H.Res. 918

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to be down here with my friend from Massachusetts today, Mr. Speaker. You heard the Reading Clerk work her way through this rule. It is a big one today, and it is a big one because we have got a lot to talk about today. I am going to try not to go over. I appreciate the Speaker starting proceedings a little early today so that we have time to get through all of the material that we have to work through.

In this rule today, House Resolution 918, we are providing for three separate appropriations bills to be considered as a single package in addition to two other bills that are very important.

First of all, the rule today, Mr. Speaker, provides for concurrence in the Senate amendment to the House-passed bill, H.R. 3249. It is the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock) has been working so aggressively on this bill. You will remember the House passed this bill by a voice vote back in March of this year. It went over to the Senate. The Senate amended it. They, too,

passed it by unanimous consent. House Resolution 918 today provides for the consideration to approve those Senate amendments, send this bill directly to the President's desk, and let it begin to make a difference in these communities right away.

The bill supports Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts, Mr. Speaker, to combat gang-related violence throughout our communities and to get involved in other prevention techniques.

We have all seen street gang activities increasing in our communities. If you are from a community that has not yet seen that impact, consider yourself fortunate. According to the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, we have these crimes on the increase. We have all been hearing about transnational gangs, such as MS-13, as they are becoming increasingly organized and increasingly more violent.

Giving our Nation's law enforcement authorities the ability to keep Americans safe and to have the tools they need to fight these gangs is a priority of all of us in this institution, and approval of this rule today will allow us to bring that bill to the floor and send it to the President's desk for his signature.

House Resolution 918 also provides for a structured rule, Mr. Speaker, for consideration of the first of our fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills. As I mentioned, there are three bills in this package. H.R. 5895 combines the Energy and Water Development bill with the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill and with the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. It puts them all under one umbrella, maintaining our commitment to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 spending caps.

The House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker, has already passed 6 of the 12 annual appropriations bills. I will say that again. Six of the 12 annual appropriations bills have already moved through the House Appropriations Committee.

I look forward to the remainder of those bills being on this floor very soon. In fact, the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies is marking up their bill today, and the Defense Subcommittee is marking up their bill tomorrow.

So before the end of the week, I would expect we will have 7 of 12 appropriations bills ready for the floor, and we will be well on our way to having an eighth ready for the floor soon. This is only the first week of June, Mr. Speaker, and this is already the progress that the House Appropriations Committee has achieved. I am very proud of their success, and I want to talk a little bit about the bills they have before us today.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill was approved unanimously by the Appropriations Committee. Republicans and Democrats came together to support that bill. You will recall that we decided early on, Mr. Speaker, that thrift would begin here in this House.

With this Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, not only are we funding the shared priorities across the Capitol, we are also at a funding level still below the level at which this House was funded the year I was first elected to Congress, Mr. Speaker. Thrift does begin at home. We have avoided being penny-wise and pound-foolish. We funded important priorities and were again able to pass this out of committee on a unanimous, bipartisan vote.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill also came out of committee on a unanimous, bipartisan vote, 47-0 in both cases, Mr. Speaker. And, clearly, this type of collaboration, this type of bipartisan activity is something we would like to see more often in this Chamber, but we have it in these two bills today.

The third appropriations bill that is bundled together here, Mr. Speaker, is the Energy and Water bill, a bill that is tremendously important to my part of the world there on the Georgia coast, involving Georgia's water infrastructure. It passed the Appropriations Committee on a slightly less powerful vote. It was 29-20, still a bipartisan vote, but not as big a majority--in fact, not unanimous, as the others were. But it is critically important to so many of our States, Mr. Speaker, and I am confident we will be able to move it across the floor.

I will just give a couple of examples. I know everybody has their own story to tell about the importance in their State.

In my State, it provides $49 million as a Federal partnership to the more than $300 million that the State of Georgia has already put into deepening the Port of Savannah. The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project is one of the largest economic development projects in the Southeastern United States. It has a Corps of Engineers report authorizing this construction. Georgia put all of its money in up front, and now the Feds are coming through with $49 million of their own.

Mr. Speaker, the bill includes millions of dollars for operations and maintenance of the Corps of Engineers. If you live in the Southeastern United States, as I do, odds are, the Corps controls your water supply. More than 80 percent of the people who live in the multimillion-person metropolitan Atlanta area, Mr. Speaker, depend on Corps of Engineers facilities for their drinking water. Eighty percent depend on Corps of Engineers for their drinking water. It is tremendously important to families across the district.

I am heartened that the Appropriations Committee, even though they could not be unanimous, persisted in moving this bill through committee in a bipartisan way, and I am optimistic of what it is going to do for water and energy infrastructure for years to come.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, to a committee that is almost as near and dear to my heart as the Rules Committee is, this bills brings to the floor a bill from the Transportation Committee, H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018.

Folks often think of the Veterans Affairs' Committee as being one of the most bipartisan committees on Capitol Hill, and, candidly, I think it makes us all proud to know that is true; but the House Transportation Committee sits a very close second.

Infrastructure projects, whether it be safe drinking water, whether it be roads and bridges, whether it be airport facilities, these are issues that we all confront, and these are issues that bring us together in an also unanimous fashion, Mr. Speaker. The House Transportation Committee reported the Water Resources Development Act of 2018, and we have that before us today.

If you haven't gotten to see a good committee chairman and ranking member working in partnership, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend Chairman Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania and Ranking Member Pete DeFazio of Oregon to you any time. To suggest that these two men agree on everything would be folly, but to suggest that they find a way to work through everything would not be too much said. They never take no for an answer. They always work hard together. In the case of the Water Resources Development Act, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't just exist at the committee chairman level; it exists at the subcommittee level.

On the Republican side of the aisle, we have Chairman Garret Graves from Louisiana; and on the Democratic side of the aisle, we have Ranking Member Grace Napolitano from California--again, two Members who work incredibly closely together. They produce a superior work product that you are going to be able to see in the line items in this legislation.

We are talking about America's ports. We are talking about inland waterways. We are talking about locks and dams. We are talking about flood protection. We are talking about water infrastructure and ecosystem protection. Line item after line item, we were able to come together in a bipartisan way.

