Derek Kilmer

Mr. KILMER

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

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the EPA from enforcing its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule against farms, giving special interest to one industry. The EPA's spill rule is not based upon the type of facility or type of operations, but upon the storage of oil or petroleum products. If you store greater than 1,320 gallons and if a discharge from aboveground storage would reach waterways, you fall under these regulations and must develop and implement a spill prevention plan. Now, some large farm operations store up to 60,000 gallons of fuel in one location, and it is reckless to not require them to have some sort of spill response plan. EPA has already made efforts to accommodate farms and made compliance with the rule easier. The Agency amended its rule to provide a self- certification option for the facilities, including farms that store under 10,000 gallons of oil, thereby avoiding the expense of a professional engineer. EPA also provided a template for a spill control plan for farmers to use. Compliance with this rule is not difficult or costly. In fact, about 95 percent of farms subject to the rule are eligible to self-certify their spill prevention plans. This amendment could have devastating consequences and harmful impacts on our Nation's waterways. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow those that pollute the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's water quality standards. We finally have an administration that has made the Chesapeake Bay a priority by establishing mandatory water quality standards and providing financial assistance to help States, localities, and businesses actually meet the new standards. This amendment also would put the funding in this bill for the Chesapeake at risk. The Federal funding is tied to the requirements for results. So how long do you think the States and localities will meet their obligations that they agreed to this past December in an historic agreement if the Federal financial assistance goes away? If this amendment were to become law, it would block EPA's ability to enforce the court ordered settlement requiring the farm community and agri-business to meet watershed specific pollution limits. It would not, however, relieve the farms and agri-businesses from the requirements in this settlement. In the end, operators should be responsible for controlling the pollution that they dump into our rivers and streams across this country, both for the Chesapeake and elsewhere. The courts have already sided with the EPA on this matter. Again, I urge defeat of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, in closing, I will say a few things. One, our country has some extraordinary gems, and the Chesapeake Bay is one of them. This language, as was rightfully pointed out, was part of a bill last year, but that language was removed in conference. Part of the reason it was removed in conference is that this is part of a court-ordered settlement in which water quality standards were established, and financial assistance was tied to results. If this amendment were to pass, I think it would put in jeopardy that funding, and it would put in jeopardy one of our Nation's true gems. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit funding to implement, administer, or enforce the draft technical report, entitled, ``Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration,'' published by the EPA and by the USGS on March 1, 2016. This draft technical report is not a policy. It is not guidance. It is not a criteria document. It shows no advocacy. It doesn't require States to do anything. This technical document provides information to help States and tribes and territories and water resource managers and other stakeholders actually understand how water flows impact water quality, and it gives examples of what some States have chosen to do to address flow concerns. The EPA and the USGS collaborated to develop this report in response to State and EPA regional requests. The draft report had a 105-day comment period, which closed on June 17, 2016, and it received more than 100 submissions from Federal and State partners, watershed groups, mining and farming associations, and other highly engaged stakeholders. Now that the comment period has ended, the EPA and the USGS will consider the comments and revise the document and then publish a final document, which will serve as a source of technical information for States, tribes, territories, and other stakeholders. Why would we prohibit producing a resource document? The EPA is targeting the release date for the final publication as September 30, 2016, which is the end of fiscal year 2016, meaning the final report will supersede the prohibition on the draft technical report in the fiscal year 2017 bill. This draft technical document received extensive internal and external technical peer review by scientists with expertise in environmental flow. If the report is not finalized, States will not be able to benefit from critical scientific information or from the effective solutions shared by other States. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, again, I will just say in closing that this is a draft technical report that doesn't set policy, that doesn't set guidance, that doesn't have advocacy, that doesn't require States to do anything. This is a resource document, and I don't know why we would prohibit producing a resource document. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would impede the EPA's ability to regulate toxic air pollutants from glass manufacturers. EPA currently requires glass manufacturers to limit their air toxic emissions, which contain carcinogenic heavy metals like arsenic and lead. My good friend, Mr. Jenkins', amendment seeks to block these requirements from refined glass manufacturers that do not use continuous furnaces or that produce less than 50 tons of glass per year. I point out at the present time there are no Federal air toxic emission regulations that cover those types of glass facilities. So this amendment tries to fix a problem that doesn't really exist, and in the process, it would hamstring the EPA's ability to protect public health. Just this year, we saw that glass manufacturers who do not use a continuous furnace may also pose a significant health risk to neighboring communities in Oregon, just to the south of me. Air monitoring data showed that glass manufacturers using a batch process were emitting high levels of arsenic and chromium. The EPA has been investigating the situation to ensure that other communities are not exposed to these harmful contaminants. While these manufacturers are only a small portion of the market, reports have shown that these facilities can be alarmingly close to homes and even to schools, having serious implications for the health of nearby families and kids. We should be shielding these communities from these toxic air emissions instead of limiting the EPA's ability to take necessary action to protect public health, as this amendment would do. This amendment preempts regulation and carves out an exemption for one particular industry. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, in closing, I have seen much of this glasswork. It is really impressive. But, as impressed and grateful as I am for that artistry, I also care a lot about kids and making sure that they are not exposed to toxic air pollutants. With that, I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KILMER. I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because I support Davis-Bacon. Studies have shown that Davis-Bacon actually doesn't increase the cost to taxpayers, but what happens is that, if this amendment were to pass, you would see a reduction in wages. You would see an increase with these protections from Davis-Bacon being pulled away, an increase in on-the-job injuries. You would have fewer workers with health benefits. Davis-Bacon is about preventing wage exploitation. It is about preventing, undercutting local wages. I will tell you this. This is about ensuring that when the Federal Government builds a project with taxpayer money that it is not just about building a road or a bridge or a facility. It is about building the middle class, and it is about building the next generation of workers. It is about providing training and providing a good wage for people to be able to live and earn a good living and live with dignity.

