Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Today I rise in opposition to the amendment from the gentleman from Arizona. The Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project is a vital economic recovery tool for the City of Tacoma. The Tacoma area has an unemployment rate of 9 percent. In addition, the largest downtown employer has recently announced their plans to move. In response, the community came together and created a revitalization plan to redevelop the downtown corridor. The overall plan is estimated to create 500 new jobs and help transform the local economy. This plan has strong local support through partnerships with the Tacoma-Pierce County Economic Development Board, the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber of Commerce, the Executive Council for a Greater Tacoma, and the State of Washington. The local business community and other stakeholders have come out in favor of the project. The city is doing their part by investing approximately $35 million in local funds to implement the downtown revitalization plan. Federal investments serve as an important catalyst to allow the leveraging of public and private dollars. This specific funding will be used to develop complete streets, which will involve transitioning existing right-of-ways for multimobile use, including new bike paths, widening sidewalks, and installing medians along the city's main downtown corridor. Mr. Chairman, this is an important economic development project in my district, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask that the Members vote against it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the supplemental. The Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Hale, advises that the operation and maintenance accounts will begin to exhaust available obligation authority in early August. The Under Secretary has made it very clear that we have to get this funding enacted. The Senate bill includes $32.8 billion, $352 million below the President's request for operations, personnel costs, and equipment reconstitution related to overseas contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for emergency relief activities related to the earthquake relief. The bill includes funding in the following major categories: For military personnel, $1.8 billion; For operations and maintenance, the bill includes $24.6 billion; Also, for the Afghanistan-Iraq Security Forces Fund, the bill includes requested funds of $2.6 billion for the Afghan Forces Fund and $1 billion for the Iraq Security Readiness programs; The bill funds key readiness programs to prepare military forces for combat operations and other missions, including for OPTEMPO flying hours, steaming days, depot maintenance, training, spare parts, and base operations; Regarding troop expansion in Afghanistan, the bill fully funds additional units to support the troop expansion in Afghanistan; The bill provides $50 million for the Department of Defense to transfer to the Department of Transportation for port activities in Guam; It also reimburses $72.5 million to the Navy for emergency flood repairs; The bill includes $4.9 billion for procurement. This would include aircraft-vehicle force protection and other equipment; For research, development, test, and evaluation, the bill provides $273.7 million for R, D, T, and E, which is a few million below the President's request; Regarding the Revolving Management Fund, the bill would provide $1.1 billion for defense work and capital funds. It would also provide $33.4 million for the defense health program. The bill includes $94 million for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia; For the Joint Improvised Explosive Device, that money from JIEDDO would be transferred to the Army. I just think it is clear that we have got to pass this bill today, this supplemental, and get this behind us as we move on to the 2011 bill. As stated, the Secretary and the comptroller pointed out that, by mid-August, we will start running out of funds for key crucial accounts, and they will have to start making adjustments that will be ridiculous, so we must get this done today.

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. The purpose for this is just to discuss the situation. The Secretary of Defense and the comptroller have made it very clear that money for our troops in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq will start running out by August 7. So we have a responsibility to the men and women who are serving this country in harm's way--and we've seen the horrific injuries that these people have suffered--to make certain that they have the resources to conduct this operation until something different is the policy of the United States. I just hope that we can have a bipartisan vote here today of people who understand their responsibility and recognize that we've got to provide the funding. If we don't get the funding done today, Mr. Hoyer has already said we're not going home. We're going to stay here until we get this done. So I think this is a responsibility of this Congress. We have had months to work on this thing. And it's now time to get the job done. I hope that we can have bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle for this supplemental. It isn't the supplemental that I wanted. I had I think a much better bill. But the reality is time has run out. We've got to do it now.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also say we have appreciated the service of Bart Gordon as chairman of the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Ralph Hall for allowing this bill to come to the floor. I want to congratulate Mr. Ehlers, my colleague and cochair of the House Aerospace Caucus, on introducing this important resolution. I strongly support the goal of this legislation to call attention to the importance of the aerospace industry in our Nation. The aerospace sector provides our economy over 840,000 jobs and constitutes over $210 billion in annual sales and $78 billion in exports. It is a vital sector that we appreciate all the more when other significant segments of the economy are struggling. Because I come from the Puget Sound region in the State of Washington, it is hard not to have an awareness of the aerospace industry. In my home State, there are many companies developing and producing a wide range of aerospace products. But, of course, the dominant presence is Boeing. The Boeing company directly employs over 72,000 people in Washington State, and they draw on over 2,700 suppliers in the State while buying over $3.3 billion of goods and services per year. I want to note that just this past December 15, Boeing's 787 Dreamliner made its first flight. This revolutionary aircraft is the first major airliner to use composite materials