Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2083) to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to reduce predation on endangered Columbia River salmon and other nonlisted species, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to Kurt Schrader, who has been a partner with me on this legislation for a while--actually, since before I was here, he has been working on this bill--and today is a good day.

``I would like to think that there might still be salmon and steelhead to fish for when my great-grandkids try fishing.'' That is from Bob, who lives in Brush Prairie in my district. I have heard Bob's sentiments echoed literally from thousands of folks across southwest Washington.

Unfortunately, our salmon runs are now fighting for survival. It is practically a miracle when a fish can make it upstream without getting caught between a sea lion's teeth. They certainly don't get caught unscathed.

Mr. Chairman, what we currently have on the Columbia River is an ecosystem seriously out of balance. I recently met with local fishing guides who, with despair in their voices, told me between 70 and 100 percent of the fish they land show visible signs of a struggle with a sea lion, barely escaping becoming a meal for the already engorged sea lions. We are seeing fewer and fewer salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon make it past this gauntlet of sea lions as the fish make their way upstream.

Donald from Vancouver told me the other day he reeled in a salmon-- half of a salmon. A sea lion was fighting him for the other half.

Look, we are not anti-sea lion. Oh, my goodness, no. We are just for protecting our native fish, a Pacific Northwest icon, and in order to do that, we have got to make it easier to remove some of the most egregious offenders, problematic pinnipeds.

Sea lions aren't endangered anymore. In fact, they are doing really, really well. They weigh a ton. Literally, a Steller sea lion can weigh up to 1 ton. Between the California and the Steller sea lions, their populations have increased by hundreds of thousands, and now they are overindulging on an all-you-can-eat buffet of salmon at numbers that are totally unnatural on the Columbia River system. The sea lions are winning this battle.

Forty-five percent of spring Chinook adult salmon disappear between the mouth of the Columbia River and the Bonneville Dam. Oregon's fish and wildlife agency has concluded after much study that the Willamette River steelhead runs are facing a 90 percent chance of extinction due to predation.

That is why we are here today, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan effort to save our wild fish from being decimated by animals that have migrated out of their natural habitat and whose population is ever increasing.

My bill, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act, provides Tribal and government resource managers with the means to rapidly respond and remove California and Steller sea lions from specific areas where they are posing the most harm to our salmon restoration efforts.

The Columbia River makes up the entire southern border of my district. The river is a lifeline for clean, affordable energy and brings economic benefit through both recreational and commercial fishing.

While the lethal take of sea lions is a last resort, it is necessary to protect the hundreds of millions of dollars in investments that the Northwest residents have made to protect and enhance salmon and other ESA-listed species on the Columbia River.

Nonlethal solutions like hazing and, literally, transporting sea lions hundreds of miles away and releasing them have not worked. The sea lions come right back.

In Washington State, we are forced to live with a cautionary tale of failing to take strong action. In the 1980s and 1990s, Federal officials failed to grant the same authority that we are asking for today to halt the salmon slaughter in Seattle at the Ballard Locks. By the time Congress acted, a whole run of steelhead was decimated.

Let's not allow history to repeat itself. H.R. 2083 is a much-needed solution. The bill would amend section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide States and local Tribes with the tools necessary to humanely manage sea lions on the waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries as long as the sea lions are not part of an ESA-listed species. This is common sense, Mr. Chairman.

Additionally, this legislation allows not only the Northwest State wildlife agencies, but also qualified Tribes to obtain permits to help protect the recovery of ESA-listed salmon, authority not granted currently under the law.

Simply put, my bill cuts through the bureaucratic red tape, streamlines the permitting process, and allows States and Tribes to rapidly respond to remove sea lions from areas they pose the most threat to salmon recovery. Mr. Chairman, this is the last line of defense against fish runs bordering on extinction.

This bill enjoys bipartisan support both here in Congress and at home. As I mentioned, my friend and neighbor to the south, Kurt Schrader, has been an invaluable partner in getting this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is supported by the Governors of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission; the Washington, Idaho, and Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Ilwaco Charter Association; the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries; and the Coastal Conservation Association of Oregon and Washington. Public utilities are among the bill's supporters.