Mr. KILMER

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, Friday is a big day in my neck of the woods. It is the day we are going to celebrate the 90th birthday of Hugh McMillan. Hugh is an absolute icon of our region and is the definition of a servant. He served our country in the military and in the intelligence community, and he served our community as the unofficial mayor of the Key Peninsula. That is evidenced through his service in the Lions Club, who each year puts on a Citizen of the Year ceremony to honor those who make the Key Peninsula a better and stronger place. In fact, he served the community so well, he was given the Service Above Self Award from the Gig Harbor Rotary Club. Having a group of Rotarians honor a Lions Club member is a big deal. Beyond that service to community, though, he is also a servant when it comes to our kids. He served on the board of the Communities In Schools group in the Peninsula School District and on the Peninsula Schools Education Foundation board. He writes a Kids' Corner column in the Peninsula Gateway. Anytime there is a kid in our neck of the woods doing something cool, Hugh McMillan is there with a camera to take their picture and make them feel special. I am just very grateful for all he does on behalf of kids and on behalf of our community and our country, and I am proud to call him a friend.

Mr. KILMER

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mike Grayum, who will retire this year after 11 years as the Executive Director of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) in Washington State. Mike is one of NWIFC's original employees and has served in various positions with the Commission since 1976. NWIFC is stronger, more unified, and better positioned to serve its member Tribes because of Mike's service and leadership. Born out of the Boldt Decision over 40 years ago, NWIFC has been a critical voice in natural resource policy at the local, state, and federal levels. Mike has played an integral role in developing that voice and crafting policies to support NWIFC's mission and help navigate often-challenging issues. In addition to assisting member Tribes in their resource management practices, Mike partnered with past NWIFC Chair Billy Frank Jr. and Current Chair Lorraine Loomis in educating elected officials, government agency staff, and the public at-large on Tribal Treaty Rights, including producing the vital document Treaty Rights at Risk. Mike has played an important role in protecting these sacred cultural practices and joined countless Tribal Leaders from around the region in highlighting their importance to past, present, and future generations. Mr. Speaker, for the past four decades, Mike Grayum has fiercely advocated for policies to protect our environment, restore natural habitat for salmon and other species, and recover Puget Sound. He has undoubtedly served as a mentor to younger staff at NWIFC and member Tribes and has helped grow the next generation of stewards of our environment and protectors of Tribal Treaty Rights. Thankfully, NWIFC is blessed to have Justin Parker continue that tradition and lead these efforts in the future as the next Executive Director. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Tribal Leaders, environmental advocates, local elected officials, and salmon lovers from throughout the Pacific Northwest in expressing my gratitude today in the United States Congress for Mike Grayum's 40 years of leadership and dedication. As the proud Representative of Washington's 6th Congressional District in the House of Representatives, I offer my best wishes for a happy retirement.