throughout most of its structure, which will yield significant efficiencies, reductions in fuel consumption, and enhanced passenger comfort. Aerospace also is critical to our national defense. From my position as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am keenly aware of the role that aerospace plays for our national defense and our intelligence community. Our Nation relies heavily on technology to give us the military advantages that we enjoy over potential adversaries; and aerospace is an area where our technological advantage gives us unmatched capabilities and systems, such as air-to-air missiles, stealthy platforms, supersonic fighters, and satellites that can detect missile launch. In many cases, the technologies that are developed and used for our national security are unique because only the military has a use for it. However, I want to point out that it is also not unusual for military technologies to eventually have wide and dramatic benefits in our lives. One example is the Global Positioning System, GPS, first developed for military purposes, but now in use in a constantly expanding range of applications across the entire world. GPS now is a vital part of the safety and efficiency of the world's transportation systems, the productivity of our farms, the management of our resources, and the protection of our environment. In closing, I want to mention that despite our national successes in aerospace, there are a couple of issues that we must pay attention to if we are going to continue to have a thriving aerospace sector that contributes to our economy and our national defense. I continue to be concerned about the health of our overall industrial base. One example is our space launch industrial base. I also firmly believe that we must pay more attention to educating and inspiring the future generation of scientists, engineers, and technicians that will keep making important technical advances and producing state-of-the-art products. Dr. Ehlers mentioned the importance of education not only for our students, but at the universities in our country. Again, I want to thank Dr. Ehlers for introducing this resolution, and I want to thank him for his leadership on the Aerospace Caucus and for his friendship. We are going to miss him as well. I urge my colleagues to join us in recognizing the important contributions of the aerospace sector to our lives by voting for this resolution.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I had the great honor of serving in the other body for 8 years as an assistant to Senator Warren G. Magnuson. And during that time, Senator Byrd became the whip in the Senate. I can remember how he was faithfully writing notes every couple of days to Senator Magnuson, ``I put this in the Record for you.'' He was absolutely committed to the United States Senate, and he was a forceful advocate. I have served, as Chairman Obey has, in many conferences with Senator Byrd. And when there was something that he wanted--and oftentimes to protect the workers of West Virginia on coal mining issues--the Congress responded because he was such a forceful advocate. And one of the things I respected most about Senator Byrd was his knowledge of the history of the Senate, the history of the Congress, and his devotion to that history. He would oftentimes talk about historic events and tie them in to current days. You know, some people may have criticized him on spending issues, but he used to say, and I always used to quote him on this, the Congress can't give up the power of the purse because the power of the purse is in the Constitution; and it's part of the Constitution of the United States, a right that was earned in England when the people of England rose up against kings and demanded that Parliament have the power of deciding how the money was to be spent. And as has been said by many here, he served with many Presidents, but he was not cowed by the presidency, and he would stand up on the floor of the Senate many times and talk about different wars, different situations we were in, and demand that the Executive appreciate the power of the Congress and respect the power of the Congress. And he served--I think he was elected nine full terms. That's a record that I doubt will ever be matched. He also went to law school during his time in the Senate. Now, how many people could do that? I mean, it just was remarkable. And I think President Kennedy gave him his degree from American University just a few months before he was, unfortunately, tragically assassinated in Texas. But Robert Byrd is a legendary figure. In my time here in the Congress I had the great fortune of serving on the Appropriations Committee for 34 years. But I served with Senator Magnuson, who became chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd was there throughout that entire time and a lot more. And I just rise today in respect for him, his legacy, his commitment to the Congress. He had a wonderful family, and I'm sure that they're going to miss him. But they have, I think, the satisfaction of knowing that Robert Byrd did a great job, a fantastic job for the State of West Virginia, but also was a great Senator in a national perspective. And so I just want to say to my colleague and classmate from West Virginia, who I know served on Senator Byrd's staff, and it was a great learning experience that you had in the other body, as I did. And I think it helped to prepare us for work here in the House of Representatives. So I just would say again that we have lost a great American, a man of tremendous courage and commitment, and someone we respected, and his legacy and memory will live long in the history of the United States of America and in the Congress.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate very much the distinguished gentlelady yielding to me. I rise to urge passage of H.R. 1061, the Hoh Indian Tribe Safe Homelands Act, which I sponsored. The Hohs are one of eight tribes in the district I represent. This legislation is primarily for the safety of the Hoh Tribe to help them relocate out of a tsunami zone and floodplain. The legislation accomplishes this goal by transferring a small parcel of land in the Olympic National Park to the tribe. In addition, the legislation will place into trust this transferred park service land, along with other lands recently acquired by the tribe. There is a companion bill in the other body which is sponsored by Senator Murray and cosponsored by Senator Cantwell. The Hoh Tribe lives in an extraordinarily spectacular place on the Olympic Peninsula where the Hoh River empties into the Pacific Ocean. But with this spectacular beauty comes real danger. Throughout the year, the Hoh Tribe must deal with the threat of tsunamis. The Pacific Coast is an extremely