Floor Statements

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

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

I object to the suspending of the reading.

I move to strike the last word.

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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

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.

It will be very brief.

The Office of General Counsel of the Department of Defense says about the gentleman's amendment:

If enacted, the attached provision would prohibit the

Department from soliciting bids for FY13-funded construction

contracts where, as a mandatory condition of award, the

awardee must negotiate a project labor agreement with one or

more labor organizations for the term of the resulting

construction contract.

That means they can't do it.

That's not what they think. They think that if your language does what I think you----

Well, that's not how they interpret it.

If it's neutral, what does it do then?

Well, what does it do then?

Will the gentleman yield just briefly on that point?

Just briefly, the President doesn't require that they use a project labor agreement. He just suggests that they might be able to use it. That's pretty neutral.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Let's get back to some facts here. Under the CRS report that was referenced earlier, the National Labor Relations Act, as we know, gives most private sector workers the right to join or form a labor union and to bargain collectively.

A project labor agreement is a collective bargaining agreement that applies to a specific construction project and lasts only for the duration of that project. In February 2009, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that encourages Federal Agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements on large-scale construction projects.

The EO describes a large-scale project as one where the total cost to the Federal Government is $25 million or more. The order States that Agencies are not required to use project labor agreements. Regulations implementing the executive order went into effect in May 2010.

Now, if that isn't neutrality, what is neutrality? I think this is a big to-do about nothing.

I mean, this amendment is not necessary. The President didn't mandate anybody to do anything. The Agencies decide if it is in the interests of the government to do this in a particular case. This administration has hardly done any project labor agreements as far as my understanding is, at least with the Department of Defense.

Again, I don't quite understand all of this concern, especially when nonunion contractors can be part of the agreement. They can bid, they can be part of the agreement as long as they will abide by the law, but with the prevailing wage agreements or things of that nature.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

There is no evidence of that.

Tell me who's done project labor agreements?

That's not what it says. That's not what the President's statement says.

Reclaiming my time, I would just point out that the Department of Defense thinks the gentleman from Arizona's language is prohibitive, that it doesn't give them any leeway, that they must not do a project labor agreement.

May I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), the author of the amendment, if he would like to make any further comments here.

The best and safest thing to do is to defeat the Flake amendment. That's kind of a standard. That's the surest way of protecting the executive order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to join in supporting this amendment and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his hard work on this effort. I hope we can adopt this amendment unanimously. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Which amendment is before the House?

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The Poe amendment states none of the funds made available by this act may be used for a director of a national cemetery who, after the date that is 180 days, whatever date, however he rephrased it.

According to the VA, compliance with this provision would be extremely disruptive to the NCA operations by requiring 20 percent of VA national cemetery directors to lose their current jobs for no other reason than that they are not a veteran. That is unfair.

The gentleman may have a grievance about one funeral director, but you can't take this out on the rest of these people who are doing a good job. So I would hope that we would defeat this ill-considered amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

As I understand it--will the gentleman yield?

Is it none of the funds made available by this act may be used to hire a new director of a national cemetery who is not a veteran?

Thank you for clarifying that.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just clear up a couple of things, especially what the gentleman from Texas just had to say.

This may be something that will be hard for him to believe, but this is, as I understand it, from the Labor Department. A Davis-Bacon wage usually is not a union wage. The Davis-Bacon prevailing wage is based upon surveys of wages and benefits actually paid to various job classifications of construction workers--an example is iron workers--in the community without regard to union membership.

According to the Department of Labor, a whopping 72 percent of the prevailing wage rates issued in 2000 were based upon nonunion wage rates. A union wage prevails only if the DOL survey determines that the local wages are paid to more than 50 percent of the workers in the job classification. So 72 percent of these prevailing wages are nonunion. I'm sure the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arizona are thrilled to hear that. Sometimes the facts are revealing.

Again, we've defeated this amendment over and over and over again. Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to defeat the Franks amendment this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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.