I would argue this is going to be one of the most important bills that the Congress passes in 2018, Mr. Speaker. And, again, it took a lot of hard, bipartisan work to get here.

Our Nation's ports, Mr. Speaker, process about $4 billion in product a day, imports and exports. About 11 percent of everything we buy in the State of Georgia has come through one of our ports. Nearly 440,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker, in my State alone are dependent on ports and waterways, and there is $25 billion worth of State income from that.

And that is just a State like Georgia, Mr. Speaker. If you go to Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, California,

or Washington State, you are going to hear those same stories told time and time again.

Now, I would like to believe, because we passed this bill out of the Transportation Committee where transportation experts sit, that we produced a perfect work product out of the Transportation Committee. But wearing my Rules Committee hat, I recognize that other Members of this Chamber may have some good ideas of their own that they would like to make in order for the debate on the Water Resources Development Act.

To that end, the rule today, Mr. Speaker, passed by this body will make 52 additional amendments in order to be considered for this bill. That is 19 Republican amendments, 20 Democratic amendments, and 13 bipartisan amendments.

I will say that again, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-two amendments were made in order by this rule for the Water Resources Development Act: 19 Republican amendments, 20 Democratic amendments, and 13 bipartisan amendments.

All amendments are intended to make this bill better. This body will decide, if this rule is approved, whether, in fact, they do.

We had four subcommittee meetings on WRDA this year, this cycle, Mr. Speaker--two roundtable discussions in Florida and Oregon, and two hearings here in Washington, D.C.--all seeking to involve stakeholders.

You may not recall, Mr. Speaker, but there was a while that this Congress was unable to pass WRDA bills. We went through 7 years of this Congress failing to pass any WRDA bills at all. I was not in Congress at the time that began, but I am in Congress at the time that that comes to an end.

Beginning with Bill Shuster's leadership there on the Transportation Committee, we have gotten back in the habit of moving a water resources bill every single Congress. This will be the third in that cycle, and it matters: It matters for certainty to stakeholders back home; it matters for certainty to constituents back home; and it matters that we don't have to do it all in one giant omnibus bill every single time. We are able to break it down into smaller chunks because we are taking care of it as challenges arise, again, in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sit on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee where the kind of collaboration and mutual respect that you have heard me talk about exists every single day.

I want to thank, again, Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for making that environment one that can exist.

I think we brought a very fair rule to the floor today to try to bring not just the Water Resources Development Act to the floor, the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Authorization to the floor, but also the first three appropriations bills in our annual cycle to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues can support the rule, I hope they will support the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't come to the floor today to tell anybody that the process was perfect, and I didn't come to the floor today to tell anybody that the pieces of legislation before us are perfect. I am certain that they are not perfect, Mr. Speaker, because I didn't write every line of every one of them. That is my indication that they didn't turn out exactly right.

What I did do, however, because I serve on the committees of jurisdiction, is I worked with my Democratic colleagues to get to a bill that we can all be proud of.

Understand what we are talking about here today, Mr. Speaker. We can go back and have a series of recriminations and talk about all the injustices that have happened to each and every one of us over the years or we can celebrate the fact that in a really difficult budget environment we found a way to get the appropriations bills out--two out of three of these bills today unanimously--to the floor. The third one that didn't come out unanimously still came out with a bipartisan vote, Mr. Speaker. We should be celebrating that, not pretending that we are not making an honest effort with one another to get things done.

The Water Resources Development Act, Mr. Speaker, the largest water infrastructure bill that this Congress will produce, and we produced it on a committee that has members from the far left to the far right and produced it unanimously, Mr. Speaker, because we did not take no for an answer and continued to work shoulder to shoulder until we found a place that each and every member could live with.

No, these bills are not perfect today, which is why, in the case of WRDA, for example--again, the best work product the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee could produce--we allowed more than 50 additional amendments--more Democratic amendments than Republican amendments, bipartisan amendments as well--to try to improve that language.

How does this WRDA bill come to the floor? It comes after a long period of time where this Congress was controlled by both parties where no WRDA bill was produced at all. I will say it again, Mr. Speaker: it comes after a time when this Congress, controlled by both parties, produced no Water Resources bill at all. No bill for ports, no bill for inland waterways, no bill for water infrastructure, and no bill for locks and dams. No bill, Mr. Speaker, at all.

Fast forward to today, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about the third consecutive Congress where we have come together and gotten it done-- not gotten it done for one party or another, not gotten it done for one Member or another--but gotten it done on behalf of all of our constituents who sent us all here, not to find excuses, not to find things to complain about, but to find a way to make it happen.

Support this rule today, Mr. Speaker. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule today, Mr. Speaker, because if they do, we will bring that bipartisan work product to the floor. We will bring that unanimously approved gang violence prevention bill to the floor. And we will bring those three appropriations bills all passing in a bipartisan way out of committee to this floor. It is a day we can be proud of, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to be here with you to talk about it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the words of my friend from Vermont. He is absolutely right. Fiscal conservatives, as a rule, are out there trying to save money. Occasionally, we find ourselves in those spaces where we end up being penny wise and pound foolish.

The flood mitigation projects that my friend from Vermont referenced saved countless dollars, but, more importantly, countless lives. As some of these aging infrastructure projects look to be on the brink of failure, the time to act is now, not later.

I am glad to see that we were able to come together to invest needed resources today in a water resources development bill so that we are not spending dollars tomorrow in a disaster relief bill. This is the right time to do it, and I appreciate my friend from Vermont making that point.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend that I am prepared to close when he is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first things first. I mentioned earlier I don't think any of these bills are perfect bills; I just think they are the best we were able to work out together.

I do want to mention that in the Rules Committee report in the summary of Mr. Nolan's amendment, we did describe that amendment incorrectly. We have now corrected that for the record, that has been submitted, but I just want to highlight that for the purposes of transparency.

I think my friend from Massachusetts is exactly right, Mr. Speaker. It is time for us to decide how we want to run this institution. I don't question his numbers. He is very good. When he says this is the most closed Congress in American history, I am sure he has some set of numbers that backs up that attestation.