I am also pleased a companion bill is moving through the Senate now, with bipartisan support, underscoring the urgency of this issue.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting H.R. 2083. Let's make sure our kids and our grandkids and great-grandkids can experience the thrill of reeling in their first salmon on the Columbia River.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter of support from the Public Power Council and a letter of support from the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

June 22, 2018.

To: Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, and Northwest

Congressional Delegation.

Re Support for H.R. 2083 and S. 1702--To reduce marine mammal

predation on endangered Columbia River salmon.

We come together today to lend our strong and joint support

for H.R. 2083 and S. 1702, bills that would reduce predation

of endangered adult salmon and steelhead. The Public Power

Council (PPC) is a not for profit association that represents

about 100 consumer-owned electric utilities in the Pacific

Northwest on issues regarding the Federal Columbia River

Power System. The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

(CRITFC) provides coordination and technical assistance to

the tribes in regional, national, and international efforts

to ensure

that treaty fishing rights issues are protected in a way that

guarantees the continuation and restoration of tribal

fisheries into perpetuity.

In the last few decades, west coast sea lion populations

have increased ten-fold. This growing population has expanded

its search for food and found it in the Columbia and

Willamette Rivers, river systems they had never before

accessed. A recent NOAA Fisheries study estimates that

pinnipeds consumed between 10-45 percent of some stocks of

returning adult salmon in 2017. It is difficult to envision a

successful recovery plan for fish listed under the Endangered

Species Act without addressing this aggressive predation on

the very adult fish that have benefitted from current efforts

only to fall short in surviving a return to their spawning

grounds.

H.R. 2083 and S. 1702, introduced in the first session of

the 115th Congress, address this concern by building on

existing authorities that allow some lethal take of sea lions

near Bonneville Dam by appropriate tribal and state entities.

Fisheries biologists estimate predation would greatly

decrease by incorporating all management activity in the

areas of high predation between the mouth of the river up to

the dam.

These bills are widely supported in the Northwest. In

addition to this joint support from CRITFC and PPC, regional

governors from both parties, along with other industries who

rely on healthy salmon and steelhead runs, have come together

to back these bills. We are hopeful the proposals will

receive broad bipartisan support in the House of

Representatives and Senate.

This situation continues to expand supporters of this

legislation among diverse interests in the public, private

and nonprofit sectors. Our joint support represents that

healthy salmon and steelhead runs are critical to the future

of the Columbia River treaty tribes and utilities. This bill

would give fisheries managers greater tools to appropriately

reduce predation of these endangered fish. Again, we support

H.R. 2083 and S. 1702 and urge their expeditious passage

through Congress.

Sincerely,

Scott Corwin,

Executive Director, Public Power Council.

Jaime A. Pinkham,

Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to one piece. I keep hearing that this isn't a silver bullet. No one is claiming that this is a silver bullet. This is a step in the right direction to protect endangered salmon runs that are critical for commercial, recreational, and Tribal resource use. This is really iconic to the Pacific Northwest, and it is part of our heritage. It is something that we would like to pass on to our kids and our grandkids. Passing this bill today allows us to do that.

Ratepayers are so committed to this. In the States of Washington and Oregon, ratepayers who fund the Bonneville Power Administration and the dam--the hydro system--spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year. If you get it all together, it almost cracks $1 billion annually that is spent in mitigation efforts to protect the species that are impacted.

As ratepayers, we spend a lot of money to protect and support these runs because it is so specific and unique to our way of life. This is a critical thing for us. It is one of those things where you literally can stand on the shore of the Columbia River and you can watch sea lions toss salmon, and you watch them play with salmon. You can come across carcasses of salmon on the river with a single bite mark taken out.

I walked across and found a sturgeon longer than my arm with a single bite mark taken out of her stomach. Basically they took the eggs--they took the caviar--and then let it go.

We look at that and we think we, as ratepayers, because we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect these runs and bring them back into fuller health, to watch these animals not even eat a full meal but just play with them, it makes you sick, Mr. Chairman.