I rise in strong opposition to the Markey amendment. I know my friend is trying to be humorous, but this is a very serious subject.

I was one of the leaders who worked to do the B 2 bomber. That took us between 15 and 20 years. Now, the reason we're starting is we've got to pull this technology together and try to do this for less money. And we need a long-range, modern, penetrating bomber with conventional weapons.

The nuclear weapon isn't the priority to me. It's the smart, conventional weapons that give us an enormous capability.

Let's vote ``no'' on the ill-conceived Markey amendment. And if he wants to look at something, tell him to look at land-based missiles.

Madam Speaker, I believe every Member of the House supports the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. However, I oppose the bill we are considering today because it contains serious gaps in its protections for Native American victims of domestic violence and it does not include language to ban discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered victims in grant programs under the bill.

The bill fails to grant the tribal police and courts, generally the closest legal authorities for an alleged incident of domestic violence occurring on a reservation, the authority to address an incident occurring on tribal lands. Instead, tribal residents in my district would be forced to rely on Federal courts, located several hours away in Tacoma and Seattle, for help and protection. This puts a terrible and potentially dangerous burden on Indian victims in need of a protection order, many of whom do not have the means to travel this distance. Furthermore, the requirement forcing a victim to disclose her residential address called for in Section 1006 of the bill may well put her in further jeopardy.

I am also deeply concerned about the bill's refusal to prohibit discrimination against LGBT individuals in all VAWA programs. No victim of violence of any kind should be denied assistance simply because his or her sexual orientation. It is wrong that the bill further perpetuates this inequity, and I fear the reasons are purely political.

The answer to this problem is simple. A bipartisan compromise reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act passed the other body with 68 votes in favor, including 15 Republicans. It resolved these issues in a way that was acceptable to both sides, and I encourage the leadership in the House to allow this bill to come to the floor for a vote immediately.

I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed bill and to push for the consideration of a truly bipartisan reauthorization bill before the week is out.

I thank my friend for yielding to me.

I want to associate myself with Mr. Campbell's very accurate comments.

Let me begin by extending my deepest thanks to one of my best friends, the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, for his tireless efforts to reach an agreement with the majority on this bill. And I also appreciate the work of the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, on this bill. Without their personal commitment, time, and effort to this bill, I do not believe that we would be here today to pass this important legislation, which would have been an absolute disaster for the economy of the United States.

I have been a supporter of the Export-Import Bank since I arrived in Congress in 1977.

Simply put, the Ex-Im Bank supports the sale of American-made products overseas when private financing is not available. According to the Ex-Im Bank's 2011 annual report, the bank supported $32.7 billion in exports last year and over 288,000 American jobs. Many of these jobs are in the Pacific Northwest and in my congressional district.

The important point is, let's vote for this bill.

Dear Representative Dicks: I write to ask for your support

for H.R. 2072, the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act

of 2011, which reauthorizes the U.S. Export-Import (EXIM)

Bank. EXIM is the official export credit agency of the U.S.

and assists U.S. businesses in financing the export of goods

and services around the world. EXIM's charter expires on May

31, 2012 and failure to reauthorize its operations in the

weeks ahead could put at risk billions of dollars in U.S.

exports and tens of thousands of American jobs.

Thanks to the efforts of Congressman Cantor, Congressman

Hoyer and numerous Members of the House, H.R. 2072 is

bipartisan legislation authorizing EXIM to operate for the

next three years and raising the Bank's lending authority to

$140 billion. The legislation also contains a number of

important initiatives and reforms that will strengthen

Congress's ability to oversee the Bank's operations and

improve the transparency of the Bank's transactions.

Reauthorization of EXIM is backed by a wide range of

associations and third parties including the National

Association of Manufacturers, the IAM, the U.S. Chamber of

Congress and the Business Roundtable.

Support for EXIM reauthorization translates into U.S. jobs.