But what I know is, when I was running for Congress and Democrats were leading this institution at the time, for the entire cycle that I was running, Democrats allowed less than 1,000 amendments totally for the entire session of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress, we have considered more than 1,000 amendments before the month of May got out. We haven't even gotten into the appropriations cycle yet. That doesn't include the 30 amendments made in order on the appropriations bill today. It doesn't include the 50-plus amendments made in order on WRDA today.

We have already done more to allow Members to be heard in this Congress than was happening when the other side led this institution. I don't think that should be the measure of success, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that should be the measure of success. My friend from Massachusetts was right when he said we are going to get bigger votes and better votes when we bring better bills and a better process to the House floor.

Let me tell you what I have brought today, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you what I brought today. I brought a bill that passed this House unanimously before it went to the Senate to be passed unanimously after a few amendments--and I brought it back here so that we can again pass it unanimously--a bill to protect communities, to empower law enforcement to fight gang violence on the front lines. I want to send that bill to the President, Mr. Speaker. And if we pass this rule today, we will be able to send that unanimously agreed-upon legislation to the President. That is in this rule.

Also in this rule is the Water Resources Development Act, which passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously. Unanimously. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, everyone working together to bring a bill out of committee. We brought it out of committee unanimously.

The Rules Committee still made another 50 amendments in order in case folks want to improve upon it--50-plus--but we made those amendments in order to a bill that had already been agreed upon unanimously.

What else does this rule do?

It brings a third piece of legislation to the floor as a part of our appropriations package, the legislative branch appropriations bill, which passed out of committee how, Mr. Speaker? Unanimously, Republicans and Democrats working together to bring that bill out of committee.

We include the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill in this package, Mr. Speaker. It came out of committee how? Don't tell me.

Unanimously, as Republicans and Democrats came together to move that legislation forward.

And then we have a fifth part of this package, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, which I confess--I want to be clear; I want to be transparent--did not pass unanimously. It just received a simple bipartisan vote to come out of committee.

So I challenge my colleagues who want a better process, who want to see better bills come to the floor. We are already making more amendments in order than my friends on the other side ever dreamed of doing. We are already bringing bills to the floor that have passed in a collaborative, in fact, unanimous way.

If Members support this rule, they will be supporting five things, four of them that passed unanimously, and one that passed with a bipartisan vote. Is that going to get everybody what they want here today? I doubt it. It is a tall order, but is it worth supporting? Is it worth saying it is a step in the right direction? Is it worth celebrating because you know it could have gone a different way, but we committed ourselves to the excellence that we have here? It is.

I will finish where I began, Mr. Speaker. I am proud to be down here carrying this rule today. I am the luckiest guy in the world to be able to come down here and talk about it, because folks don't get to hear it, they don't get to read about it, they don't get that around the water cooler back home, Mr. Speaker, that we are working together; that we are working together not only on the easy problems, but on the hard problems; that we are doing things here together that we have not done before, but we are doing them now because we have serious men and women on both sides of the aisle who want to make it happen.

Support this rule. Support this rule. Let's show the American people the work product that has gone into this legislation: the rule and those five underlying provisions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman is correct: the protection of our neighborhoods, the protection of our young people, the securing of our schools, the stopping of gun violence, the safeguarding of this Nation, are important responsibilities of this Congress, and certainly of the Nation itself. So I join with that commitment of safeguarding our neighbors and friends and families and our children.

So I would certainly like to say of the Senate amendment dealing with the Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2018, it does provide additional resources to help local jurisdictions prevent and fight crime in their communities. It would authorize the Attorney General to establish and implement a program to be known as the Project Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant Program within the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice, thereby providing a formal authorization for the Project Safe Neighborhoods program, which is currently implemented by DOJ. That is an absolutely positive step to protect our neighborhoods.

Thirty percent of the funding awards under this program would be, however, allocated to fighting gang-related crime.

While I support authorizing this program, I would like to highlight two major concerns with this Senate amendment.

First, a substantial portion of the funding under this bill would be dedicated to anti-gang task forces. I support preventing and fighting crime no matter who the perpetrator may be, but I must caution against targeting groups of young people who are not engaged in crime, or who are standing around, or who may be, in essence, said to be engaged in crime, or may be from particular neighborhoods or ethnicities or backgrounds.

I think all of our children deserve a chance to grow and become contributing citizens. I would want to make sure that we get the gangs and that we get those who are the deadly ones that are killing and maiming, and those names, we know, have been cited, but I also want to make sure that we give our children a chance.

However, under the current framework, focus is placed on identified subsets of individuals or organizations responsible for increasing violence. This creates a danger where innocent young people will likely become targets, whether by virtue of clothes color or mere acquaintance of someone in light of the various talk, if you will, about gangs like MS-13, which I will acknowledge are in all of our communities from east to west and north to south.

Let's get the bad guys. Let's make sure we help our children not be destined to be the bad guys.

We must not use law enforcement as a means to target individuals based solely on their ethnicity or national origin. Far too often, the rhetoric that we are fighting gangs may be laced with bias toward difference.

That is why I wanted to offer an amendment at the Rules Committee to the Senate amendment, which would reflect the original provision offered by Representative Comstock related to targeting groups. That was one that we were able to work with here in the House. That specific provision in H.R. 3249 was a much better provision.

If accepted, my amendment would have ensured that funding be allocated justly based on sincere need and not on abuse that may occur to demonstrate a significant or increased presence of criminal organizations; and, number two, prevent funding being used towards a wide range of people that might need help, but labeled as criminal groups, rather than the smaller number of people in communities responsible, as you will hear law enforcement say, for the majority of violent crimes, like concentrated transnational organized crime groups as defined by the statute.

This eliminates the sweeping effect this bill will have in application, where groups of people not defined by statute as transnational organized crime groups will become targets based on possible biases or rhetoric launched at particular classes of people.

We cannot ignore that unfortunately, in the reality of our times, things may go awry. Therefore, in addition to introducing legislation, we must be vigilant in conducting oversight of the use of program funds and in protecting against such possible abuse.