active seismic zone. Every time there is an earthquake in the eastern Pacific area, the Hoh Tribe, along with other coastal tribes in Washington State, must be vigilant for a tsunami, which could prove devastating. In addition to the tsunami threat, the tribe must deal with severe flooding on a more or less annual basis during the winter storm season, which lasts far longer than the time period officially designated as winter. The tribe's dry lands on their already small reservation have shrunk over the years because the Hoh River and the Pacific Ocean are encroaching upon their lands. They have suffered through high floods that have destroyed homes, tribal buildings, and other tribal infrastructure. A few years ago, my office had to call the Washington State National Guard in order to help the tribe place sandbags during a flood emergency. Let me reiterate that all of the tribe's current reservation is located within a tsunami zone and nearly all of it within a floodplain. Sadly, it has become an unsafe place for the tribal members who live on the reservation. These threats preclude Federal agencies, including the BIA, FEMA, and HUD, from providing assistance due to the location within a flood-prone area. This clearly is an unacceptable situation for the tribe. In response, the Hoh Tribe has come up with its own plan on how to solve this problem, and I support it strongly. The tribe has purchased several parcels of land a short distance and upland from the current reservation that would be acceptable for housing, infrastructure, and other tribal projects. More importantly, this newly acquired land is away from the floodplain and tsunami zone. The State of Washington's Department of Natural Resources also has given the tribe a parcel of logged land in this same area. To add to the newly acquired property, this legislation would transfer to the tribe a 37-acre parcel of land currently part of Olympic National Park. This small parcel would make all of these lands contiguous to the existing reservation. In addition, the main road for the tribe runs through this parcel currently owned by the National Park Service. The tribe, Olympic National Park, and others within the park service have agreed to transfer the parcel to the tribe, with certain restrictions on development, including a prohibition on gaming. This is a mutually agreeable arrangement worked out by the tribe and the National Park Service. The transfer of this land to the Hoh Tribe is also of benefit to the Park Service. This land has been logged repeatedly and therefore is not considered to be high-value from an ecological point of view. The parcel in its current state also is difficult for the park service to manage because it is a small 37-acre sliver of land surrounded by non- Federal land. Another reason the land transfer is beneficial to the park service is that it further demonstrates how Olympic National Park is a good neighbor. Any of my colleagues who represent districts with Federal land know how important it is for these agencies to respect their non- Federal neighbors and to provide them benefit. The tribe has done a good job reaching out to its neighbors in the area and gaining support for this project. Local landowners, the Hoh River Trust, environmental organizations, and others support this legislation. Elected officials who support this legislation include Governor Gregoire, the local State representatives and senators, and the Jefferson County commissioners. So, clearly, it is time for the Congress to do its part and pass this legislation. We need to clear the way for Federal assistance from FEMA, BIA, HUD, and other Federal agencies in an area desperately in need of it. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings for shepherding this legislation through the process that brought us here to the House floor today. I also want to thank Janet Ericson who is the new staff director of the Office of Indian Affairs. And I would be remiss if I did not recognize the hard work on this bill by Janet's predecessor, Marie Howard. In closing, I want to commend the Hoh Tribe and tribal council, Chairwoman Maria Lopez, and Alexis Berry, the executive director, for their vision, their steadfastness of purpose, and their sustained effort to fix a serious problem. You have done a remarkable job of doing your part to solve the very difficult problem that you face. Now it is up to the House to pass this legislation so it can soon be signed into law. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me time today. This is an important issue in my district, and I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation that we have received on this bill.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want my friend from Alabama to recognize that nobody would have objected to him getting additional time. The biggest point here is that Airbus received $5.7 billion in subsidy from the governments of Europe. This gives it an unfair advantage in the bidding on this airplane, and that's why we want the Secretary of Defense to at least take that into account. The WTO has already determined that this was an illegal subsidy that harmed the United States of America and has cost us thousands of jobs. We must pass this amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I wanted to discuss a change that was made this year in the appropriations process, and I just want to read it into the Record to correct something that was said previously. ``Each congressionally directed spending item specified in this Act''--this is the defense bill--``or the explanatory statement regarding this Act that is also identified in Senate report 111-74 and intended for award to a for-profit entity shall be subject to acquisition regulations for full and open competition on the same basis as each spending item intended for a for-profit entity that is contained in the budget request of the President. ``Exceptions: Subsection (a) shall not apply to any contract awarded, (1), by a means that is required by Federal statute, including for a purchase made under a mandated preferential program; (2), pursuant to the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.); or (3), in an amount less than the simplified acquisition threshold described in section 302A(a) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 252a(a)). ``Any congressionally directed spending item specified in this Act or the explanatory statement regarding this Act that is intended for award to a for-profit entity and is not covered by the competition requirement specified in subsection (a), shall be awarded under full and open competition, except that any contract previously awarded under full and open competition that remains in effect during fiscal year 2010 shall be considered to have satisfied the conditions of full and open competition. ``In this section, the term `congressionally directed spending item' means the following: ``A congressionally directed spending item, as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate; a congressional earmark for purposes of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.''