In Fiscal Year 2011, the Bank reports that it supported more

than $40 billion in exports helping to create or sustain an

estimated 290,000 direct and indirect U.S. jobs at more than

3,600 small and large companies. And more than 80% of the

Bank's transactions support U.S. small businesses. In

addition, EXIM is financially self-sustaining and actually

contributes to reducing the Nation's deficit. Since the Bank

was last reauthorized in 2006, it has returned more than $3

billion to the U.S. Treasury beyond the costs of its

operations.

Reauthorization of the EXIM Bank is critical to the ability

of U.S. exporters to compete on a level playing field in a

commercial market where current and future competitors

continue to enjoy aggressive support from their countries'

export credit agencies.

I urge your strong support for H.R. 2072.

Sincerely,

Tim Keating,

Senior Vice President, Government

Operations, The Boeing Company.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Madam Chair, we have somebody who wanted to speak on this amendment.

Could we ask unanimous consent that we go back and allow the gentleman from Missouri to strike the requisite number of words?

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

The implementation of the National Ocean Policy will help to protect, maintain, and restore our ocean, coastal, island, and Great Lakes ecosystems, which provide jobs, food, and recreation, and serves as a foundation for a substantial part of our Nation's economy. Only healthy, functioning, and resilient marine and freshwater ecosystems can support the fisheries which we depend on so heavily.

Across the continental United States, our coastal and ocean ecosystems are suffering from an outdated issue-by-issue approach to stewardship and management. We are already seeing the threats posed by ocean acidification, low dissolved oxygen, harmful algal blooms, and dead zones in the gulf, the Chesapeake, Puget Sound, and throughout our Nation's coastal waterways. The National Ocean Policy would help us better address the cumulative threats to our aquatic ecosystems from overfishing, coastal development, storm water run-off, carbon emissions, and other pollutants entering our waterways; and it will also help us balance the many overlapping ocean uses.

The core approach of the National Ocean Policy is to improve stewardship of our oceans, coasts, islands, and Great Lakes by directing government Agencies with differing mandates to coordinate and work better together. The National Ocean Policy creates no new authorities. The result of increased coordination will be better stewardship of our national heritage through improved government efficiency, better development and use of data and information and a process of open and transparent stakeholder engagement that informs decision-making. This increased coordination between Agencies is the sort of effort that needs to be taking place on a Federal level in order to reduce inefficiency, waste, and redundancy among Agencies.

The National Ocean Council brings together State, local, and tribal governments and all of the ocean's users--including recreational and commercial fishermen, boaters, industry, scientists, and the public--to better plan for, manage, harmonize, and sustain uses of ocean and coastal resources.

The virtue of the National Ocean Policy is that it develops and facilitates the planning process, deals with many overlapping ocean uses, and expedites the approval process of new uses being introduced. The National Ocean Policy offers an avenue for thoughtful planning and is the best choice for those stakeholders looking to be involved in the process or at least having some voice in the discussion.

While not required to participate, most States and regions see the benefit of marine planning as a way to leverage their interests and achieve desirable outcomes.

I would say to my friend from Texas, in the Pacific Ocean, there are debris fields the size of the State of Texas. Now, if you think we're taking care of our oceans, if we're taking care of our rivers and streams and lakes, you are, at best, ill-informed. We need a national effort, an international effort--to clean up the oceans and protect them. And what do we get from the Republicans? A non-science, nonfactual approach to this problem. It's disgusting, to say the least.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time just to briefly say to the gentleman, what we have been doing isn't working.

The oceans are in trouble. We have got acidification that affects our shellfish, and it's because of too much carbon dioxide going into the oceans. The oceans are warming. The world cannot survive without the oceans.

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

I yield to the gentleman.

No more hearings. Let's have a bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Fattah for yielding to me and for his hard work on this important bill.

As we begin the floor consideration of the first of the 2013 appropriations bills, I would like to state as a preface that I regret the majority's decision to not abide by the bipartisan Budget Control Act. Reducing the overall allocation for fiscal year 2013 by an additional $19 billion I think is both unnecessary and economically unwise. I believe the reduced discretionary allocation in the Ryan budget threatens to stall economic growth and job creation, and in the near term it introduces uncertainty in our appropriations process that might imperil our ability to produce these bills in a timely manner.