Second, I have concerns about the provision of the bill that focuses on data-driven intervention. I advocate instead for a robust focus on prevention-driven initiatives that will save us an enormous amount of money when done effectively.

That is why I wanted to offer a second amendment which would amend the Crime Control Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow for strong emphasis on gang prevention programs, which is key to curtailing much of these problems. It is imperative to provide front-end mechanisms that would prevent the problems that are often costly, resulting in both human costs and tax dollars for our prisons.

This amendment was practical and inexpensive.

Now, let me clarify something. Data is very important because it helps us move toward best practices. But in addition to data, we need to be able to use our good sense to talk about intervention, prevention, and working with youngsters again, who may be categorized as being violent but, instead, may be the right kind of targets for intervention and prevention programs.

This Senate amendment authorizes $50 million for each of the fiscal years 2019 to 2021, $150 million. The Senate amendment does not comply with House Republican CutGo requirements so that $50 million may be authorized for the program for this time.

I certainly believe where we are trying to help children, we should also take that into consideration, particularly with prevention and intervention or gang violence and antibullying initiatives. They are equally worthy goals.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to look further into how we continue to work together and to work to monitor this legislation to ensure that there is not an adverse impact on individuals clearly because of neighborhoods and backgrounds, because that is what America is all about: an equal opportunity for particularly our young people, to get out of where they are and to be able to surge to be a good and contributing citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Senate amendment to H.R. 3249, the ``Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Act of 2017''.

This Senate amendment would provide additional resources to help local jurisdictions prevent and fight crime in their communities.

It would authorize the Attorney General to establish and' implement a program, to be known as the ``Project Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant Program'' (Program), within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) at the Department of Justice (DOJ), thereby providing a formal authorization for the Project Safe Neighborhoods Program, which is currently implemented by DOJ.

Thirty percent of the funding awards under this Program would be allocated to fighting gang-related crime. While I support authorizing this Program, I would like to highlight two major concerns of this Senate amendment.

First, a substantial portion of the funding under this bill would be dedicated to anti-gang task forces. I support preventing and fighting crime no matter who the perpetrator may be, but I must caution against targeting groups of young people who are not engaged in crime.

However, under the current framework, focus is placed on ``identified subsets of individuals or organizations'' responsible for increasing violence. This creates a danger, where innocent young people will likely become targets, whether by virtue of clothes color or mere acquaintance of someone, in light of the administrations' rhetoric around MS-13s. We must not use law enforcement as a means to target individuals based solely on their ethnicity or national origin. Far too often, the rhetoric of fighting gangs has been laced with racial bias.

This is why I offered an amendment at Rules to this Senate amendment, which would reflect the original provision offered by Rep. Comstock relating to targeted groups. That specific provision in H.R. 3249 was a much better provision.

If accepted, my amendment would have:

1) ensured that funding be allocated justly based on sincere need and not on abuse that may occur to demonstrate a ``significant or increased presence'' of criminal organizations; and 2) prevented funding being used towards a wide range of people that need help but labeled as criminal gangs, rather than the small number of people in communities responsible for majority of violent crimes, like concentrated ``transnational organized crime groups'', as defined by statute.

This eliminates the sweeping effect this bill will have in application, where groups of people not defined by statute as ``transnational organized crime groups'' will become targets based on biases and/or rhetoric launched at a particular class of people.

We cannot ignore that unfortunate reality of current times. Therefore, in addition to introducing legislation, we must be vigilant in conducting oversight of the use of Program funds and in protecting against such possible abuse.

Second, I have concerns about the provisions of the bill that focus on data-driven intervention and I advocate instead, for a robust focus on prevention-driven initiatives that will save us enormous amount of money when done effectively.

This is why I offered a 2nd amendment, which would amend the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to allow for strong emphasis on gang prevention programs, which is key to curtailing much of these problems. It is imperative to provide front-end mechanisms that would prevent the problems that are often costly, resulting in both human cost and tax dollars for our prisons. This amendment was practical and inexpensive.

This Senate amendment authorizes $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2021, totaling $150,000,000.

This Senate amendment does not comply with House Republican ``cut- go'' requirements so that $50 million may be authorized for the Program for this time period. I believe prevention and intervention of gang violence and anti-bullying are equally worthy goals.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to pursue avenues that will not adversely impact individuals based solely on their ethnic backgrounds.

Mr. Speaker, I do not argue against the merit of this Program. It would be but one facet of DOJ's efforts to address gun and gang violence at the local, state, and tribal levels. We should view it from that holistic perspective, and as an effort to supplement but not supplant alternatives that may employ different, yet, still-effective approaches.

During the Committee's consideration of the H.R. 3249, we expressed these funding concerns, and urged that these funding prohibitions be eliminated.

Today, we also address the concerns in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3249, which states as a purpose:

Developing and executing comprehensive strategic plans to reduce violent crimes ``including the enforcement of gun laws, and prioritizing efforts focused on `identified subsets of individuals or organizations' responsible for increasing violence in a particular geographic area.''

For these reasons, I respectfully request serious consideration of these concerns and caution against possible abuse that may occur, which will prove counterproductive.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Virginia is absolutely right on our commitment to working to protect the children that we don't want to be the victims. Certainly, gangs like MS-13 are in many places, and that is what my focus is. Those bad guys, those who would do harm, clearly, we stand united on.

At the same time, I want to make sure that those who stumble in have alternatives, particularly in this country, to get out of that web. As we protect against them and give law enforcement their tools, I want to make sure that we give to others to find other ways to move away from this so that the bad intent, the murderous intent of those gangs can be separated and handled by law enforcement, while other young people have other opportunities.

I might also say that I would hope that the Department of Justice will fund this program and, when I say that, Congress will work with us to fund other programs of intervention.

So I might, if I could, engage the chairman in a colloquy. I would be eager to hear the gentleman's thoughts on this thought.

I am concerned that all of the talk of fighting gang violence may be, beyond this august Hall, laced with bias, racial bias, ethnicity, et cetera. The Senate amendment includes a reference to focusing on identified subsets of individuals and organizations responsible for increasing violence in a particular geographic area. I might indicate that that may be some bad behavior kids.