Mr. DICKS. I think this clarifies the statement that was made previously by the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. DICKS. Again I want to just say this is an initiative that Mr. Obey put into place this year. This is the first year we've had this initiative. And what it says is that if an earmark is directed to a for-profit company, there must be full and open competition. This was extended to the United States Senate as well. So, again, the gentleman from Arizona misleads the House of Representatives on a very important and a very sensitive matter. There ought to be competition on these things, and I thought the gentleman would recognize how important it was and compliment Mr. Obey for his initiative, but I don't hear that.

Mr. DICKS. It is my understanding that the language that came out of conference applies both to the House and Senate earmarks for for-profit companies requiring competition. There are some little variations because of Section 8(a) and other restrictions that the Senate still claims that should be followed, but this is a major step forward, and I think Mr. Obey deserves great credit for this. So I just want to clear this up, that on district directed for-profit companies there is full and open competition.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I think the gentleman is trying to confuse himself. Clearly what we're talking about here is that there has been a decision to have full and open competitions. The gentleman has been an advocate for that. It doesn't matter how it's written in. The law says ``full and open competition.'' So please don't try to confuse yourself and the House and the American people. This is a reform that you've been advocating for. You ought to be saying thank you for doing it, and it's the right thing to do. But you'd rather have the issue than to resolve something.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I want to inform my colleagues today that out in the great State of Washington, in Rick Larsen's district, today the first 787 Dreamliner did its first successful flight. This is one of the great airplanes built in the United States by the Boeing Company. I want you to know it was built without any launch aid. Not like the A330 that received $5.7 billion in launch aid, this plane was built the old-fashioned way: Boeing put the money in the pot and built the plane, and it flew today. As we get into the discussion on tankers later this year, I just want to remind everybody that the A330 received $5.7 billion in subsidy. I think it's wrong. I think we need to go back to the World Trade Organization and make sure that they follow through and make sure that the Europeans stop subsidizing all these Airbus aircraft. Boeing is a great company in the Pacific Northwest. I'm proud of the 787. There are over 900 orders. And it's a great airplane.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, America's workers and America's industries have never shied away from competition. Our readiness to compete is a part of who we are. It is a driver that has been fundamental to our Nation's success. However, competition must be fair if it is to serve us well. This evening, I rise to draw attention to a fundamentally unfair competition that our Department of Defense seems intent on pursuing: the competition for the Air Force's KC-X tanker program. One of the proposals for this solicitation will be based on an Airbus A330 aircraft. This aircraft received $5.7 billion in government subsidies that the World Trade Organization has ruled to be in violation of the rules that the WTO nations have agreed to. In total, Airbus platforms have received over $15 billion that the WTO has found to be illegal, agreeing with the complaint filed by the U.S. Government in 2004. These subsidies have contributed to a 40 percent decline in U.S. market share for commercial aircraft and the loss of thousands of jobs. Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas are no longer in the business. In spite of this record, the Department of Defense stubbornly refuses to include any provision in the tanker solicitation that accounts for these subsidies. This simply isn't right.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I come before the House to note the death of a leader in the civil aviation industry and a man familiar to many here in Congress. Mr. Ed Stimpson, who served as president of General Aviation Manufacturers Association for 19 years, died at his home on November 25 in Boise, Idaho. Many of us in this Chamber recall that he was the driving force behind the General Aviation Revitalization Act which altered the liability of small aircraft manufacturers and led to a reinvigoration of the small aircraft industry in the United States. After he retired from direct leadership of the association, he took on a new project, the ``Be a Pilot'' campaign that was designed to increase the population of student pilots in the United States. It was a great success, not only in enlarging the number of citizens capable of flying live aircraft, but also in providing a technological boost to the manufacturing industry that resulted in the design and construction of new and safer aircraft. Later, he was named by President Bill Clinton to the International Civil Aviation Organization, a Montreal-based group that promotes safe aviation around the world. He served in that post with the rank of ambassador through 2004, and he was one of three ambassadors to be reappointed by President George W. Bush. His reappointment was indicative of the bipartisan approach he brought to all of his endeavors. Ed Stimpson was also a recipient of the Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy for Lifetime Achievement. He was a great leader, a great friend of many of us, and he will be missed. I would like to insert a personal reflection that was published in Seattle last week by a long-time friend of Ed's, Mr. Ted Van Dyk. Our Good Friend, Ed Stimpson (By Ted Van Dyk) Ed Stimpson, a longtime leader in the civil-aviation industry, died this past Wednesday in Boise. His obituary, distributed via Associated Press from Boise and picked up by other media, was maddeningly unsatisfying. It listed his achievements as a U.S. ambassador, head of national civil- aviation bodies, and leader of a general-aviation trade association. But it gave no sense of his wonderful qualities as a human being and of his meaningful civic and political involvements. Born in