That said, I remain committed to working collaboratively with the majority as we continue through the appropriations process this year because I remain cautiously optimistic that this reduced allocation is merely temporary. At the end of the process, I believe the House and Senate will come to an agreement that reflects the Budget Control Act level of $1.047 trillion rather than the level of $1.028 trillion that is based on the Ryan budget.

With regard to the bill before us, I want to thank Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, Chairman Rogers, and their staffs for their hard work on this bill. The majority worked closely with our side to put this bill together, and there were many issues on which we were able to reach agreement.

While the level of funding in this bill may not be as low as a strict proportional reduction based on the Ryan budget, it is nevertheless not adequate to meet the needs in some areas. In comparison, the CJS bill in the other body has passed through committee with only one dissenting vote, and it is $731 million higher than the House allocation. Clearly, there is significant bipartisan support for this higher allocation.

The House bill contains several funding levels that will be difficult for Democrats to support. The COPS hiring program is cut by 76 percent, even as State and local budgets continue to recover from historic losses in revenue. The Legal Services Corporation is also cut when it should be getting an increase, as has been proposed by the President and supported in the other body.

I'm also concerned that some important NOAA programs have been cut, in part to pay for necessary new satellites. While I support the development and deployment of new satellites, it is important that we find a way to pay for them without making such drastic reductions in other important NOAA programs.

Let me state that there were some very positive aspects of this bill. In particular, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for funding the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund at this year's enacted level and for once again funding an increase to the Mitchell Act program. These are vitally important programs in the Pacific Northwest.

I'm also pleased that the subcommittee mark contains $6.4 million for research in ocean acidification. The measurable increase in acidity in the world's oceans is already having an economic effect on the shellfish industry in the Pacific Northwest, interfering with the formation of the shells of oysters, mussels, clams, and other organisms, such as phytoplankton.

I also appreciate that this bill provides significant increases for our Federal law enforcement agencies, especially an additional $23 million for the FBI to investigate cyberintrusions. The bill also includes an important increase in funding for youth mentoring programs, which provide crucial support to at-risk youth in underserved communities and also to military kids, many of whom are struggling to adapt to the multiple deployments of one or both parents.

I want to echo the words of Ranking Member Fattah about the Boys and Girls Club of America. I find that the Boys and Girls Club have been one of the outstanding organizations and have done so much to help youth with their after-school programs.

I thank the gentleman, again, for yielding to me.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

First of all, I take umbrage at the use of the word ``earmark'' by my colleague. This is no earmark. This is a national program. This affects California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Idaho. These States, after a whole series of endangered species listings that go coast-wide, are trying to save these salmon runs.

As someone who comes from Washington State, I have been in the midst of an effort to try to recover our salmon runs. We have marked our fish. We have gone to selective harvests. We're protecting our wild runs. We're trying to do everything we can to recover these salmon runs.

Today, on the Columbia River in Washington State, we will be very fortunate to get 600,000 salmon back. At a time in the thirties we would have 20 million fish coming back every year: wild chinook salmon, coho salmon, and others.

So I think this is a very good program. We have worked hard to make sure the money is used for strong habitat restoration work and that we have worked to improve our hatcheries. We've done hatchery reform. We've done everything we can to restore the habitat for these fish.

Again, this is a national program that was created during the Clinton administration. It is strongly supported in the Pacific Northwest by both Democrats and Republicans. I see my good friend from Alaska, Mr. Young, has arrived on the floor; and I just want you to know that Alaska, where we still have many wild fish, also participates in this program from time to time.

