Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Could we work out an agreement here that we could take the savings from the gentleman's amendment and use that to pay the workers, the half of 1 percent raise that is denied in this? Is there a way we could work this out?

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to the Markey amendment. I know my friend is trying to be humorous, but this is a very serious subject. I was one of the leaders who worked to do the B 2 bomber. That took us between 15 and 20 years. Now, the reason we're starting is we've got to pull this technology together and try to do this for less money. And we need a long-range, modern, penetrating bomber with conventional weapons. The nuclear weapon isn't the priority to me. It's the smart, conventional weapons that give us an enormous capability. Let's vote ``no'' on the ill-conceived Markey amendment. And if he wants to look at something, tell him to look at land-based missiles.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I believe every Member of the House supports the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. However, I oppose the bill we are considering today because it contains serious gaps in its protections for Native American victims of domestic violence and it does not include language to ban discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered victims in grant programs under the bill. The bill fails to grant the tribal police and courts, generally the closest legal authorities for an alleged incident of domestic violence occurring on a reservation, the authority to address an incident occurring on tribal lands. Instead, tribal residents in my district would be forced to rely on Federal courts, located several hours away in Tacoma and Seattle, for help and protection. This puts a terrible and potentially dangerous burden on Indian victims in need of a protection order, many of whom do not have the means to travel this distance. Furthermore, the requirement forcing a victim to disclose her residential address called for in Section 1006 of the bill may well put her in further jeopardy. I am also deeply concerned about the bill's refusal to prohibit discrimination against LGBT individuals in all VAWA programs. No victim of violence of any kind should be denied assistance simply because his or her sexual orientation. It is wrong that the bill further perpetuates this inequity, and I fear the reasons are purely political. The answer to this problem is simple. A bipartisan compromise reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act passed the other body with 68 votes in favor, including 15 Republicans. It resolved these issues in a way that was acceptable to both sides, and I encourage the leadership in the House to allow this bill to come to the floor for a vote immediately. I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed bill and to push for the consideration of a truly bipartisan reauthorization bill before the week is out.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I thank my friend for yielding to me. I want to associate myself with Mr. Campbell's very accurate comments. Let me begin by extending my deepest thanks to one of my best friends, the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, for his tireless efforts to reach an agreement with the majority on this bill. And I also appreciate the work of the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, on this bill. Without their personal commitment, time, and effort to this bill, I do not believe that we would be here today to pass this important legislation, which would have been an absolute disaster for the economy of the United States. I have been a supporter of the Export-Import Bank since I arrived in Congress in 1977. Simply put, the Ex-Im Bank supports the sale of American-made products overseas when private financing is not available. According to the Ex-Im Bank's 2011 annual report, the bank supported $32.7 billion in exports last year and over 288,000 American jobs. Many of these jobs are in the Pacific Northwest and in my congressional district.

Mr. DICKS. The important point is, let's vote for this bill. Dear Representative Dicks: I write to ask for your support for H.R. 2072, the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act of 2011, which reauthorizes the U.S. Export-Import (EXIM) Bank. EXIM is the official export credit agency of the U.S. and assists U.S. businesses in financing the export of goods and services around the world. EXIM's charter expires on May 31, 2012 and failure to reauthorize its operations in the weeks ahead could put at risk billions of dollars in U.S. exports and tens of thousands of American jobs. Thanks to the efforts of Congressman Cantor, Congressman Hoyer and numerous Members of the House, H.R. 2072 is bipartisan legislation authorizing EXIM to operate for the next three years and raising the Bank's lending authority to $140 billion. The legislation also contains a number of important initiatives and reforms that will strengthen Congress's ability to oversee the Bank's operations and improve the transparency of the Bank's transactions. Reauthorization of EXIM is backed by a wide range of associations and third parties including the National Association of Manufacturers, the IAM, the U.S. Chamber of Congress and the Business Roundtable. Support for EXIM reauthorization translates into U.S. jobs. In Fiscal Year 2011, the Bank reports that it supported more than $40 billion in exports helping to create or sustain an estimated 290,000 direct and indirect U.S. jobs at more than 3,600 small and large companies. And more than 80% of the Bank's transactions support U.S. small businesses. In addition, EXIM is financially self-sustaining and actually contributes to reducing the Nation's deficit. Since the Bank was last reauthorized in 2006, it has returned more than $3 billion to the U.S. Treasury beyond the costs of its operations. Reauthorization of the EXIM Bank is critical to the ability of U.S. exporters to compete on a level playing field in a commercial market where current and future competitors continue to enjoy aggressive support from their countries' export credit agencies. I urge your strong support for H.R. 2072. Sincerely, Tim Keating, Senior Vice President, Government Operations, The Boeing Company.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. As I understand it, the American Community Survey is authorized by law and has been upheld by the courts. The ACS is authorized under Title 13, U.S. Code, the Census Act. On numerous occasions, the courts have judged that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect data on characteristics of the population in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of data in the census. Is that your understanding?

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, we have somebody who wanted to speak on this amendment. Could we ask unanimous consent that we go back and allow the gentleman from Missouri to strike the requisite number of words?

Mr. DICKS. This will not be a process that will continue. This is one time only.