Will the gentleman assure me that the intent of this provision referring to subsets of individuals is not to encourage or condone the targeting of anyone because of their race or national origin and that they happen to be in groups?

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to make a concluding comment. We worked together on this. Would the gentleman also say that intervention and prevention programs are a positive contribution to helping our young people stay away from violence?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly look forward to working further with the gentleman on these matters, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, let me just say, we have a solid and unified commitment to protect our children, our neighborhoods, our families, and to isolate violent gangs, some of whom carry the name MS-13, but also to work with law enforcement as they work to isolate those violent persons, but help find a way to steer other juveniles into a way of redemption, if I might utilize that term.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue working with the Judiciary Committee and my colleagues on that very point. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not argue the merit of this program. It would be but one facet of DOJ's efforts to address gun and gang violence at the local, State, and Tribal levels. We would view it from the holistic perspective and as an effort to supplement, but not supplant, alternatives that may employ different yet still effective approaches. And that is antibullying, bullying intervention, intervention in gang activity, cyberbullying, and prevention of gang activities from the perspective that we understand in our neighborhoods.

During the committee's consideration of H.R. 3249, we expressed these funding concerns and urged that these fund prohibitions be eliminated. What I want to see is other programs continue to be funded that can help law enforcement and others on the question of prevention.

Today, we also address concerns in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3249 which states as a purpose, developing and executing comprehensive strategic plans to reduce violent crimes, including the enforcement of gun laws and prioritizing efforts focused on identifying subsets of individuals and organizations responsible for increasing violence and in a particular geographic area.

I want to thank the chairman for what I believe is a clarification on the record, and we will continue to monitor as we work with our law enforcement across the Nation. For these reasons, I am respectfully asking that we continue to express our concerns, that we review it, that we ensure that the DOJ, as it works through these grants, continues to keep our legislative thoughts in mind so that this bill is productive and certainly not counterproductive of what we intend to do.

Mr. Speaker, I again indicate a commitment that all of us have to get rid of those who terrorize our neighborhoods through the violence of gangs, like MS-13, and save our children who can be saved--which I know they can be--in our neighborhoods and throughout the Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a study in contradictions from my Republican colleagues. They have brought up H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act. This is an incredibly important bill to improve our Nation's ports, locks, dams, and more all across the country. It is a bipartisan bill, and it was the product of a process that shows how Congress is supposed to work.

Hearings were held, and thoughtful testimony was given, including from the head of the Army Corps of Engineers. There was a markup. Input and ideas were heard from Members on both sides. Remarkably, a majority of amendments offered were adopted en bloc by a voice vote without much controversy.

That is important to note, Mr. Speaker, because Republicans these days aren't known for their lack of controversy. Just this week the President of the United States is talking about pardoning himself of possible Federal crimes. His lawyer is floating wild theories about how the President could shoot his former FBI Director without facing prosecution while in office.

So this bipartisan bill and the mostly collaborative process that got us here came as welcome relief--until this bill got to the Rules Committee. That is when Republican leaders ran into a back room somewhere and took out a bipartisan amendment from the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman DeFazio. The amendment would reform the harbor maintenance trust fund to make sure money gets where it needs to go: to actually maintaining our harbors.

They did this without any debate and despite the fact that both the chairman and ranking member of the committee supported it. The gentleman from Georgia says he is on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and he voted against his chairman and ranking member. So much for bipartisanship. The majority threw sand in the gears of what was a good process. They just can't help themselves, and this is par for the course here.

Just look at the other water development bill, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act. This could have been another bipartisan measure. It funds most programs at an adequate level. But the majority reverted back to their usual ways: ignoring Democratic ideas and filling this up with one bipartisan proposal after another. It is like a Christmas tree loaded up with bad ideas.

More than $400 million was cut from 2018 enacted levels for some of our biggest priorities, things like energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Even nuclear nonproliferation programs were cut; and for what, Mr. Speaker? So the majority can reward their allies by skewing resources toward the fossil fuel industry.

There are controversial riders that are completely unnecessary and would do more harm than good. They have no business being in an appropriations bill.

One of the riders would hinder the Army Corps' ability to protect clean water. Another would kill the Waters of the United States rule. There is one rider that would threaten the Endangered Species Act. There is even language tucked inside this bill that would allow firearms to be carried on all Army Corps lands; and this from a majority that refuses to even consider ways to combat gun violence on the House floor. We can't even get a vote on anything related to gun violence on this floor. This is outrageous.

The majority is also using this appropriations process to fund President Trump's stupid, ridiculous, offensive border wall. Mr. Speaker, didn't the President tell us that Mexico was going to foot the bill for this ridiculous wall? It is being funded by shortchanging priorities for the middle class. That includes programs to educate our children, help students afford college, and provide job training to our workers, all for this stupid wall--more red meat for the most narrow parts of the Republican base.

I remember my Republican colleague talking for years about the importance of passing a budget resolution. Maybe that was just something they cared about under the Obama administration or something they do only when they are trying to take healthcare away from people or reward the wealthy with more tax cuts, because here they are under a Republican President with a Republican Congress pushing ahead with an appropriations package without passing a budget. That April 15 deadline came and went a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker, what happened to doing one bill at a time? We used to consider appropriations bills separately, but the majority's rule lumps several together to try to speed up the process and I guess limit debate; and for what? Funding the government is one of our most important responsibilities. Two of these bills would probably pass with broad, bipartisan support, but, apparently, bipartisanship is not a priority for some of the Republican Conference. So they had to cram them together with a partisan bill that is filled with harmful ideological riders.

I would like to think that the majority would want strong, bipartisan votes on appropriations bills. We used to have them in the past. We don't have any bipartisanship now as a direct result of the choices made by this Republican leadership.

Mr. Speaker, why is the majority using a process that makes it harder to pass bipartisan bills? It may please their base, but it is an awful way to legislate. This majority has had 8 years to decide how to run this place. Mr. Speaker, clearly, they haven't figured it out. There is no budget and not even an attempt to get one. Where are all the Republican budget hawks? Where is their countdown clock with ``days since the last budget''? This majority can't even keep the lights on. We have seen two government shutdowns this year alone, and it is only June. My colleague from Georgia again said: Look at all we have done, and it is June.