So I urge that we vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is a national program. It has been in existence for 12 years. It is doing a good job; but we're fighting a very difficult problem, and we still need to keep working on this because of the endangered species listing, and we still have work to be done. And to cut this back, I think, is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

And it's $22 million. This is a big-time cut, and this would affect sensitive civil rights cases. So I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I want to commend Mr. Wolf for what he just said. I agree with him, and I think it's a violation of our oath of office to do as she has suggested. So I hope we can vote this down.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I have been here since the Magnuson-Stevens Act was enacted. Catch shares are done by local councils of fishermen. It doesn't come out of Washington, D.C. Every region of the country has a regional group, and they determine what these catch shares should be. This is not an implemented program from Washington, D.C.

I mean, the gentleman at least owes it, at 5 minutes to 11, to give an accurate description of this amendment and this program, which is a program that many people, especially on the West Coast, by the way, think is a good program that's helping us protect the fishery.

Isn't the local group down there in your area making the decision?

Oh, I know that. First the East Coast and then the West Coast.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I've got a letter and let me read you this letter because I think it really picks up what this program is about so that Members understand that this is a program that is going to help the fishermen, not hurt them:

We are writing to ask your continued support for the

groundfish trawl program in the FY12 and FY13 National Marine

Fisheries Service budget.

Today, a year after the implementation of catch shares in

our fishery, things are beginning to improve. We are seeing

higher prices for several key groundfish species. We have

greater flexibility in when and how we fish. Discards are

down dramatically. Gear innovation is on the rise. Fishermen,

processors, fishery managers, and others are coming together

to make this new program work. While the new management

system will require ongoing improvement to maximize economic

and biological performance, the early trends are positive.

As we continue into the second year of the catch share

program, a fundamental challenge confronts us--observer and

program management costs.

The high cost of observers--a key element of the catch

share program--is a subject of deep concern to many of us.

While over time we will assume more of these costs, we

continue to require Federal assistance during the

transitional phase to help support the cost of observers.

So here we have a group of people who think that this is the program of the future. It is decided upon by a regional council under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Every region can make decisions that affect the fishery in their area. In our area of the world, this is highly regarded.

The gentleman from Alaska isn't on the floor, but he'll tell you the people up in Alaska on halibut, this has been a great salvation. We're protecting the lives of these people so they don't have to rush out, catch all their fish in 1 or 2 days. They have a share, and they can do it over a reasonable period of time. It adds safety to this program.

But the last thing it is is coming out of D.C. This isn't NOAA or NMFS. This is the regional council in the gentleman's part of the world, in the Northeast, on the Atlantic coast off of Florida. These regional councils, they're the ones that make the decisions.

I thought that our good friends on the other side were for authority being used at the local level. So I urge you all, do not buy into this amendment. We should defeat this.

By the way, the gentleman from Washington is the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland) is a member of that committee. If he's got a complaint, why don't you go to your own committee and work on it rather than coming here and screwing up an appropriations bill where we don't need riders, frankly. We appreciate your concern, but go talk to the chairman, and you guys sit down and write some laws if you can get them passed.

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

Will the gentleman yield? That's not what the amendment says.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I have a letter here from the Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc, the Associated Fisheries of Maine, and a whole bunch of other groups, and they say:

Dear Member of Congress:

Please don't micromanage our fisheries from Washington,

Will the gentleman yield?

This was from an east coast group of Atlantic fishermen. This wasn't west coast people. I quoted and I gave the title of the people who were----

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of a constituent and friend of mine who was a true friend and one of the great leaders of the city of Bremerton, Washington.

Mel Wortman died last month at the age of 91, and he was remembered this past weekend at a service in Bremerton by his family and friends for his wit and for his many enduring personal relationships he developed over decades of working at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, and during the years of service to many organizations in our community.

I knew Mel for most of my life. He was a graduate of my mother's high school, and he always joked that he never would have graduated if she hadn't helped him through math class. He was also a great friend of my father, and they were often enjoying their favorite past time, fishing for trout out on Kitsap Lake. In fact, they had a secret formula that I was hoping Mel would have passed on to me.

Mel served in the Navy in World War II before taking a job at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, eventually rising to be superintendent of Shop 31, which was the machine shop.

