of a concerted effort to balance the budget through a comprehensive approach. Revenues, entitlements, military and domestic spending--all were on the table. We balanced the budget four years in a row. We paid off more than $400 billion of the national debt. Yet those surpluses were squandered during the George W. Bush administration through trillions in tax cuts and two wars and a privatized prescription drug plan--none of it paid for. Then, when the recession hit in 2008, we were already deep in a fiscal hole and our ability to take effective countermeasures was dangerously compromised. We must never let that happen again. The bill before us is the opposite of a balanced, comprehensive approach. This bill makes it easier for future Congresses to cut Medicare than to close tax loopholes for oil companies or millionaires, because it requires a 2/3 vote for any measure that raises revenue. The Ronald Reagan-Tip O'Neal agreement to save Social Security in 1983 would not have passed this hurdle. George H. W. Bush's bipartisan 1990 deficit reduction plan would not have passed this hurdle, nor would the Democratic deficit reduction plan of 1993. So this bill willfully cuts off Congress' access to the tools that have produced meaningful deficit reduction and boosted economic growth, at a time when our economy is fragile and millions of Americans are out of work. Perhaps this is just positioning by the House majority, but there is no need for this brinksmanship. We should not be making these decisions under duress, but that is exactly where the Republican no-compromise majority has left us. They ask us to alter the fundamental relationship between our people and government--undermining Medicare, education, infrastructure and research funding--by voting on a bill that has never seen a committee vote and was only completed last Friday. This legislation is not worthy of Congress' approval, and it deserves rejection from those on both sides of the aisle who understand that it is a dangerous diversion from the pressing tasks of job creation and sound fiscal policy.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the recision of funds from the high-speed rail program that was unwisely included in the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water bill reported from the Appropriations Committee. My home State of North Carolina has been working for many years to advance the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor from Charlotte to Raleigh and Richmond, and ultimately linking the southeastern States with Washington, D.C. and providing a connection to rail service in the Northeast. Over the last 15 years, North Carolina has invested approximately $300 million in State intercity rail service capacity, including the construction of new train stations and track improvements. These strategic investments have already helped reduce travel time between Raleigh and Charlotte by 1 hour. But over the last two decades, the Federal investment in the Southeast or other high-speed rail corridors has been very, very modest. The burden fell almost completely on the States. In light of the enormous capital investments needed, while our progress has been steady, it has also been very slow. Madam Chair, this has been an area where President Obama has demonstrated strong leadership, making major Federal investment in high-speed rail one of his top priorities. Competition for the billions of dollars allocated under the Recovery Act was intense, and ultimately funds were distributed to 31 States, with half a billion dollars awarded to North Carolina. These funds will help our State achieve a goal set long ago--2-hour train service from Raleigh to Charlotte--and I'm happy to report that work is already well underway. And we know what comes next: Raleigh to Richmond. These planned rail investments will relieve congestion, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, make our neighborhoods more livable and environmentally sustainable, make our communities more attractive places to live and do business in the long term, and create well-paying construction and manufacturing jobs in the near term--20,000 jobs in North Carolina alone, as a matter of fact. Rescission of these funds is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It undermines an infrastructure project that would create jobs and pay dividends for years and years in the future. If we want to stay competitive in the international economy, we cannot continue to lay behind countries like China in developing a 21st century infrastructure. Rather than cutting funds for high-speed rail, we should be investing further in a high-speed rail network that will enhance our Nation's overall transportation system, moving us forward the way the highway system drove us forward in the mid 20th century. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, today, the House is considering H.R. 2018, the so-called Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act. This bill, which represents the latest attempt by the House to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, could just as easily be called the ``Dirty Water Act.'' Since 1972, the Clean Water Act, which is one of the nation's most successful and effective environmental laws, has protected the waterways Americans depend on for fishing, swimming, and clean drinking water. H.R. 2018 would overturn almost 40 years of federal protection by preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from safeguarding public health and protecting water quality. It also would undermine the agency's authority to ensure that state water quality standards comply with the law. What's at stake here is not federal oversight versus state's rights, but rather clean water versus dirty water. In case anyone is wondering why the Congress might consider such a bill, consider this example: coal companies want to conduct mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia and dump the waste they generate into Appalachia's streams and waterways. The EPA has rightly declined to classify this waste as fill material. Should the financial interests of a few coal companies outweigh the environmental and public health interests of the people of the entire region? Rather than weakening our federal clean water protection laws, we should be strengthening these laws to protect our oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2018.