The other thing they did is they broke their own record of now being the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. They have brought more bills to the floor under a restrictive, closed process than any other Congress in history. Yes, they have accomplished a lot, it is only June, and it is going to get worse.

There is virtually no oversight of the executive branch from this majority. None. Just one example, and this is a beauty: we have an EPA administrator who allegedly got a sweetheart deal on an apartment and spent $43 on a phone booth. You can't make this stuff up. He asked a Federal employee who reported to him to hunt for a used mattress from President Trump's hotel.

None of this seems to bother my Republican colleagues. How is that possible?

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the adults in Congress to stand up, bring sanity back to our government, bring professionalism back to our government, and bring some integrity back to this institution. Make your constituents proud. Make your government great again. You can start here today by voting ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman came here to celebrate. I came here to remind everybody, again, that this is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. I think that is an important fact for people to consider and digest, because process is important. Process equals substance. I am sorry, but that is not something to celebrate.

We have no problem with the WRDA bill. We will support that, no problem. The gang violence bill, I think most of us will support that. Where we have a problem is what the majority did with the appropriations bills. The majority took two appropriations bills where there could be virtual unanimity--certainly bipartisan support--and says: If you want those bills, you have got to swallow a poison pill. You have to also vote as part of that package an Energy and Water bill that is filled with antienvironmental riders.

I get it. I know where the allegiance of the majority party is when it comes to the environment. It is in the pockets of the oil companies, the fossil fuel industry, and now the coal companies. I get it.

But for those who are offended by the antienvironmental record of the Republicans who run this House and certainly by the antienvironmental record of this administration, we don't want any part of that. That is not a bipartisan process. That is not a good process.

By the way, these antienvironmental riders have no business being on an appropriations bill. It is stuff that just was added because the majority could. So we can't celebrate that process.

Yes, we will vote for the WRDA bill, applaud Chairman Shuster and applaud Ranking Member DeFazio and all the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We have no problem with that.

But this rule is designed for a purpose, and that is to limit debate and that is to try to put pressure on people to vote for a package that includes some really horrendous riders on it that do great harm to our environment. That is not the way this place is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, the majority controls the process. This is a process the majority chooses to embrace. It is not fair, and, again, it is now the most closed process in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure in our Nation is in dire need of repair and maintenance. Reports are that Chairman Shuster is hoping to release an infrastructure bill later this summer. This is good news, but given the Republican majority's recent history, the American taxpayers first need to know where our priorities with that bill lie.

The American people have good reason to be worried about whom such an important bill would actually benefit. Just a few months ago the GOP passed a tax bill that skewed nearly all of the benefits to the wealthy and rich corporations leaving working class people behind. We can't allow this same approach to trickle into an infrastructure

bill that could skew all the benefits to billionaires and Wall Street banks looking to profit from the privatization of our infrastructure.

We need to send a clear signal that our priority in repairing and upgrading our infrastructure is to not privatize these essential resources to enrich a lucky few; but instead will prioritize creating millions of living-wage jobs without selling off our roads and bridges to private investors. Mr. Speaker, here is the Republicans' chance to prove that they stand with hardworking Americans in fixing our Nation's infrastructure and not with billionaires, Wall Street banks, and foreign investors.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lieu's resolution, H. Con. Res. 63, which outlines priorities for efforts to enact a bold jobs and infrastructure package that benefits all Americans, not just billionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia how many more speakers he has on his side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that this is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. This WRDA bill is a bill that is the product of a bipartisan process. I applaud the chairman, Mr. Shuster, and the Ranking Democrat, Mr. DeFazio, on working together, and all the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure coming together to try to come to an accommodation that resulted in this bill.

I regret very much that, despite their good work, in some backroom in the Rules Committee somewhere, the majority decided to rip out a bipartisan provision that the chairman and ranking member had agreed on. Then, making that even worse, the chairman and the ranking member had an amendment to try to at least have a debate on the floor and let the Members decide that issue, but the Rules Committee decided not to make that in order as well. Anyway, I don't want to be too picky. Overall, the WRDA bill is good. It will get a bipartisan vote.

Of the three appropriations bills--this new approach where we bunch everything together so we don't have a lot of time to talk about them-- two of the appropriations bills are fine. There would be, I think, a pretty big bipartisan vote. The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill would pass with a strong bipartisan vote. I think that is a good thing. The Military Construction-VA bill would pass with a strong bipartisan vote. That is a good thing. But

my friends are allergic to bipartisanship.

So, what they have to say is: You know what? Yeah, that is bipartisan, that is bipartisan, but we are going to bunch it in with a bill that is extremely partisan, that is filled with these horrific anti-environmental riders in it. If you want the good stuff, you have got to take this awful stuff as well.

We are not going to do that. You are not going to have a bipartisan vote. I think if we were running this House, we would prefer to see a bipartisan vote than simply a partisan vote on everything.

If this is the beginning of an appropriations process that you are going to employ throughout the remaining time, I worry about how this will all end up. My guess is, it will be what it usually is: this massive, gigantic mess at the end where deals are struck behind closed doors and things are put together, and we get a vote on one big, massive bill, take it or leave it. And then we will find out what is in it weeks and months later.

I think that we are at a point where we have to really decide how this House should be run. I would just respectfully say to my Republican friends that this is not the way we should do the appropriations process. In general, this is not the way we should run the House. We ought to be debating appropriations bills one at a time. We ought to be encouraging bipartisanship, not trying to make it impossible. We have to be more accommodating.

It shouldn't be a proud day for the majority to be able to break their own record of being the most closed Congress in the history of the United States. That is not the way this place is supposed to run. I think it has become too convenient for my Republican friends to run it in a way where they just put bills on the floor and say: Take it or leave it, my way or the highway.

I guarantee you, if you are more accommodating, if you are more open, you will have more bipartisan votes. You will have less rancor in this Chamber. Maybe people will actually like Congress better if they see us working together.