Bellingham exactly one month before I was, Ed Stimpson was the son of a beloved physician and the oldest of seven children. The hospital where both of us were born is now named after his father. We grew up in hard times and shared a firm commitment to the Democratic Party and its agenda of the time. The president of our high school Democratic Club was Sterling Munro, who later would serve as Sen. Henry (Scoop) Jackson's principal assistant. In 1962, when I was being released from a recall to military service, a chance street-corner meeting with Ed led to my being hired by the then-European Communities (the present European Union). He was at that time representing the Seattle World's Fair in Washington, D.C. At the fair he met Dorothy Sortor, a Century 21 public-affairs officer, and later married her. They were brought together, I always thought, by Eddie Carlson, the driving force behind the fair and a lifetime friend and sponsor of many of us who were coming up at the time. Later Ed went on to executive positions in government, in aviation, and in business. While an officer of Morrison- Knudsen, he and his wife Dottie bought a home in Boise which was their home base thereafter. Ed and Dottie also helped transform Boise from a conservative political bastion into the state's Democratic stronghold. In 1972, when Jackson had no chance of nomination, they campaigned hard for his presidential candidacy. Later, when House Speaker Tom Foley's reelection was threatened, they dropped everything and moved to Spokane to help in what turned out to be a losing effort. Ed's and Dottie's strongest and longest friends have included Rep. Norm Dicks and his family, former Jackson chief of staff Denny Miller, and former Warren Magnuson chief of staff Jerry Grinstein. He and Dottie kept a photo album of their outings with the Dicks family. (Other local friends include two members of the Crosscut family, Peter Jackson, son of Scoop, and Gene Carlson, son of Eddie Carlson). Beyond politics, aviation, and the business world, Ed Stimpson had an army of friends and admirers who had met him at various intersections along the way. When he was diagnosed with lung cancer several months ago (Ed had never smoked), e-mails began flowing in great number among friends from all his lives. I called Ed when I got the news. He had found himself short of breath while walking through the Denver airport and had gone to his doctor for what he thought would be a routine checkup. Later, the lung cancer spread to his brain. As my own good luck would have it, I spent last Saturday with Ed and Dottie at St. Luke's hospital in Boise. He was heavily medicated. He argued unsuccessfully with his nurses that he be allowed to dress and ``have lunch and conversation at a more suitable place'' than at his hospital bed. Characteristically, he talked not about himself or his illness but about current public issues, his involvement in an aviation-industry study, and his pride in his part in strengthening the Idaho Democratic Party. Denny Miller visited a day later. Then Ed was sent home to hospice care. He passed almost immediately--spared, as it turned out, from a long ordeal for him and for Dottie which might have followed. E-mails have flowed from the Stimpson network since his passing. That is because he was held in such love and respect by all whose lives he had touched. Over his lifetime he was never known to speak cruelly or harshly about another person. He preferred instead to make his own positive contributions wherever he could. His integrity shone. He was the archtype ``other-oriented'' person, always seeking to help other people and causes, never to advance himself. He was a good and rare human being.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I introduced this resolution, H. Con. Res. 129, to recognize the achievements of the U.S. Submarine Force for the completion of the 1,000th Trident strategic deterrent patrol earlier this year. It is fitting that we take a moment to recall the sacrifices made by these submariners and their families to defend our freedoms and protect our way of life. For over 27 years, Ohio-class ballistic missile means, or SSBNs, have been our most survivable form of deterrence. As a result of the commitment to excellence by everyone associated with the SSBN program, our strategic missile submarines have always been ready and vigilant, reassuring our allies and deterring those who might seek to do us harm. Our ballistic missile submarines provided essential deterrence during the Cold War, and their contributions will forever be a part of our Nation's history. Today, these elite submarines remain on the front lines of freedom. Through their silent patrols, they will preserve peace for many years to come. The success of the Trident program and the protection it continues to provide is a result of the sacrifices of a broad array of organizations and individuals: the submarine industrial base, which provides the advanced technologies and highest quality equipment for these ships; the maintenance facilities and their technicians and engineers who work to a demanding timeline and under difficult constraints to keep these boats ready for sea; the submarine training facilities which ensure that our sailors are trained and ready to perform their missions under any circumstances; and not least, the sailors and their families who dedicate their lives to supporting our Nation. Their sacrifice year after year is a large part of our Nation's greatness. Because I come from the Puget Sound region in the State of Washington, I have had the opportunity to watch the successes of the Trident submarine program from its inception. Back in 1972, the Navy decided that the Puget Sound would be the west coast home port for its newest class of strategic missile submarine, the Ohio-class submarines, the Ohio-class SSBN. In August 1982, the lead ship, USS Ohio, arrived on the Bangor waterfront to start her operational life. Ohio was followed by seven more Trident boats, each taking up its responsibilities in this strategic defense of our Nation. Of the original 18 Trident SSBNs in the U.S. inventory, eight now call the Puget Sound their home and continue their crucial strategic deterrent role. Additionally, after 24 years in operation, the first four SSBNs-- Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia--have been converted into cruise missile submarines. Two of these platforms, Ohio and Michigan, continue their service from the Bangor submarine base in this new role. The remaining six Ohio-class SSBNs and two cruise missile submarines carry out their essential duties from the naval submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. It is truly fitting that we recognize the achievements of our Trident submariners and their families over the past 27 years. We look to them to continue to build upon their legacy of excellent service to the United States in the years ahead. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Kissell, Mr. Wittman, who have joined me in supporting this resolution; and I urge all of my colleagues to support it with their votes. I would just add one thing: this is such an important program--and I have been on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for 31 years--that we are now starting a follow-on to the Trident submarine program. And I can remember when we had great debates here in the House on whether we should do a B-2 bomber and whether we should have an MX missile. The one thing that we always understood is that the most survivable element of our strategic triad were these Trident submarines, and I commend Admiral Rickover and all of those who followed him for the great work that they did in inspiring these concepts, and it has been of great value to our country. So I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina yielding to me, and I appreciate you bringing this resolution to the floor. And I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Thank you.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, following the tragic shooting that took the lives of four police officers in Lakewood, Washington, early Sunday morning, I strongly believe it is appropriate for the House of Representatives to observe a moment of silence in the Chamber today. These four officers, Mark Renninger, Ronald Owens, Tina Griswold, and Greg Richards, were preparing to start their shift last Sunday morning when they were brutally murdered by an assailant who has now died as police were attempting to apprehend him. These were dedicated and hardworking members of the city of Lakewood police force in my district. They were senselessly murdered, presumably at random, by a deranged killer, and they each left families and children who deserve our deepest sympathy. This is a somber moment, Mr. Speaker, and I know my Washington State colleague, Congressman Dave Reichert, a former sheriff who spent more than 30 years in law enforcement, understands the human impact of this tragedy and knows the risk that law enforcement officers face each and every day in assuring that all of us are safe in our homes and in our communities. I yield to Congressman Reichert.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned about the Air Force's approach to acquiring the next generation of air refueling tankers because the draft RFP the Air Force has published has ignored an important element in the competition. The U.S. Government in 2004 filed a complaint with the WTO that European governments had illegally subsidized EADS/Airbus in the development of commercial aircraft, allowing Airbus to steal market share and U.S. aerospace jobs. Now the WTO panel reviewing the matter has rendered an interim decision that these subsidies were improper and caused adverse effects to the interests of the United States. Now the Airbus/Northrop Grumman team wants to use the A-330 platform, which received $5.7 billion in direct launch aid subsidy, as the airframe for the Air Force's refueling tanker. In soliciting bidders for the tanker, we simply must insist that the Department of Defense/ Air Force take into account the illegal launch subsidy, without which the A-330 might never have been built.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, we have reached a pivotal moment in the House of Representatives today as we are about to approve the most significant expansion of access to health care in America in at least a generation. And the bill we are about to approve also represents the most substantial improvement of the quality of health care in our country that has been passed in the entire time I have been in Congress. I am proud to support this long-overdue and aptly-named legislation, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I am particularly pleased that we have come to an agreement within this bill on a provision that I believe will lead to a dramatic improvement in the way we pay for health care for America's seniors under Medicare. Under the current Medicare payment system, providers are reimbursed on a ``fee-for-service'' system that encourages more procedures and office visits. One of the most encouraging aspects of H.R. 3962 is language that will help shift Medicare to a system that is more efficient and that encourages better coordination of health care for seniors. Medicare's complex reimbursement formula has long punished doctors for providing more cost effective, quality health care. It is truly unfair under our current system that Medicare spends $7,363 per enrollee in a city in my district--Tacoma, Washington--while it spends twice that amount, $14,946, in the small Texas town of McAllen. These differences are largely due to discretionary decisions by physicians that are influenced by the local availability of hospital beds, imaging centers and other resources--and a payment system that rewards growth and more intense use of medical facilities and testing. But this focus on utilization is not only inherently more costly, it tends to ignore the health care outcomes, which should really be the goal of any system of care. And it exacerbates the problem we are already facing with Medicare: out-of-control growth rates. At current trajectory, Medicare will be $660 billion in the red by 2023, highlighting the urgent need to find ways to trim this growth rate. If we could reduce the annual growth in per capita Medicare spending from the national average--3.5 percent--to 2.4 percent, the rate in San Francisco, Medicare could save $1.42 trillion over that period and turn the deficit into a healthy surplus. So in order to help move us toward this goal and produce a more equitable system of reimbursement, I was pleased to work with a number of concerned Members here in Congress on language in this bill that will enlist the resources of the independent, non-profit Institute of Medicine to examine the existing Medicare geographic payment inequities for both physician and hospital payments and to address the inequities that are clearly contained in our current system. We are also investing $4 billion per year in 2012 and 2013 to make payment rate adjustments so that no geographic area will be disadvantaged during 2012 and 2013. I am also pleased that a related provision of this bill calls for an additional study by the Institute of Medicine to conceptualize a system of Medicare payments based on quality outcomes versus the current system of ``fee-for-service.'' This ``High-Value Study'' will be completed by April 15, 2011 and the Institute's recommendations will be submitted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who