Mr. KILMER

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The DOD does a lot of construction projects--this bill is certainly a testament to that--and these are often complex projects. They build facilities that are used to repair ships or store munitions, and usually when we read about large, complex construction projects, it is often in the context of delays or cost overruns or concerns on the workforce front. Folks want to see local opportunities on local projects. Now, a project labor agreement allows Federal agencies to negotiate exclusively with the building trades to ensure both union and open shop contractors are able to participate on the project. The agreement establishes quality worksite conditions and works to ensure construction is finished on time and under budget. When executed properly, PLAs are flexible, and they encourage participation from a wide variety of prime and subcontractors. In fact, PLAs are used on big, private projects. Look at every significant hotel project, casino project, stadium project. I worked professionally in economic development before I came here. These project labor agreements were vital to seeing projects happen. Why? Because they save money and because they keep projects on schedule and because they use local workers. You have seen the first project labor agreement in Navy history in my district--just one, mind you. What is the outcome? Well, the project is going to be completed at a cost of $250 million below what was originally projected. With a contract that was worked out ahead of time, it meant that local workers were assigned on the front end. They brought in quality workers, local workers, and that strengthens our local communities. By partnering with local trades and using apprenticeship programs, this is helping to grow the next generation of tradespeople, giving opportunities to veterans and to women and minority communities. So it means that we are not just building a wharf in my district; it means we are building the next generation of workers. We are building the middle class. When you compare this with similar large, complex projects, the project that we just had with a project labor agreement had fewer problems and will deliver more value for taxpayers. So I do not understand why we would take this valuable tool out of our toolbox. We should be encouraging these efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KILMER

Mr. KILMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the NDAA is about ensuring that we have the best trained and equipped fighting force in the world. It is about honoring our commitment to the men and women who serve and to their families. It is not about targeting proud Americans simply based on who they love; but this rule would effectively discriminate against LGBT men and women who serve our Nation as private contractors. This rule runs contrary to our values. It runs contrary to what we believe in. It runs contrary to the idea that we treat everyone with equal respect. It also runs contrary to what the majority said it wants--a transparent process, allowing the House to work its will. This rule blocks an amendment that was offered by my Republican colleague, Charlie Dent, to strip this discriminatory provision from even being considered. As we approach Memorial Day, our focus should be on providing our servicemembers with the proper tools so that they may carry out their missions, not on pushing forward provisions that target LGBT Americans. Let's vote down this rule. Let's strip this harmful policy from the NDAA so that we remain committed to equal rights, and let's get back to debating how best to support our troops.

Mr. KILMER

Mr. KILMER. Madam Speaker, at times, something important comes out of tragedy. For the past 10 years, the Crystal Judson Family Justice Center in Tacoma has been an example of that. Lane Judson began the center to honor the tragic loss of his daughter to domestic violence. Domestic violence knows no race, no age, no gender, sexual orientation, or income status. It affects all of us every day right where we live. Our community stepped up to support this center, a place that projects our best values as a community. This is a place that fosters truth and seeks justice for those who deserve it. It is a place of empowerment with caring staff who change the trajectory of lives and of families. Centers like this deserve our continued support, whether it be with our time, our donations, or with our public investments. This matters. I applaud the Judsons for carrying the memory of their daughter with advocacy rather than with anger. As the dad of two daughters, I am grateful for all that the Crystal Judson Family Justice Center does. I thank them for their hard work and 10 impactful years. I am grateful to be their partner.

