Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I would just like to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. I feel these programs are very important and that there have been major cuts made in the last 2 years, as I understand it, and that this would just be another major cut on top of this. To my friend from Georgia, austerity isn't helping England, it isn't helping France, it isn't helping Greece, and it's not going to help the United States. We need the recovery here at home. That's what we need-- not mindless cutting and slashing of the budget that will throw people out of work and not create jobs for the American people. Austerity has failed. I think it's time for the majority to wake up and recognize that.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong support of the Shimkus amendment, which will ensure that the NRC has the resources to carry out its responsibility with regard to the Nation's high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain. I regret the position that the NRC has taken on this issue. On the Appropriations Committee, it is our belief that the Commission has adequate funds to resume licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain project as called for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. But the Commission simply has refused to act. The NRC claims it has the legal authority to ignore the law duly enacted by this Congress if the Agency isn't given enough money to ``finish the job.'' Under our Constitution, agencies are funded year to year. They are seldom, if ever, given enough money in 1 year to do everything the law tells them to do, especially for long-term projects. In 2008, when the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding started, Congress appropriated sufficient funds to the NRC to conduct the proceeding for that fiscal year. In 2009, we gave NRC enough money to carry out those responsibilities for another year. The NRC didn't stop because it didn't have the entire amount of money to finish the job. In fact, the NRC only stopped the licensing and refused to spend money appropriated for licensing based on a unilateral policy decision that the site is no longer workable. Now, after being brought to Federal court for ignoring its statutory duty to decide the license application in 3 years, the NRC claimed-- astoundingly--that it does not have to follow the law because, while it has plenty of money to resume the licensing process and move it forward, it doesn't have every dollar in hand that would be required to complete the process. When Congress passes a law, appropriates money, and directs an agency to carry out an important government function during any given fiscal year, that agency cannot just thumb its nose and say we're not going to do that job at all because Congress didn't give us the money to do the following year's work. No agency has ever successfully told a court not to make it follow the law because in some future year it might not get enough money to do the job the law requires. Allowing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission such power to effectively cancel Yucca Mountain after Congress has enacted a law directing that it be accomplished would be an affront to the Constitution, and it would shift the balance of power to executive agencies to evade congressionally mandated legal obligations. The Federal appellate court has already made its displeasure with the NRC's legal position known. We need to do the same. The Shimkus amendment would assure that the Commission proceeds with the determination of whether Yucca Mountain is an appropriate location for a safe repository. The amendment is budget neutral--fully offset by redirecting funding from DOE's departmental administration account. I urge the adoption of the Shimkus amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. The fact is that we passed a law that was signed by the President of the United States at that time. I can remember Congressman Udall was chair of the committee at that point. We passed a law that said do Yucca Mountain, and that law has not been repealed. That is still the law of the land.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I object to the suspending of the reading.

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

Mr. DICKS. I received a letter from the American Fisheries Society, the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, the Sportfishing Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. I think these are very important groups. As a westerner, I pay attention to these people. It says: March 30, 2012. Dear Representative: As sportsman-conservation organizations representing millions of hunters, boaters, and anglers nationwide, we ask you to oppose any legislation that would block the administration's very deliberate and vital action to clarify and restore long-standing Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands across the country. We reaffirm our support for Clean Water Act guidance currently being reviewed and finalized in an interagency process coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Sportsmen rely on clean water to ensure the opportunity to enjoy hunting, angling, and other outdoor-based recreation (and business) in the great outdoors. When wetlands are drained and filled and streams are polluted, sportsmen are often the first to be directly impacted. Consequently, hunters, boaters, and anglers have consistently advocated for conserving our nation's waters. Since 2001, U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC (2001) and Rapanos (2006), along with 2003 and 2008 agency guidance that is inconsistent with those decisions and the related science, have combined to erode long-standing Clean Water Act safeguards for headwater streams and critical wetlands. Headwater and intermittently flowing streams comprise 59 percent of all stream miles in the continental United States, and are particularly vulnerable under the decisions and existing agency guidance. At-risk wetlands and tributaries provide clean water for iconic systems such as the Mississippi River Delta and the Chesapeake Bay. They recharge aquifers like the Ogallala, help retain floodwaters in areas such as the Prairie Pothole region and Missouri River Basin, and provide important fish and wildlife habitat throughout the nation. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), prairie pothole wetlands in the northern Great Plains, together with similar wetlands in southern Canada, produce 50 to 70 percent of all North American ducks. However, in its most recent report on the status of wetlands nationwide, the FWS found the rate of wetland loss jumped 140 percent between 2004 and 2009. As these waters are polluted and diminished, their ecological, public health, and recreational benefits are lost, as well. As we all work to create jobs and support economic recovery, we should nurture rather than neglect the economic benefits of hunting, angling, and other outdoor recreation. Hunting, boating, and angling have a tremendously positive impact on the nation's economy, including in rural communities, and support millions of jobs across the country. Consider the following: Using data from the FWS, the American Sportfishing Association estimates angling generates $125 billion in annual economic activity and supports more than 1 million jobs. Using similar information, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation estimates hunters contribute nearly $25 billion to the economy, which supports 600,000 jobs. Data from the National Marine Manufacturers Association indicates that recreational boating contributes over $41 billion and 337,000 jobs to the U.S. economy. The FWS reports duck hunting alone generates $2.3 billion for the economy every year and supports 27,000 private sector jobs. In order to effectively safeguard key components of our economy, the sports and traditions that millions of Americas enjoy, and the health and integrity of some of our most important fish and wildlife resources, it is essential to act now to restore lost Clean Water Act protections consistent with existing law and science. The Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new guidance last spring for determining Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The draft guidance is science-based and clearly respects the Supreme Court's decisions. Over the course of three months last summer, the agencies conducted an almost unprecedented public engagement process for a guidance document. More than 200,000 Americans commented and EPA has reported that the clear majority of those comments support the proposed guidance. During this process, more than 250 hunting, angling, and conservation groups from 28 states also weighed in backing the guidance and subsequent rulemaking. To complete this process the guidance must be finalized as a first step in affirming longstanding clean water protections for many wetlands and streams. This guidance importantly maintains existing exemptions for normal agricultural activity. At the same time, it will provide increased clarity and consistency that is badly needed by land owners, developers, conservationists, and state and federal agencies alike. We urge you to support--and not oppose--this important first step. As a follow-up to final guidance, we also support agency action to further clarify and strengthen the regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.'' There is widespread agreement among groups across the spectrum about the inherent value of rulemaking to address critical aspects of this issue. In closing, we urge you to support--and not oppose--the important and careful steps being taken by the administration to clarify and affirm long-standing protections for wetlands and streams across the United States. Respectfully, Gus Rassam, Executive Director, American Fisheries Society; Randi Swisher, President, American Fly Fishing Trade Association; Gordon Robertson, Vice President, Government Affairs, American Sportfishing Association; Jim Akenson, Executive Director, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers; Bruce Akin, Chief Executive Officer, BASS, LLC.; Jim Martin, Conservation Director, Berkley Conservation Institute; Rob Olson, President, Delta Waterfowl; David Hoskins, Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America; Thom Dammrich, President, National Marine Manufacturers Association; Larry Schweiger, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation; Paul Krausman, CWD, President, The Wildlife Society; Whit Fosburgh, President and CEO, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; Chris Wood, President, Trout Unlimited; Steve Williams, President, Wildlife Management Institute. So that's why we must today enact the Moran amendment that takes out the language unfortunately added in full committee on this subject. It is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. From an environmental perspective and from a hunter, fisherman, outdoor recreational perspective, it's necessary to protect our future. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. They don't have to unionize. They just have to agree to the prevailing wage and other things that are part of the project labor agreement, but they don't have to be unionized.

Mr. DICKS. If it's neutral, what does it do then?

Mr. DICKS. Well, what does it do then?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Which amendment is before the House?