So I regret very much that I think my words are falling on deaf ears, but it really is disappointing and I think it is a disservice to the institution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up Mr. Lieu's bill. If that doesn't pass, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This is not the kind of process we want to see move forward on appropriations. I think this is the only opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to be able to express that, by voting ``no'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Members of this body to concur with the Senate amendment to my bill, the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Authorization Act of 2018, so that we may send this bill to the President for his signature.

I appreciate all the work that Chairman Goodlatte and the committee has done and the bipartisan nature in which they have worked with us, as well as the administration and the Attorney General.

This bill will help address the problem of the rise of violence from gangs like MS-13 that have threatened my area in Northern Virginia, as well as the entire Washington metropolitan region and other places such as Long Island, Houston, and Los Angeles. MS-13 is actually active in 40 States and the District of Columbia, and their goal is to grow.

Gangs like MS-13 have branched into human trafficking as well as drugs and, of course, their murderous rampages. In Virginia, we actually, several years ago, increased the penalties on any of these gang members involved with human trafficking, so we know we constantly need to change how we address these gangs.

Now, let's just look at some of the recent headlines in The Washington Post, our local paper, which they have actually covered the violence, the murders, the trials and more of the approximately over 30 killings over the past several years, and that is the number according to the gang task force.

Here are some of the headlines:

``MS-13 Is `Taking Over the School,' One Teen Warned Before She Was Killed.''

``He Was Flashing Gang Signs on Facebook. It Got Him Killed by MS- 13.''

``Heinous and Violent: MS-13's Appeal to Girls Grows as Gang Become Americanized.''

And finally, one: ``She Told the Girl She'd See Her in Hell Before Stabbing Her. Now She's Guilty of an MS-13 Murder.''

That particular murder was detailed about a young woman, Damaris Reyes Rivas, and her body was found here, this highway, which is just in Springfield, in Virginia, about a dozen, a little over a dozen miles here from the Capitol. You can see the MS-13 gang signs here, and that is where they left her body.

At age 12, Damaris was brought to the U.S. by her mom to escape gangs in El Salvador. By 15, she was dead, killed by those very gangs, numerous gang members, who then sent a video of her killing back to El Salvador because that is one of their goals, to show what they have done here.

Just to give you a little detail on this, Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Morrogh played the videos in court, saying he wanted to make clear for the judge the depravity involved in the horrific murder of the high school girl. Her mother was in the courtroom.

The prosecutor said: ``Some kids are prodigies at the violin, and some kids are prodigies at violence. This is a prodigy at violence.''

The first video shows Damaris in the Springfield, Virginia, woods, being interrogated by the gang members, numerous gang members, all of whom were between the ages of 15 and 21. They shout at her as she gets up from the snow-dusted ground.

At one point, they clicked a cigar cutter, threatening her that she could lose a finger. They made her take off her shoes and her shirt so she could feel how cold it was. They were interrogating her about a previous MS-13 murder.

People were wielding knives, and they could hear, ``Just stick the steel in her,'' another one was telling them. They took her away to another area, then they took her back into the woods, forcing her to crawl through a 3-foot tunnel covered in MS-13 graffiti. Then they brutally murdered her, and they left her body, and then they came back that night to take the video of the murder to be able to send it back.

As the prosecutor explained, those videos were taken so some of the MS-13 members could send it back to El Salvador to earn a promotion within the gang, which requires violence to move up the ranks.

Now, these are The Washington Post stories, I should add, and they also have written stories about how gangs are a problem in our jails. This is in Maryland.

It says: `` `Our incidents every month are predominantly MS-13,' said a jail investigator speaking on the condition of anonymity for his safety. `They are vying for the control of our jails.' ''

So there is violence going on in our jails as a result of this also.

We had another victim, Carlos Otero Hernriquez, in Leesburg, Virginia. His body was dumped in a quarry in West Virginia after a brutal murder. The acting U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia said of the killing: ``The hallmark of MS-13 is extreme violence. . . . This brutal kidnapping and murder is a tragic reminder of the impact MS-13 has on communities here in Northern Virginia.''

MS-13 gangs prey on their own community, as the example of this young woman.

Last summer, I went on a ride-along with the Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force, which is comprised of 13 local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies working together. They are going to be--they should be--some of the beneficiaries of the bill here today.

I do want to assure everyone, they work very carefully with the community. What they do is--their projects are to educate, to prevent, to work with the children in schools. They have Spanish-speaking members of the task force so they can make sure they are working with the kids to keep them safe.

In one case, they had an MS-13 member who was trying to recruit his brother to join the gang, and then when his brother would not join the gang, they put a hit out on the brother. Fortunately, the gang task force was able to intervene, protect that brother, sort of a Cai and Abel type of situation. Abel was protected. Cain, we were able to have the task force deal with him.

But what I saw in working with the Task Force is their need for more technology, their need for resources. Whenever I talk to them, they talk about how they need to be out in the schools, at the fairs.

At one local fair in Herndon, actually, I believe it was in Mr. Connolly's district, the task force told me, at a Labor Day fair, they identified up to about 200 suspected gang members, just in there, weaving about among the children.

So when we went on the ride-along with them, in one night, they picked up four suspected gang members. One of them turned out to be somebody who, at 16 years old, had committed murder in El Salvador; and then he had already been deported from the country twice and was now back on Sterling Boulevard in Sterling, Virginia, about 25 miles or so from the Capitol. There he was, on a Friday evening, as children and everyone else were playing around. He was covered with gang signs when he lifted up his shirt.

One of the tools that our gang task force needs more of is a little device that looks a lot like an iPad where, when you put the fingerprint of that gang member on the pad, his record then came up and we could see the entire record, and the gang task force members knew who they were dealing with.

So it is clear that the resurgence of MS-13 is a multifaceted problem that needs a multifaceted solution, incorporating efforts from all levels of government, law enforcement, and communities. Passing the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Authorization Act of 2018 today, which the Senate has now already passed, will really get us back on the path to getting the resources that they previously had in our local task force.