will then have 240 days to submit a final implementation plan to Congress. This plan will take effect unless Congress passes a resolution of disapproval by the end of May 2012. These are very important reforms that I believe will help ensure the solvency of Medicare and promote a more equitable system of health care for seniors that stresses results over process. They are among the many aspects of this overall health care reform package that deserve our support, and I am proud to be speaking today to recognize these provisions and to urge all my colleagues to pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2009. One of the iconic physical features of my home state is Puget Sound. It is a keystone of our identity in Washington State. In a region known for its beauty, Puget Sound is beyond comparison. But the postcard image of Puget Sound belies the fact that it is in decline. Over the last 20 years we have seen increasing signs that water quality is deteriorating. We are experiencing low-oxygen zones in a growing number of areas within Puget Sound. Many of our most cherished aquatic species are in trouble with salmon and Orcas listed under the Endangered Species Act. At this point, nearly three-quarters of our original estuaries and wetlands are gone. And as a toxic remnant of its more industrialized past, the bottom of the Sound has many thousands of acres of extreme contamination. Even with this decline, the Sound remains a natural wonder, and my legislation will provide an increased Federal role to reverse the deterioration. Its 2,800 square miles of inland marine waters makes Puget Sound the Nation's second largest estuary after Chesapeake Bay. There is a strong marine and natural resource industry. The bounty of the Sound includes several hundred fish species, plentiful shellfish and shrimp, 25 different marine mammals and 100 different species of sea birds. Several years ago, the State of Washington led by Governor Gregoire recognized the dire condition of Puget Sound. In response, the Puget Sound Partnership was set up to lead the state effort to restore the Sound. The Partnership developed the Puget Sound Action Agenda which was recently approved by the EPA as the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan. This Action Agenda will serve as the blueprint that local and state government, Tribes, and federal agencies will follow in this cooperative effort to restore Puget Sound. In tandem with these efforts occurring in Washington State, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee which I chair has approved increasing amounts of funding for Puget Sound in the annual EPA budget. For FY 2010, I am proud that the EPA budget contains $50 million for Puget Sound. President Obama signed this spending bill into law on October 30th. The Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2009 sets up an EPA office in Washington State to coordinate the federal effort to implement the Action Agenda. The other Federal agencies that are involved in the cleanup include the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service within the Department of Agriculture, the United States Geological Survey, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security and Transportation. In addition, this bill authorizes grants to study the causes of the Sound's declining water quality and ways to counter these threats, as well as grants for sewer and stormwater discharge projects. I am pleased that the 6 Washington State Delegation Members whose districts surround the Puget Sound are original cosponsors of this legislation. Madam Speaker, the Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2009 is an important step to authorize the federal role in the cleanup of this important water body.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. First of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida for his extraordinary summary of this legislation. I have been on this subcommittee for 33 years. It's the only subcommittee that I've been on and for which I've served throughout my entire career in the House, and I want him to know that we have not forgotten the great State of Florida in this legislation. Madam Speaker, we have funded major restoration projects. One is the Great Lakes, where the President requested $475 million. There's $475 million in this bill for Great Lakes restoration. One of the other major projects is the Everglades. We're working hard to restore the Everglades--I think this is a national treasure--the Sea of Grass--and all of those wildlife species in Florida which need to be protected. There is the Chesapeake Bay restoration. The administration has put a new EPA official in charge there. They're taking more dramatic steps in the Great Lakes. Also, for the first time, we're recognizing that there are some great national treasures on the west coast--Puget Sound and Hood Canal where I come from. The Pacific Ocean has difficulties and problems related to ocean acidification and climate change, and it has other difficulties due to dissolved oxygen. We have a major restoration project going for Puget Sound. The San Francisco Bay is also another national asset that we need to protect. So all of these major environmental concerns, these five major restoration initiatives, are critical in our bill. I also want to tell my colleagues that I've served on this committee for 33 years. I served on this committee with Congressman Yates from Illinois. I believe this is the best Interior Appropriations bill we've ever passed. Now, I know my good friend from California mentioned the fact that there was a 17 percent increase this year in this bill. Let me explain why that was necessary. First of all, between 2001 and 2008, the Interior Appropriations bill--this was, by the way, during the previous administration--was cut by 16 percent. So, when you add 17 percent, it's a 1 percent increase. That's not very much. When you divide that over 9 years, it's just a fraction. The other thing I'd point out is that the EPA budget over that same time frame of 2001-2008 was cut by 29 percent. This is the most important environmental agency we have, and their budget had been drastically cut. There was a cut of the Forest Service, if you take fire out, of 35 percent. This appropriations bill had been hammered, and funding for our Native Americans had been particularly hard hit. So I felt this was a restoration budget by the Obama administration. This is their first budget on Interior, and I think it was justified in every sense of the word. Let me go through some of the major items which are so important to the American people. First of all, the Environmental Protection Agency: $10.3 billion, $2.7 billion above 2009, to restore and protect the quality of our Nation's air, water and land. I