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2013 Military Construction and Veterans Administration Appropriation bill. This bill continues the strong tradition of bipartisanship and finding common ground as members traditionally work together to fund construction of military facilities and strive to improve the quality of life and care afforded to our veterans and military families. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Chairman Rogers about Tim Peterson. He was and has been one of our outstanding clerks on the committee. I have had the pleasure of working with him throughout his entire career, and we're going to miss him, but wish him well in his future endeavors. I also would say that this subcommittee has a very strong staff, and it's great to see the way Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Sanford Bishop have worked together. And I want to say also that Chairman Rogers is absolutely correct, we have to overcome this inability to get information between our military and veterans hospitals, and the private sector as well. We've got to do everything we can to improve the treatment of our troops. I have previously stated my objection to the Majority's decision to renege on the bipartisan agreement that was reached less than a year ago in the Budget Control Act. 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 imperils our ability to produce these bills in a timely manner. Accordingly, it is my belief that we could save a considerable amount of time in the appropriations process if we simply returned to the agreement reached last August--the $1.047 trillion allocation level for this year--a level which even the Republican Senate leadership concedes is where we will eventually end up. I am, however, encouraged that this bill fully funds the Department of Veterans Affairs discretionary budget request of $60.7 billion. It meets the overall budget request in all areas of administrative expenses, research, information technology and facilities. The recommendation contains $74.6 billion for the mandatory VA programs providing compensation and pensions, educational benefits, vocational rehabilitation, life insurance and housing loan programs. I am particularly pleased that the Military Construction account includes $546.9 million for construction and replacement of Department of Defense Education Activity schools. A total of 10 schools will be refurbished with this funding--six in the United States and nine schools at overseas installations. Many of these schools are in exceedingly poor condition and these improvements are long overdue. I have been a strong advocate for the modernization of schools serving the children of our nation's service members and I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member on their commitment to this effort. In addition, this bill continues to ensure that we are providing high-quality, safe, and healthy living accommodations for our single military members. Many of the older barracks in the military are at the end of their 30 to 50-year design life cycle and do not meet current design standards or current building codes. This bill includes $927 million for 21 barracks, dormitories, and bachelor enlisted quarters that will address substandard living conditions and boost morale among our troops. While this bill makes significant progress in addressing current deficiencies, it does not address all the housing shortfalls for our single service members. The quality of our installations is a measure of the nation's commitment to the troops who defend it, and we must continue to improve the substandard conditions of the military's barracks, dormitories, and bachelor quarters in the future. I encourage the Department of Defense to continue to replace these facilities in a timely manner. There is one provision in the bill that concerns me. During full committee consideration, an amendment was passed that would restrict the use of Project Labor Agreements on military construction projects. Current policy gives the Defense Department the option to choose whether a PLA is appropriate for a particular project--whether it will save money or accelerate construction schedules at the government's convenience. An amendment will be offered on the floor later today to remove this harmful language and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I know the gentleman wouldn't want to mislead the House. This is the second bill. We're going to get to the third bill, but this is number 2.

Mr. DICKS. That was last year. H.R. 1. We remember it. It was 800 amendments, 600 on your side, 200 on our side.

Mr. DICKS. We're going to get the third one up tomorrow or maybe tonight even.

Mr. DICKS. The distinguished chairman--who does a great job, and we're trying to work together--if we understand this, a non-union shop can be considered for work under a project labor agreement. You don't have to be a union shop. So a non-union company can do it. All they have to do is to agree to the terms that are part of the project labor agreement; in other words, that they will use the wages and other standards that the project labor agreement has. If they will abide by that, then they can be considered for work. So that doesn't mean that there aren't any. Thank you for yielding.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. No, no, no, no. If the gentleman will yield?