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I do not intend to oppose this measure because I agree with its basic premise: that the United States Congress strongly supports a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and opposes any action that will make such an outcome harder to achieve. However, I have serious reservations about several of the assertions this resolution makes--as well as those it doesn't make--about recent developments in, and U.S. policy toward, Israel and the Palestinian territories. These concerns are more than abstract: at a time of generational change in the Middle East, the positions that this Congress takes on an issue of such vital importance will have lasting implications for our nation's goals and interests in the region. For two decades, irrespective of which party has controlled the White House or Congress, the central aim of U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been to encourage a negotiated resolution based on the principle of a democratic, Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable, democratic Palestinian state. Republican and Democratic presidents alike have affirmed that such an outcome will only be achieved through direct negotiations between the two parties, and have opposed any action by either side that undermines or diminishes the prospects for a negotiated peace. To be sure, the Palestinian leadership's intent to pursue diplomatic recognition at the United Nations qualifies as such an action, and on this point I agree with the sponsors of this resolution. I also share their concerns about the prospect of a Palestinian unity government that does not recognize Israel's right to exist or renounce violence against innocent civilians. Either development would represent a major setback for the peace process as we know it, and Congress is right to warn Palestinian leaders about the consequences of their course of action. But as usual, the resolution before us today tells only half the story. It says nothing about Israel's responsibility to act as a serious negotiating partner and abide by its previous commitments under the Road Map and other agreements. It says nothing about Israel's refusal to halt settlement construction in order to allow direct negotiations to resume--even when the Obama Administration offered a lavish package of aid and assurances for Israel to do something that was manifestly in its own interest to begin with. It condemns the Palestinian president for his unilateral actions while failing to comprehend that it has been Israel's intransigence that has led him to view the United Nations as his only recourse. And as usual, the resolution has been rushed to the floor without any serious debate or any opportunity for input from the many members of this body who care about this critical issue. This resolution is also being considered at a pivotal moment in the history of the peace process, as well as the history of the broader Middle East. After years of false starts and broken promises, the prospects for a negotiated peace appear as dim today as at any time in recent memory, and may grow dimmer still as the political winds in the Arab world shift in unpredictable ways. Now, perhaps more than ever before, strong and decisive U.S. leadership is needed to persuade both sides of the urgency of the moment and bring them back to the negotiating table. It is only a matter of time before there is no table left around which to negotiate. Yet instead of urging the President to redouble his commitment to the pursuit of peace, we are urging him to lead a diplomatic initiative to oppose Palestinian recognition. Instead of encouraging him to bring the full weight of American ideas, influence, and resources to bear on this critical issue, we are asking him to suspend U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority--the very assistance that has been so essential to laying the foundations for a future Palestinian state. Instead of congratulating him for his efforts to revive the stalled negotiations by outlining his ideas for the boundaries of a future Palestinian state, too many of my colleagues seem more interested in manufacturing a controversy for political gain. Unfortunately, the current Israeli prime minister seems all too willing to play along, despite the fact that the two previous U.S. presidents--not to mention at least two former Israeli prime ministers--have advocated positions nearly identical to that outlined by President Obama. So while I will cast my vote in favor of H. Res. 28, I am reminded of the story of Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burns. The Middle East is transforming before our eyes, and the window of opportunity for the United States to achieve a just and lasting resolution to this age-old conflict may be closing rapidly. We should seize this moment of opportunity and recommit ourselves to the pursuit of peace before it is too late.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleague from Colorado for offering this amendment and for calling attention to some of the deficiencies in the 287(g) program and some of the ways that we need to do things better. I would have wished for an amendment, though, that would have given the Department of Homeland Security more direction. If not 287(g), then what should immigration enforcement look like, and what should the interface between the Federal Government and local authorities look like? I'm afraid the amendment doesn't really address that very conclusively, but I want to offer just a few reflections on the 287(g) program and the ways in which I think we might transition to something more positive in the area of immigration enforcement. The gentleman from Colorado has already described the 287(g) program. It delegates Federal immigration authority to local law enforcement in many respects, supposedly to identify criminals in their communities. At the end of the fourth quarter of fiscal year '10, the 287(g) program had established partnerships with 72 local jurisdictions; but both the DHS Inspector General and the GAO have raised serious concerns about the 287(g) program, particularly related to the lack of oversight by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the fact that it was not really living up, in many cases, to its stated goal of focusing on serious criminals who pose a threat to the community. The Inspector General found 33 major deficiencies in the program last year, and found 16 more when he recently reassessed the program. Based on these concerns, I believe we do need to take a hard look at 287(g) and make sure that that authority is being exercised properly before we simply appropriate more money for the program. Now, Mr. Chairman, when I chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, we pushed ICE to place a much greater emphasis on the identification and removal of criminal aliens. Part of ICE's response has been the Secure Communities Program, which we fully supported and continue to do so in this bill. Since 2008, resources have consistently grown for ICE to make progress in finding aliens in local and State custody and in removing them at the completion of their criminal sentences. This bill supports the continued expansion of Secure Communities, which already covers many more prisons than 287(g). Now, Secure Communities isn't perfect either, by any means, but at least it does draw that bright line between the Federal role and the local role in immigration enforcement. It sorts that role out much more effectively than the 287(g) program. I think we should concentrate on making the Secure Communities Program work well. It accomplishes the objectives of 287(g) but much more efficiently, much less problematically, and without deputizing local police to enforce immigration law. That is a proposition that is rife with complications and potential abuses. So I believe--and our subcommittee determined last year--that it is desirable to transition from 287(g) into the Secure Communities format. As it stands now, it's a duplicative program. It is a program that is highly problematic. If we work on Secure Communities--make sure it works responsibly and monitor it carefully--I believe it can accomplish the task more efficiently to identify and remove dangerous criminals from our communities, which I think we very widely agree should be the main priority of immigration enforcement. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. At a time like this floor debate when we've had such a flurry of amendments from all sorts of sources, we realize anew how dependent we are on our staff for staying on top of all this and helping guide us, and we are very grateful to our staff on both sides of the aisle. With that, we are ready to proceed, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Polis

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I certainly share the commitment to developing a more comprehensive approach to cybersecurity, in particular, and to the research and development budget, in general. With that, let me reiterate my thanks for all who have brought us to this point on both sides of the aisle, for our fine staff whom we always depend on, and the way the staff has scrambled with this amendment process----

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance as we enter the homestretch of this debate to also express my appreciation to the many colleagues and staff members who have brought us to this point. I want to commend Chairman Aderholt for this first voyage that he has taken as the subcommittee chairman and for the professional approach that he has brought to this, the careful process, the inclusive process. We are very grateful to him. We had a good, full season of hearings and an open process in the Appropriations Committee, at markup, and we've had an open process here on the floor. That's the way Appropriations is supposed to work. And so I do commend the chairman and the leadership for that. We have had a good, robust debate here. I certainly wish that we were in closer agreement on this bill. I have always believed that on Appropriations we should look out for the institutional role of this House in holding the executive accountable, on a bipartisan basis, no matter which party is in charge either here or in the White House. And so when the partisan divisions that inevitably characterize our work here, when those partisan divisions are evident on Appropriations, we try our best to overcome them. Historically, we have tried our best to overcome them. That has been very difficult this year, and we have a bill that we are divided on--but not on the entire bill by any means. As I said in my opening statement yesterday, the chairman and the majority have done a good job in keeping the frontline operations of the Homeland Security Department intact, keeping those operations strong. Where they've fallen down is, I believe, to pass a budget resolution that contains a Homeland Security allocation that is simply inadequate. That has been compounded by the treatment of disaster funds beyond the President's request, a refusal to designate those as emergency funds. And so we are left with a bill that's severely squeezed. I won't elaborate except to say that this is the bigger picture we are dealing with, the radical shortfall in the State and local grants, a challenge we will have to continue to work on. We will move on from this point today and be working with our colleagues in the other body and with the White House to come up with a final product that hopefully keeps faith with the States and local communities who depend on us for a reliable partnership.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The amendment before us is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft Executive order which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors. The draft Executive order being developed by the Obama administration would require Federal contractors to disclose more information about their political contributions than they currently provide. Particularly, those contributions given to third-party entities. Some have said they oppose this effort because additional information could be used nefariously to create some kind of enemies list. In other words, they argue that companies should not disclose more information because people in power could misuse that information to retaliate against them. I just think there are fundamental problems with this premise. Under this logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad, not just the new ones. Government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. Contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors are also required to be disclosed. Should we eliminate those provisions, too? Of course not. The information is required to be provided already in law, and the Executive order that the amendment would circumvent simply enhances the quality of that information. More than 30 groups, including nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations like Democracy 21, the Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, many others have concluded that the draft Executive order would enhance transparency and decrease corruption. And these aren't the only groups that support the Executive order. Two weeks ago, a coalition of institutional investors and investor coalitions collectively managing more than $130 billion in assets also wrote to express their support. In their letter, they explained that corporate political activity presents significant risks to shareholder value. And transparency allows investors to put together in a more complete picture the various risks to our investments. So, Mr. Chairman, as the Los Angeles Times said in a recent editorial, disclosure is the solution, not the problem. I believe that is the case. I urge Members to defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Cole amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, maybe the gentleman can clarify, but my understanding was that the 5-minute address we had just heard was addressing the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I want to commend our colleague from the authorizing committee, a leader of the authorizing committee, for focusing on the deployment of air marshals to maximum effect. I want to offer support for her amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.