Mr. KILMER

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Ron & Mary Thomas, who this spring will complete their thirteenth and final year at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, WA. Dr. Thomas has served as the University's thirteenth President since 2003 and has left a historic mark on this already prestigious institution of higher education. The University of Puget Sound is a more diverse, inclusive, comprehensive, accessible, and transformational place because of their leadership. Thousands of students, faculty, staff, and community members have been positively impacted by their presence in this community. Prior to arriving at Puget Sound, Dr. Thomas served as a faculty member at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and Trinity College. His career in higher education is decorated with numerous recognitions for contributions in writing, student life, and institutional leadership. With the arrival of Ron and Mary Thomas to Tacoma in the summer of 2003, the University of Puget Sound began its historic growth and transformation. Mr. Speaker, for the past thirteen years, Dr. Thomas has led and overseen a renewal of the already beautiful University of Puget Sound campus. To complement the already stunning views of Mt. Rainier and towering Douglas fir trees, Dr. Thomas and his staff directed over $200 million in campus capital improvements. These projects include a new academic science complex, upgrades in residential facilities, and athletic and recreational centers to bolster student life. Thankfully, Dr. Thomas and his team ensured that these projects were encompassed into a thoughtful and comprehensive campus master plan. In addition to physical improvements on campus, Dr. Thomas and his wife Mary will forever be remembered in Tacoma for their dedication to the community and for successfully following through on their vision to connect the Puget Sound campus to the community that surrounds it. Since their arrival, Ron and Mary have been generous with their time and resources in supporting the civic and cultural institutions of Tacoma. Mr. Speaker, during his tenure at UPS, Dr. Thomas helped create the ``Tacoma Public Schools Commitment,'' which created a clear pathway for local students to attend this private, liberal-arts education at an affordable price. Given the community's diversity and challenges in paying for higher education, this initiative will help grow future generations of engaged and educated citizens of Tacoma. Mr. Speaker, I join the larger Tacoma communities in expressing my gratitude today in the United States Congress for Dr. Ron and Mary Thomas for their thirteen years of leadership and dedication. As the proud Representative for Tacoma, WA in the House of Representatives, I offer my best wishes on their future adventures together.

Mr. KILMER

Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and legacy of a friend, mentor, and dedicated public servant who changed the community of Bremerton for the better: Carol Arends. As the longest serving woman on Bremerton's City Council, Mrs. Arends guided Bremerton's downtown revitalization and was instrumental to breaking down barriers for women seeking local public office. Mrs. Arends' career path is a testament to her capabilities, innate knack for problem solving, and lifelong commitment to serving the public. Growing up in Tenino, Washington, Carol graduated second in her high school class and entered college to study business. She then embarked on a career at the Department of Natural Resources before relocating to Bremerton, Washington with her husband, John. Carol came to Bremerton ready to pull her sleeves up and get to work, and it wasn't long before she was an invaluable member of the community and serving the City of Bremerton on a number of advisory committees. Mrs. Arends' determination and vision for the city is ultimately what led to her recruitment in 1997 to run for Bremerton City Council. After her successful bid, Carol went on to serve four terms on the Bremerton City Council, including three years as council president. One doesn't have to look far to see the fruits of Mrs. Arends' labor. During her tenure as Councilmember, the City of Bremerton saw the approval of the Kitsap Conference Center, Harborside Fountain Park, a public safety bond, and a transit tunnel to better connect Washington State Ferries to our community. What Carol knew was that great leadership is the capacity to translate vision to reality. And with her guidance, she empowered us all to be part of that reality. Mr. Speaker, I have been encouraged by Mrs. Arends' leadership and I am honored to have considered her a partner and a friend. During good times and during her battle with illness, she was always there with a smile, a quip, and a desire to keep at it. Our community is stronger and more vibrant thanks to her thoughtful leadership and I am honored to recognize Carol Arends today in the United States Congress.