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to commend Chairman Frelinghuysen, whom I've enjoyed working with both here and on the Defense Subcommittee, and Ranking Member Visclosky on their efforts to continue in the tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation. I know that all members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, in addition to the staff, have worked hard to bring this bill forward and get us where we are today. And I want to commend our chairman, Mr. Rogers, for again presenting us with an open rule which allows the Members to have a chance to offer amendments. In an era when we don't have earmarks, it is very important that Members have an opportunity to come here to the floor and offer an amendment. I'm not trying to encourage anybody, but it is a reality. Now, despite the decision made by the Republican leadership, unfortunately, to abandon the overall spending level contained in the Budget Control Act agreement reached last year, I'm encouraged that this bill provides funding above last year's level. The reality, however, is that if we do not return to the overall levels we agreed to in August, proceeding with additional appropriations bills here in the House will be exceedingly difficult. Many programs in the Energy and Water bill are sufficiently funded; however, I do have concerns about the funding levels provided to certain accounts. Of particular concern to me are deep cuts in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program, as well as steep reductions in the ARPA-E program. These programs are vital to continue our Nation's innovation in the energy sector. I would also like to reiterate Mr. Visclosky's concern over the funding levels of the Army Corps of Engineers relative to FY12, particularly as the Corps struggles with its aging structure. The bill provides the Corps with $188 million less than 2012. We must invest in our infrastructure by making preventative and proactive investments. Although this subcommittee mark does not fully fund the budget request for the clean-up at the Hanford nuclear site in Washington State, I understand that the funding level is sufficient for continued progress and a realistic work schedule for FY13. I want to applaud the chairman and ranking member for continuing the funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. During the amendment process of this bill, I expect to join an effort led by Chairman Shimkus to increase funding in this account in order to underscore the strong bipartisan support in the House for moving ahead with the plan to open the Nation's high-level waste storage facility. I believe, as many do in the House, that the administration's position to close the Yucca Mountain site runs counter to the letter and spirit of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed by the Congress.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, today would mark the 100th Birthday of Henry Martin Jackson, who served for six terms in the House of Representatives prior to a long and successful career in the United States Senate. Since the day I came to Washington as a young legislative aide to Washington's other legendary Senator, Warren G. Magnuson, I admired Senator Jackson's dedication to the job as well as the personal connection he made to generations of our state's citizens. He set a high standard for all of us charged with representing the views of our constituents because he knew so many of them personally. Senator Jackson, known to all as ``Scoop,'' is remembered as a ``strong-on-defense'' Democrat, and he clearly was that: the consummate Cold War Liberal in the Truman/Kennedy tradition. What many observers may not realize is that Scoop was also the longest serving chairman in the history of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee--from 1963 until 1981. As chair of that committee, later renamed the ``Energy and Natural Resources Committee,'' Scoop Jackson sponsored or co-sponsored the 1964 National Wilderness Act, the 1965 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the Redwoods National Park Act of 1968, the North Cascades National Park Act of 1968, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968--and that was in just the first few years of his chairmanship. His signature achievement--the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969--has been emulated by more than 80 countries. With the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, both Canada and Australia have embraced it as an example. The list goes on--from the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Act of 1976 to ANILCA--the Alaska National Interest Lands and Conservation Act of 1980. During the Scoop Jackson era, there was more wilderness and more national parks preserved for future generations than at any other time in American history. Looking back on history, it is clear that Scoop Jackson's greatest achievements revolve around preserving and enhancing our natural heritage. These were achievements that flowed from his formative years in the Pacific Northwest and his understanding of our commitment as lawmakers to future generations. Scoop also demonstrated that while politicians measure their lives in getting re-elected, statesmen measure their lives in getting things done. He stood then as he stands now as a profile of the virtues of taking risks and of putting service before self. So on the occasion of Scoop Jackson's 100th Birthday I would like to submit a very meaningful and poignant remembrance of Senator Jackson written this week by his son, Peter. It was published in the Herald newspaper in Everett, Washington--the same paper that young Scoop Jackson delivered around the town in the 1920s. [From the Herald, May 27, 2012] Scoop Jackson Never Forgot His Roots (By Peter Jackson) My father. When he was a boy, Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson, who later became a U.S. senator and Democratic presidential candidate, watched a Fourth of July parade as an actor dressed like an American doughboy pitchforked a caricature of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Scoop was someone who survived smallpox. He was someone who first learned to navigate Everett's washboard roads in a Ford Model T. (He even got to see Roald Amundsen, the famed polar explorer and pride of Norway.) It's ancient history, yes, but history just a lifetime removed. On May 31, he would have turned 100. His example, work, and legacy rest with the city he loved. In the 1920s, Scoop spent his teen and pre-teen years delivering the Everett Herald to speakeasies and brothels. He made friends that lasted generations, memorizing their addresses only to rattle off street names to their incredulous descendants decades later. All the while, Everett was a town, poet Gary Snyder wrote, ``where shingle weavers lost their fingers in the tricky feed and take of double saws.'' Today we recognize a certain gravity to place, especially in the American West. It shapes our