Mel's personal advice to me ranged from pointers he gave me when I played sports with his sons, Dave and Gary, to the suggestions he offered when I was running for Congress, and later, as a member of the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, on important things we could do to make the shipyard in Bremerton function better.

Mr. Speaker, Mel Wortman was one of the remaining members of this Greatest Generation of Americans who selflessly served in World War II and then returned home to raise families and pursue their careers without asking for thanks.

I think it is appropriate once again for us in the House of Representatives to express our thanks to those great Americans as we note the passing of one of their finest, Mel Wortman.

I submit for the Record Mel Wortman's obituary as it was published in the Kitsap Sun, noting his wife Jane and the many members of his family who have lost a great patriarch.

Obituary Published in the Kitsap SUN, Bremerton, Washington

Melvin David Wortman

July 4, 1920 to March 19, 2012

Veteran

Mel Wortman died at his home on March 19, 2012 surrounded

by his family. Mel did a stint in the Navy during World War

II and was a longtime resident who retired from PSNS after

working his way up to Superintendent of Shop 31. Well known

in Kitsap County, Mel was said to be the go-to-guy in

Democratic politics and he headed up numerous political

campaigns. Mel had a passion for sports and we're just sure

he and son Gary are shooting some hoops in heaven. Mel was a

Washington State Park Commissioner for 12 years and prided

himself on visiting all of the parks in his beloved state.

Mel loved to share details of his family with anyone who

would listen. Jane, his patient and loving wife listened to

his stories and jokes for the past 72 years and continues to

make her home in Bremerton. The Wortman's oldest son, Dave

lives in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho with his wife Chrissy. Son

Gary, who was an NBA Scout, is deceased.

Their daughter, Janna and her husband Bob reside in

Arizona, while their other son Steve and his wife Cindy live

in Tacoma.

Mel was proud of his 11 Grandchildren and 16 `Greats' who

filled his life with tremendous joy in his later years. A

memorial service will be held for Mel at the Bremerton Elks

Lodge on April 22 at 1:00 p.m.

Born on July 4, Mel lived a life dedicated to being a great

American, he made a difference in the lives of all who knew

him. In lieu of flowers, Jane requests that donations be made

to Hospice of Kitsap County at 570 Lebo Blvd. Bremerton, WA

98310.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ms. Barbara L. Bonessa for her extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the United States of America. Ms. Barbara L. Bonessa will retire from federal service on February 28th, 2012, after 41 distinguished years of service to the U.S. Army.

Ms. Barbara L. Bonessa has distinguished herself by her exceptional leadership and unparalleled demonstration of technical expertise in the management of the Army's Budget from June 2006 to February 2012. Ms. Bonessa led the development of seven Army Budget requests totaling $944 billion dollars and seven supplemental requests totaling $635 billion. These resources were essential to the Army's strategic and unprecedented goals of restoring balance to a force feeling the cumulative effects of 10 years of war and setting conditions for the future to fulfill its strategic role as an integral part of the Joint Force.

Ms. Bonessa led the Army Budget Office's efforts to develop, justify, and defend the Army's budget requests along four imperatives: Sustaining Soldiers, Families, and Army Civilians in an era of persistent conflict; Preparing Soldiers, units, and equipment for success in the current conflicts; Resetting returning Soldiers, units, and equipment to restore readiness consumed in operations; and Transforming the Army to improve its ability to meet the needs of combatant commanders.

To ensure the Army's story was widely told and understood by its stakeholders, Ms. Bonessa built highly effective strategic partnerships with senior officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget, and with Congressional staff and members. Her ability to facilitate formal and informal information- sharing and articulate the Army's message garnered resources and protected programs that were necessary to build and sustain the Army while simultaneously prosecuting two wars. These relationships were instrumental in the Army's ability to articulate, defend and secure both base and supplemental funding for the past 7 years. Through her tireless efforts, the Army's base and supplemental requests were consistently and flawlessly presented, justified, defended, and ultimately submitted to and supported by Congress. Her leadership and technical skills directly resulted in obtaining critical and timely funding for Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn; Grow the Army; Army Modularity; Base Realignment and Closure; Army Modernization; sustainment of the All-Volunteer Force; care of Soldiers, Families and Civilians; and Soldier and leader development. As a direct result of her efforts, the Army's supplemental requests were consistently funded at 100% or more of its request.