want to mention the clean water and wastewater treatment plants, the so-called revolving funds. We had $3.6 billion to help nearly 1,500 communities improve their drinking water and wastewater systems, an increase of $2 billion above 2009. EPA estimates, listen to this, a $662 billion construction backlog by 2019 for clean and safe drinking water infrastructure. Between our clean water and safe water infrastructure, if you took that and all of our highway projects, you would have well over $1 trillion in backlog. So infrastructure in America needs to be fixed. This $662 billion figure came from Christine Todd Whitman, the first EPA Administrator during the Bush administration. So this is a number that I don't think anyone can challenge. Now, on this important infrastructure money, $2.1 billion is for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to fund local sewer improvements and help communities meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. $1.38 billion for the Local Water State Revolving Fund to protect public health by improving drinking water systems. It has been proven that one of the most important steps in protecting the health of the American people and people around the world is having safe drinking water. This is a 99.9 percent issue with the American people. They care about safe drinking water, and this revolving fund gives money back to the States and the States then loan it out. $157 million for direct grants to States for clean drinking water. That is way too low. I am talking with Mr. Oberstar about this. We need to have more grant money to help rural communities, local communities, who can't afford to borrow the money. Now, we put a provision in this bill this year that 30 percent of it can be forgiven. That has never been in there until the stimulus package came through. This is critical to rural areas throughout the country so that it can be more of a grant program. I talked to my good friend, Bill Ruckelshaus, a good Republican from Indiana, twice former Administrator of EPA. He also stood up during the Saturday night massacre and refused to fire Archibald Cox, to his great credit. He is now living in Washington State. He reminds me that during the Nixon administration, we had $4 billion to $5 billion in grant money to go out to the local communities on an 80-20 basis. Now, think about that. That was in the 1970s, $4 billion to $5 billion. That has been taken away, and now we have just a tiny amount of grants and everything else is loans. If we are going to really do something about this infrastructure issue, we have got to deal with that. I mentioned the great bodies of water. That is something I am very proud of, especially the effort on Puget Sound. Hazardous waste and toxic site cleanup, $1.5 billion, $25 million above 2009, to clean up dangerous toxic waste sites around the Nation. Climate change, one of the most important issues of our time, $385 million, $155 million above 2009, for programs that address global climate change. We have all heard about the Energy Star program, and now we have a program that we helped create for local communities to have their own climate change program; $17 million to continue development of a greenhouse gas registry, the first step in controlling greenhouse gases; $55 million for the Interior Department's on-the-ground monitoring and adaptation to climate change impact in national parks, national wildlife refuges, and other public lands. There is no question in my mind that climate change is occurring. We have had hearings and we brought in the Federal agencies, including people from Florida, who are very concerned about the impact of global warming. Global warming could be devastating to the Everglades and to the State of Florida. If the seas rise, because they have so many low level areas there, they would be adversely affected. So this is a serious issue that has to be confronted. We also created a National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center at the U.S. Geological Survey, and we are working together with the administration on that issue. Most importantly, our trust responsibility for Native Americans and Alaska Native programs, $6.7 billion, $705.7 million above 2009 and $91 million above the request, for programs to support and improve health care, education, public safety, and human services for Native Americans and Alaskan Natives throughout our Nation. On the Indian Health Service, a program that has been underfunded for many, many years, $4.1 billion, $17.8 million above the request and $471.3 million above 2009, to support both Federal and tribally operated national health care programs and facilities. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, $2.6 billion--$2.3 million above 2009 and $82 million above the request--for education, law enforcement, and economic development programs that will strengthen native communities. I brought back the hearing where we allow the Native Americans to come in and testify, which was ended under the previous regime. We put that back in place so we can hear of the concerns out there. There are very serious problems in Indian country, none more serious than the law enforcement difficulties there, including the fact that Native American women are more often the victims of rape and other violent crimes and there is only a 1-year penalty under our Federal court system. This is intolerable. We have to change this, and this is something we are working on. I know this is something my friend from California is concerned about, $3.5 billion for efforts to prevent and fight wildfires at the Forest Service and the Department of Interior. We know the people of California have suffered some terrible fires out there, and I know that Mr. Dreier and Mr. Lewis have been very concerned about that. There is $1.855 billion for wildfire suppression, $526 million above 2009. We got the FLAME Act created. We actually did the work in our conference committee with the Senate. We think this is a great FLAME Act that will give us extra money when we overrun our accounts. This is so important, because in the past money would be taken from the Forest Service accounts, from the Interior accounts, and they would never get that money paid back, in most instances. So this FLAME Act will give us a second account to help when we have these major fires. I want to point out, as my ranking member pointed out yesterday in the Rules Committee, 98 percent of the fires are stopped: 98 percent. But the 2 percent, the mega-fires that get underway, do this enormous damage to our national parks, to our Forest Service lands, to our BLM lands, and we need very serious funding to help that. The parks are better off, wildlife refuges are better off, the endowments for the arts and humanities are better off.