values, cuts our attitudes, and defines our politics. Life in Everett in the 1920s and '30s was hardscrabble, but it was also anchored in a spirit of community. The city of smokestacks became Scoop's version of Norman Maclean's Missoula. To paraphrase Maclean, the world is full of bastards, the number increasing the further one gets from Everett, Washington. Writer Tony Hiss calls the transmission of ideas and experiences through generations ``the great span.'' The span has a telescoping effect, a reminder that the post-colonial American West is still very young. Everett was Scoop's touchstone, the city of his birth and his death, the city with dirt under its nails. Scoop never bemoaned Everett's dishwater skies or the throat-sting from the pulp mills. Everett and the Pacific Northwest were always, for him, a radiant place. I still picture him in the flat light of an Everett winter, legs braced like a gunslinger, chatting up every millwright, legionnaire and housewife strolling down Colby. He'd gesture in the sky with an imaginary pen or rattle off the street address of someone's uncle or aunt, a number memorized during his paperboy days. As a U.S. senator, he emphasized constituent services to such a degree that for years after his death in 1983, Everett-ites would knock on my mom's door, asking for help with a Social Security check or a military-academy appointment. Mom would invite them in, serve them coffee, and gently explain that Rep. Al Swift's office would be delighted to help. My mom, Helen Hardin, was the linchpin to Scoop's success. She was as animated and funny as he sometimes was not. She demanded that he smile and wear clean shirts. She breathed life into his unfinished work when, less than a year into his sixth term, he suddenly died. My mom saw, as we all did, that Scoop's often complex political vision was rooted in a kind of Lutheran realism, a belief in the permanence of human nature and the impermanence of politics. For Scoop this translated into a uniquely consistent vision: Haranguing oil executives (liberals made happy, conservatives irked) while bashing the Soviets and the Fidel Castros of the world (conservatives made happy, liberals irked). Implicit with tackling the big ideas was the notion of a long, twilight struggle. Political dividends don't yield returns for years, or decades even. Scoop shared President Kennedy's belief, borrowed from Dante, that ``the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.'' Scoop was a believer in the primacy of ideas--big ideas. Over his 43 years in Congress, as faith in government whipsawed from New Deal optimism to Reagan-era mistrust, Scoop never yielded on government's progressive mission. This meant big dams as well as big parks. In the process, he would embrace causes that upset or delighted a variety of interests, but he didn't weathervane or rely on a swarm of consultants to navigate his way. Over time, Scoop became a politician and a statesman. Politicians measure their lives in getting re-elected. Statesmen measure their lives in getting things done. He managed both. When Scoop, a nickname given him by his sister in honor of a Tom Sawyer-ish cartoon-strip character, was born in Everett in 1912, Everett was barely 20 years old. Both of his parents had emigrated from Norway. Pieter Gresseth, who changed his name at Ellis Island, was born three years after the U.S. Civil War. Scoop's mom, Marine Anderson, was slightly older. For a time, along with Swedes and Germans, Norwegians were the vanguard of Washington's post-colonial settlers. The Norse were weaned and influenced by the Jante Law, a sense not that everyone is equal per se, just that no one is better than anyone else. Suck it up. Don't be a braggart and accept life on life's terms. My paternal grandparents were part of the great Norwegian diaspora which, unlike other ethnic dispersals, never quite made sense. There was no political or economic disaster to flee. My grandparents received the promotional brochures brandishing the American West, and they bit. They discovered a near-identical climate and a land that blended nature with labor. After a time, they happened upon Our Savior's Lutheran Church in Everett and the stolid Rev. Karl Norgaard, who conducted his sermons in Norwegian. For them, the Pacific Northwest was Norway, only more so. As a kid, I remember watching as my dad waved at ghost buildings downtown and conjured what stood before. He pointed to the pavement at Colby and Hewitt avenues and said that is where his father, a newly minted Everett cop still trying to master English, picked up drunks by the scruff of their work shirts and pitched them onto the back of a horse-drawn police wagon. Many of us play the ghost-building game today. We point to the veined marble that hems Union Bank and say, ``that's the old Friedlander's Jewelers.'' We point to the corner of Broadway and Hewitt and long for Sam's Western Wear. From the time he was a Herald paperboy to his 30 years in the U.S. Senate, Scoop demonstrated that in life each of us can enlarge or diminish our roles. But to diminish the public sphere is to commit an injustice, a sin of omission. Scoop was also a human being, and he'd laugh at any mattress-sale heroizing. Imagine an ordinary man who accomplished extraordinary things because of hard work, the vagaries of life, a supportive community, identifying good mentors, and marrying well. Of course, there were things that as a son I never told him. I never told him that I was proud that he put the kibosh on Norman Vincent Peale's anti-Catholic bigotry in 1960. I never told him that I was grateful for his sponsorship of the North Cascades and Redwoods National Park Acts. Like many of his elbow-throwing constituents, I was skilled at highlighting his real or perceived missteps. Decades from now, kids who stare vaguely (or end up pitching snowballs) at the newly unveiled Scoop bust at Grand Avenue Park don't need to know his name. Memories cloud and history falls away. All they need to know is here was a local kid, a child of immigrants, who worked hard, stayed true to his principles, and did his best to make his community and his country a better place. They can do the same.