There are very few Financial Management professionals or leaders who have had a greater impact during their service to the Nation than Barbara Bonessa. She is highly respected throughout the government for her unquestionable integrity and passion for supporting Soldiers and the Army. Our commanders in the field have always benefitted from her incredible capacity to meet challenges, whether presented by individual units or the Congress, and to develop an enterprise approach to solutions. The Army has gained immeasurably over the last 7 years from her positive and strategic outlook, and she leaves a solid foundation upon which the Army will continue to build.

Ms. Bonessa richly deserves to be recognized for her selfless service and influential leadership and her efforts to support an Army at war and sustain the all-volunteer force. Her exceptional performance leaves a lasting legacy.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I join my colleagues today in saying thank you to Ms. Barbara L. Bonessa, for her extraordinary dedication and service to her country throughout her distinguished career as an Army civilian. We wish her and her husband Alan all the best in her well-deserved retirement.

I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It is my judgment that--and I listened to the statement made by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers from Kentucky, that this is unwarranted, especially now that Congress has decided, at least for the time being, that we're not going to do earmarks. This would get down to a situation where if, on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, we added money for additional predator ISR vehicles, the President can as I understand it, take it right back down to his budget request.

We've had a lot of experience, many Members of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young and I, have been here over 30 years and served on this committee over 30 years, and a lot of positive things have happened where Congress makes increases or decreases. Now, if you're going to give the President the authority to send up a bill undoing our work, especially after it's been voted on, the Appropriations Committee has gone through all these things. I just think it's wrong.

In fact, on the earmark issue, I frankly think the solution that the Democrats had when we were in the majority was appropriate where we said you can't have earmarks for private companies unless it's competitively awarded, and then we took that away, but you still can help your schools.

You can still help your local governments. You can still help your universities, your NGOs that are doing work on meth for example--rather important issues. That would have been a better compromise, I think, than saying no earmarks under any circumstance.

It is clear to me that over the years there were too many earmarks, and that became a problem. But to go beyond that now and say that we're going to have a line-item veto and Congress has to vote on this, I think, is a serious mistake; and I join my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee in opposition.

I'll just say one final thing. I also think if you're going to do it, then you ought to do it for Ways and Means as well--that's where all the spending is--and not just pick on the Appropriations Committee. We've done our job. Ways and Means hasn't done their job.

I rise to urge passage of H.R. 1162, the Quileute Tribe tsunami and flood protection bill.

I also want to thank the House Natural Resources Committee for its work in shepherding this bill to the floor today. And I am pleased that my good friend and colleague from Washington, Doc Hastings, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, is on the floor here today to manage this bill as well as the gentleman from the

Northern Mariana Islands. I appreciate their comments and their leadership on this, along with Mr. Bishop and Mr. Grijalva.

The Quileutes are one of eight tribes living in the Washington State district that I represent here in Congress. Although the tribe's reservation at La Push is spectacularly beautiful, it also is a dangerous place to live. The threat of tsunamis is a harsh reality that the Quileute Tribe faces every day. The tribe lives on a one-square mile reservation along the Pacific coast of the Olympic Peninsula. Again, I cannot emphasize enough the breathtaking nature of their home.

The tribe has received much notice over the last few years due to the ``Twilight'' series of movies and novels. If you're not familiar with the ``Twilight'' phenomenon yourself, then I am sure that at least your children or grandchildren know about the Quileutes and their role in the ``Twilight'' world.

