— from Douglas Wagoner —
Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02) today released the following statement after voting in favor of a bipartisan congressional spending bill, which passed the House on a 309-118 vote.
“The good news is this is not the slash and burn approach proposed by President Trump,” said Larsen. “Cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and the HUD-VASH program are disappointing, but there are several reasons to support this budget package. This bill includes resources for measures I championed such as opioid programs, small business programs, Impact Aid, National Institutes of Health, Pacific Coastal Salmon Program, hunger relief programs, and apprenticeship programs. Further, the bill includes critical transportation funding for Sound Transit’s Lynnwood Link extension and Community Transit’s small starts grant for the Swift II Bus Rapid Transit which will boost the Pacific Northwest economy and create jobs.”
While today’s spending package decreases Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding by $81.4 million, it fully funds the EPA’s Puget Sound Geographic Program which Larsen fought to preserve.
The bill also makes progress on initiatives Larsen has long-championed, including $6.057 million for the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Mukilteo, full funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, $35 million for Department of Defense Supplemental Impact Aid, $150 million toward the future procurement of a new icebreaker, an additional $150 million for programs that address the prevention and treatment of opioid abuse, $95 million for apprenticeship grants, $100 million for Sound Transit’s Lynnwood Link extension and $43.2 million for Community Transit’s small starts grant for the Swift II Bus Rapid Transit line.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
OK… Many of these items sound necessary, but I’m confused about two of them.
1) Do we really need an icebreaker? What for? Is the icebreaker for oil drilling exploration, and to bust new fossil fuel drilling and export routes to Asia through the Chukchi Sea?
2) Why does the Dept of Defense need more money – and just what is “supplemental impact aid” – what does it do, and who benefits from it?
I would need to know a lot more about these two spending items before agreeing with Rick Larson’s opinion that these things should be tucked into a spending bill, especially when Donald Trump is increasing the military budget by a yuuuge percentage already.
Perhaps Rep. Larsen will enlighten by elaborating on why we should support spending money on these two things, while we gut the environment, education, and single payer health care options.