They called us today to let us know they aren't even getting the money that they used to get. Unfortunately, this was State money that they used to get that they aren't getting anymore that the State attorney general's office used to provide them, and now they

aren't getting it. So this is needed more than ever in regions like ours.

I know the gentlewoman in Houston, they have problems there, too, and the beauty of this program is they work with those communities that are being targeted. They work with those children. They protect them. They become their friends. But they also get the MS-13 gang members out.

Now, we do have another bill that I know the chairman worked with us to get out, which would make sure that we don't have MS-13 gang members able to get in the country in the first place; and if they are here, we can remove them more quickly. That still needs to get through Senate passage also.

But I am pleased that now, today, we have been able to make sure that we don't see this proliferating in our communities, this kind of gang activity, and to see these gang signs as we are driving home from work, going to a soccer game, you know, going to see our kids, and seeing that this is going on in our communities. This is something that cannot be happening in our communities.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation to protect our communities and combat gang violence and provide more safe neighborhoods.

Mr. Speaker, I think when I was speaking about the ride along that I did with the Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force, someone said they thought they heard me say they had picked up 14 in one night. I just wanted to clarify. If it sounded like 14, I meant to say 4. So it was four in one night. Nevertheless, it goes to the problem of right in our communities there were four people there that they were able to pick up.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018. This is the product of many months of hard work by members of the committee and staff, and I particularly want to congratulate the chairman. This will be his last WRDA bill, but until his leadership, water resources bills had languished for, I believe, a decade. So this has been a tremendous achievement.

This is a good bill. However, it could be better. In the last Congress, I offered an amendment in committee to take the harbor maintenance trust fund off budget, allow the Corps to spend the proceeds in the trust fund every year, and draw down the surplus that deals with a backlog on all of our ports.

Ports affect the entire Nation, any time you have an import or an export, which covers virtually all of the States of the union. These red dots are harbors that are critical to our infrastructure. On a daily basis, our major ports are at about 35 percent of their authorized depth. 35 percent. Why is that? Well, because we don't have the money to fix them. And the jetties are falling apart. We don't have the money to fix them.

Well, actually, we do have the money to fix them, but some very shortsighted people around here want to play games. They want to collect a tax from the American people--a minuscule tax, 0.0125 cents on the value of every imported good that comes through a harbor. That is, if you buy a $30,000 car, you are going to spend about $37.50 that, starting with Ronald Reagan, was dedicated to maintaining our harbors at proper depths and maintaining the jetties for these harbors, not limiting the funds just to the commercial harbors, but to small and emerging ports, which are also critical to the Nation: the fishing industry, recreation, and others.

However--and this has been a bipartisan problem, starting even when Democrats have been in charge--this has been underspent on an annual basis. Today, there is $10.5 billion of taxes collected from the American people sitting idle or having been spent somewhere else. It has got a theoretical trust fund.

Now, that is going to grow every year as we underspend this tax. It could grow to $20 billion within a decade. So we don't have the money to dredge the ports and we don't have the money to fix the jetties, because Congress is diverting the money. I actually worked on this with the chairman's father quite some time ago, and the chairman has been supportive of my efforts.

Unfortunately, it was stripped out of that bill by the Rules Committee 2 years ago. And this year, again, the Rules Committee found that they would not allow this to go forward. So we offered it in a different form to get around their technical objections about budget caps and discretionary spending.

So we offered--well, there actually is a way around that. They didn't like that either. They want to continue to steal money from the American people and divert it to be spent who knows where--somewhere else, but not on our harbors and our ports.

Now, the administration actually sent to what is called their statement down to us with an SAP--and it really is a SAP; they are SAPs--a Statement of Administration Policy is what it stands for. They sent down a provision where they said: This is great that you are not allowing the Congress to spend the tax collected from the American people on the stated purpose.

What? Really? Yes. That is their position. They say that the ports should have greater flexibility to spend local money on the ports.

Well, they have all the flexibility in the world to spend local money on local ports. They can partner with the Corps and fund Corps activities. I did that a number of years ago in Oregon. They don't have the money, and we are depriving them of the money.

But this is the Trump administration's solution. The big infrastructure package? This is going to be counted. We are going to add $3 billion to the pile of unfunded Corps projects.

We have got today $96 billion of Corps projects that have been authorized by Congress that aren't funded in the foreseeable future. At the end of this debate there will be $99 billion--almost $100 billion-- quite an achievement, and the administration is applauding this. They think this is just great because it gives the local ports the capability of raising money they can't raise to spend on the improvements they can't make.

Meanwhile, we are stealing money from the American people. It is a very sad day. So with that said, I will move on. There are other issues in this bill that are critical.

We have $3 billion to new Chief's Reports which will go on the shelf for the indefinite future, maybe 100 years or longer. But people can go home and say: Well, I got that project, all we need to do now is get the money.

Maybe a future Congress--maybe next year--we will decide to start spending the harbor maintenance tax on harbor maintenance. Who knows? It might depend upon who is in charge around here.

There are other provisions in here that are critical, authorizing the national levee safety initiative, the national dam safety program-- those are pretty important things--promoting improved safety measures, and reducing the risk to life and property.

There are a couple of provisions that benefit or would go for Corps projects in my district, one related to Fern Ridge Dam, and a collapsing road near the dam. A number of years ago, we had to expedite funds to fix a collapsing dam, now we have a collapsing road by the collapsing dam, and hopefully, the Corps can get to that before we have a major problem; and then delivering on a very long-ago promise to

Indian tribes that were displaced by dams that were built three- quarters of a century ago. Their villages were flooded and displaced, and this would authorize the Corps to provide housing assistance to those tribes.

There are other meritorious things in this bill. Again, I want to congratulate the chairman on what will be the third conservative 2-year authorization of the Water Resources Development Act. We just need to find the will and the money to fund the necessary projects.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chair, wouldn't it be in order just to move along? If people aren't responsible enough to be here, they don't get to offer the amendment.

The gentleman did not respond to my previous inquiry.

There were 53 amendments offered. The Rules Committee didn't give us en bloc authority. We need to expedite this. If people aren't here, we need to move along.