H.R. 1162 will provide land currently in Olympic National Park to the Quileute Tribe to enable the relocation of many facilities outside the tsunami zone. We need only look to the tragedy last year in Japan to see the loss of human life and horrific damage that tsunamis can cause.

Much of the Quileutes' infrastructure, including a day care center, the elder center, government offices, and Quileute tribal members' homes, are right in the path of a potential tsunami. This existential threat is compounded by damaging floods from the Quillayute River nearly every year.

The purpose of H.R. 1162 is to help the Quileutes move their buildings and people to safer land. The Olympic National Park would transfer land that is out of the tsunami zone to the tribe for the development of new infrastructure.

Of the 275 acres the Park Service would provide the tribe for this safety purpose, 222 are currently designated as wilderness. The legislation would de-designate those 222 acres.

The legislation also settles a long-standing dispute between the Olympic National Park and the tribe over the northern boundary of the reservation. The resolution of this dispute benefits the tribe, the Park Service, and the general public. The park would provide 510 acres to the tribe to settle the dispute.

The bill would place into trust these two parcels as well as another piece of non-Federal land the tribe had acquired earlier. The bill also guarantees access for the public to some of the most beautiful Washington State beaches.

I must note, however, that I am disappointed that a provision of H.R. 1162 was taken from the bill when the Natural Resources Committee passed it last October. The legislation as introduced mitigated the loss of wilderness designation for the 222 acres to be given to the tribe by designating other parcels already within Olympic National Park as wilderness. It was this provision designating new wilderness within the park that was removed. In response, I have introduced H.R. 3222 that would designate as wilderness those acres stripped from the underlying bill. The National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 3222 and other bills back in December, and I urge the committee to keep making progress on H.R. 3222.

In closing, I want to recognize the Quileute Tribe, its council and tribals chairs past and present, along with National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis and Olympic National Park Superintendent Karen Gustin for their hard work over many years to resolve this dispute and provide safer land for the tribe.

Again, I want to thank Congressman Hastings, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee; and Todd Young and Todd Ungerecht of his staff. I want to thank National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Rob Bishop and Jim Streeter of his staff. On the Democratic side, I want to thank Ed Markey and the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands and their staff, Jeff Duncan and David Watkins, and Pete Modaff on my staff.

In closing, I urge the House to pass H.R. 1162 to provide the Quileute Tribe a safer home along the Pacific Coast in Washington State.

I thank the ranking member of the Rules Committee for yielding.

I just want to say that this has been a bipartisan collaborative, bipartisan effort to put this bill here, and Mr. McGovern and others have explained some of the concerns about the process, and they're legitimate, and we hope to do better next year. I am committed to working together with the chairman to bring all 12 appropriations bills to the floor separately next year so that we can exercise regular order.

We did have to do H.R. 1 in the spring, which was all 12 bills from '11, and we spent a week on it, and we also had over 500 amendments. And it just showed that the Members want to have a chance to amend these bills. And if you don't bring them to the floor under regular order, you don't have an opportunity to do that.

So we're going to try to improve on our record. We got six to the floor this year. I think we can do better next year if we get started early, so we make a pledge to work from that.

I want to compliment our chairman, Mr. Rogers, for his openness, his willingness to consider all points of view. He could not have done a better job, and to have the patience of Job to listen to everybody, and still debating the last few items in this bill this week.

Now, my good friend, Mr. Dreier, whom I have enormous respect for, we work together on trade issues all the time. The only thing I would say about the other body is that they weren't doing something that was evil. They were trying to get an unemployment compensation bill enacted; they're trying to get an extension of the payroll tax bill and some other important provisions that are crucial to the American people.

And so what they did by slowing us down a little bit was to give an opportunity to get that work done.

As much as I would have preferred to go forward, we had to acknowledge that this was important work that needed to be accomplished.

I yield to the chairman.

It was not just a few years ago, Mr. Chairman. Well, this is my birthday. We didn't plan it this way. I want to make sure that the chairman of the Rules Committee--

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure everybody got the full picture.