Mr. DICKS. Let me just say that one of the problems we have is with runoff from agricultural lands that goes into the Chesapeake Bay, that goes into Puget Sound, that goes into the ocean, and that has to be dealt with in order to protect the oceans.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I concur with the gentleman. This is an effort to overturn a law that was passed in 2007 that says we're going to try to do the most energy-efficient approach to running the government. I mean, I think it's common sense, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The implementation of the National Ocean Policy will help to protect, maintain, and restore our ocean, coastal, island, and Great Lakes ecosystems, which provide jobs, food, and recreation, and serves as a foundation for a substantial part of our Nation's economy. Only healthy, functioning, and resilient marine and freshwater ecosystems can support the fisheries which we depend on so heavily. Across the continental United States, our coastal and ocean ecosystems are suffering from an outdated issue-by-issue approach to stewardship and management. We are already seeing the threats posed by ocean acidification, low dissolved oxygen, harmful algal blooms, and dead zones in the gulf, the Chesapeake, Puget Sound, and throughout our Nation's coastal waterways. The National Ocean Policy would help us better address the cumulative threats to our aquatic ecosystems from overfishing, coastal development, storm water run-off, carbon emissions, and other pollutants entering our waterways; and it will also help us balance the many overlapping ocean uses. The core approach of the National Ocean Policy is to improve stewardship of our oceans, coasts, islands, and Great Lakes by directing government Agencies with differing mandates to coordinate and work better together. The National Ocean Policy creates no new authorities. The result of increased coordination will be better stewardship of our national heritage through improved government efficiency, better development and use of data and information and a process of open and transparent stakeholder engagement that informs decision-making. This increased coordination between Agencies is the sort of effort that needs to be taking place on a Federal level in order to reduce inefficiency, waste, and redundancy among Agencies. The National Ocean Council brings together State, local, and tribal governments and all of the ocean's users--including recreational and commercial fishermen, boaters, industry, scientists, and the public--to better plan for, manage, harmonize, and sustain uses of ocean and coastal resources. The virtue of the National Ocean Policy is that it develops and facilitates the planning process, deals with many overlapping ocean uses, and expedites the approval process of new uses being introduced. The National Ocean Policy offers an avenue for thoughtful planning and is the best choice for those stakeholders looking to be involved in the process or at least having some voice in the discussion. While not required to participate, most States and regions see the benefit of marine planning as a way to leverage their interests and achieve desirable outcomes. I would say to my friend from Texas, in the Pacific Ocean, there are debris fields the size of the State of Texas. Now, if you think we're taking care of our oceans, if we're taking care of our rivers and streams and lakes, you are, at best, ill-informed. We need a national effort, an international effort--to clean up the oceans and protect them. And what do we get from the Republicans? A non-science, nonfactual approach to this problem. It's disgusting, to say the least. Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time just to briefly say to the gentleman, what we have been doing isn't working. The oceans are in trouble. We have got acidification that affects our shellfish, and it's because of too much carbon dioxide going into the oceans. The oceans are warming. The world cannot survive without the oceans.

Mr. DICKS. I will just say to my friend, there is a problem with fertilizer runoff from agricultural lands. We've got it in the Puget Sound. These are serious matters that have to be dealt with, and to look the other way is not a solution. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. No more hearings. Let's have a bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Fattah for yielding to me and for his hard work on this important bill. As we begin the floor consideration of the first of the 2013 appropriations bills, I would like to state as a preface that I regret the majority's decision to not abide by the bipartisan Budget Control Act. Reducing the overall allocation for fiscal year 2013 by an additional $19 billion I think is both unnecessary and economically unwise. I believe the reduced discretionary allocation in the Ryan budget threatens to stall economic growth and job creation, and in the near term it introduces uncertainty in our appropriations process that might imperil our ability to produce these bills in a timely manner. That said, I remain committed to working collaboratively with the majority as we continue through the appropriations process this year because I remain cautiously optimistic that this reduced allocation is merely temporary. At the end of the process, I believe the House and Senate will come to an agreement that reflects the Budget Control Act level of $1.047 trillion rather than the level of $1.028 trillion that is based on the Ryan budget. With regard to the bill before us, I want to thank Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, Chairman Rogers, and their staffs for their hard work on this bill. The majority worked closely with our side to put this bill together, and there were many issues on which we were able to reach agreement. While the level of funding in this bill may not be as low as a strict proportional reduction based on the Ryan budget, it is nevertheless not adequate to meet the needs in some areas. In comparison, the CJS bill in the other body has passed through committee with only one dissenting vote, and it is $731 million higher than the House allocation. Clearly, there is significant bipartisan support for this higher allocation. The House bill contains several funding levels that will be difficult for Democrats to support. The COPS hiring program is cut by 76 percent, even as State and local budgets continue to recover from historic losses in revenue. The Legal Services Corporation is also cut when it should be getting an increase, as has been proposed by the President and supported in the other body. I'm also concerned that some important NOAA programs have been cut, in part to pay for necessary new satellites. While I support the development and deployment of new satellites, it is important that we find a way to pay for them without making such drastic reductions in other important NOAA programs. Let me state that there were some very positive aspects of this bill. In particular, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for funding the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund at this year's enacted level and for once again funding an increase to the Mitchell Act program. These are vitally important programs in the Pacific Northwest. I'm also pleased that the subcommittee mark contains $6.4 million for research in ocean acidification. The measurable increase in acidity in the world's oceans is already having an economic effect on the shellfish industry in the Pacific Northwest, interfering with the formation of the shells of oysters, mussels, clams, and other organisms, such as phytoplankton. I also appreciate that this bill provides significant increases for our Federal law enforcement agencies, especially an additional $23 million for the FBI to investigate cyberintrusions. The bill also includes an important increase in funding for youth mentoring programs, which provide crucial support to at-risk youth in underserved communities and also to military kids, many of whom are struggling to adapt to the multiple deployments of one or both parents. I want to echo the words of Ranking Member Fattah about the Boys and Girls Club of America. I find that the Boys and Girls Club have been one of the outstanding organizations and have done so much to help youth with their after-school programs. I thank the gentleman, again, for yielding to me.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. It is our understanding that this affects climate change research, and we think that we should not support the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.