So if you are someone who believes in protecting species and having a balanced ecosystem--this isn't about picking one species over the other. This is literally us trying to restore some balance here. It is one of those things where you would have to fight hard to find a reason not to support this.

When very liberal Governors and very conservative Republican Governors come in and ask us to pass this legislation, it should cause you to stop and pause. This is one of those things that this body should be about, and today is a good chance to take a step forward in protecting these wild runs.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding H.R. 6157, the ``Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019,'' to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 12 increases funding for the PTSD by $5 million.

These funds should be used toward outreach activities targeting hard to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, PTSD is the signature wound suffered by the brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.

For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see on a daily basis.

In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face.

Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th birthday.

But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and memories.

And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.

PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes.

People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb (especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent.

They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult.

Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep.

These are called flashbacks; a person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again.

Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD.

These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 12 recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human, who live their experiences.

Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 12 will help ensure that ``no soldier is left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country.

I urge all Members to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 12.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, let me first thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky and the staff for shepherding this legislation.

My amendment provides flexibility for the Secretary of Defense to allocate resources needed to provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war, terrorism, human trafficking, and narcotics trafficking, to ameliorate their impact on women and girls across the globe.

More and more, we are seeing that, in the countries where terror is perpetrated, more women are being allowed to be part of their military.

We know of the growing leadership of women in our military, rising in responsibility and rank throughout all of the services.

As a member of the Afghan task force, which I co-chaired for a number of years, I have seen women leadership dealing with peace around the world.

The purpose of my amendment is to provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to work with military women in the United States, for them to interact with military women face-to-face, one-on-one, as they work to develop security measures that, in particular, will protect women and girls.

Women and girls are more subject to human trafficking. They are more subject to being victims of narcotics trafficking. They are more subject to being victims of war and terrorism as they try to protect their families.

I remember, in the early stages of the Afghan war and after the attempt with the new President to begin to write a constitution in Afghanistan, one of the issues was to elect more women at that time.

We did do that. I met those women who were in the Afghan Government. But, tragically, in the period of time that we left to go to Iraq, many of those women were killed as they went to their home districts.

So the idea of protecting women through women who are in the military, or to develop strategies, is very important.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to foster peace and relationships and the interaction between women here in the United States, with their expertise, and women who are now rising in various militaries in countries where terrorism is raging, to be able to help those women as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe and for their work in ensuring that they have resources needed to keep our Armed Forces the greatest fighting force for peace on earth.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is simple and straightforward and affirms an example of the national goodness that makes America the most exceptional nation on earth.

The purpose of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 is to provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to allocate resources needed to provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war, terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking.

Mr. Chairman, the United States is committed to combating violent extremism, protecting our borders and the globe from the scourge of terrorism.

The United States Armed Forces possess an unparalleled expertise and technological capability that will aid not only in combating and defeating terrorists who hate our country and prey upon innocent persons, especially women, girls, and the elderly.

But we must recognize that notwithstanding our extraordinary technical military capabilities, we face adversaries who adapt very quickly because they are not constrained by geographic limitations or norms of morality and decency.

Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS/ISIL and other militant terrorists, including the Sinai's Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in the Sinai Peninsula which poses a threat to Egypt.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 help provide the Department of Defense with the resources needed to provide technical assistance to countries on innovative strategies to provide defense technologies and resources that promote the security of the American people and allied nation states.

Terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking and their impact on women and girls across the globe has had a great adverse impact on us all.

According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture and human trafficking by terrorist and militant groups have been employed as weapons of war, affecting over twenty thousand women and girls.

Looking at the history of terrorism highlights the importance of providing technical assistance through our military might, as this enables us to combat terrorism which now can plague us here in the United States.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 will help curb terrorism abroad by making available American technical military expertise to military in other countries, like Nigeria, who are combating violent jihadists in their country and to keep those terrorists out of our country.

Time and again American lives have been lost at the hands of terrorists.

These victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care providers, relief workers, schoolchildren, and members of the diplomatic corps and the Armed Services.

This is why the technical assistance offered by our military personnel is integral to promoting security operation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft for missions to empower local forces to combat terrorism.

Terrorists across the globe have wreaked havoc on our society and cannot not be tolerated or ignored, for their actions pose a threat to our national security and the security of the world.

Mr. Chairman, from the United States to Africa to Europe to Asia and the Middle East, it is clear that combating terrorism remains one of highest national priorities.

Collectively, helping our neighbors and their military build capacity to combat terrorism, eradicate human trafficking, stop narcotics trafficking and negate their impact on women and girls across the globe serves our national interest.

I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her understanding and graciousness, as well as I thank the ranking member. This is something I have worked on over the years.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking, and their impact on women and girls across the globe has had a great adverse impact on us all.

According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture, and human trafficking by terrorists and militant groups have been employed as weapons of war, affecting more than 20,000 women and girls. I am sure that number has grown.

We are all well aware of the Chibok girls taken in Nigeria as victims of Boko Haram. I am grateful for this amendment because the victims have included Christians, Muslims, journalists, healthcare providers, relief workers, schoolchildren, and members of the diplomatic corps and the armed services. Working with our women in the United States military and our efforts with strategy will be an effective tool in helping women across the world.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to bring the Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019 to the House floor for consideration.

Congress' number one responsibility is to provide for the defense of this Nation. It is this bill that fulfills that most fundamental constitutional duty.

Last year, General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said: ``The U.S. military's competitive advantage against potential adversaries is eroding. Over the last decade, sustained operational commitments, budgetary instability, and advances by our adversaries have threatened our ability to project power and we have lost our advantage in key warfighting areas.''

My approach to funding this bill is based on that statement. The priorities funded in this bill not only stop the erosion, but also enable our military to restore and increase the competitive advantage. This is all possible because of the bipartisan budget agreement which has allowed us to provide the necessary resources.

The fiscal year 2018 Defense Appropriation Act took the first step in rebuilding our military by addressing the toll taken on readiness, and began to make investments to improve our competitive advantage.

Building on the gains we made in 2018 and guided by the new National Defense Strategy, the bill before you is the next critical step to enable Secretary Mattis to build a more lethal, resilient, and rapidly innovating joint force that can defeat the adversaries we face today and those we will face in the future.

The bill also supports the Secretary's efforts to work by, with, and through our allies and partners to help share the burden while protecting America's interests around the world.

This bill reflects the advice the subcommittee received in hearings, briefings, and meetings with Secretary Mattis, Chairman Dunford, the leadership of the military services, the Intelligence Committee, and other national security experts.

The bill provides a total of $675 billion to the Department for fiscal year 2019. This is $19 billion above the fiscal year 2018 level and is consistent with total funding level in the House-passed authorization bill.

The bill provides full funding to address military personnel needs, including: full funding for an additional 16,400 active, guard and reserve soldiers, sailors and airmen. And full funding for the 2.6 percent pay raise for our troops.

The bill provides critical funding to repair and improve our military readiness, including $1 billion over the request for training and equipping our troops, including the National Guard and Reserve, and for training, equipment, maintenance and spare parts, and base operations.

It includes $21 billion for depot maintenance to get our planes and ships back in working order.

For procurement, the bill provides adequate funding to modernize the force. Major investments include: increased funds for Strykers, Abrams tanks, Humvees, and other ground mobility vehicles.

And to maintain air superiority, we provide increases for key platforms such as the Joint Strike Fighter, Apaches, Lakotas, Ospreys, Black Hawks, and C-130s.

We maintain our commitment to the National Guard and Reserve components, providing $1.3 billion over the request, specifically for their equipment needs.

For shipbuilding, we fund 12 Navy ships, 2 more than requested.

To ensure our technological edge against our adversaries, $95 billion is included for research and development.

We keep our commitment to take care of our servicemembers and their families by providing over $34 billion for defense health programs, including $752 million over the request for medical research.

To address growing concerns on and around our military bases, we include over $1.2 billion to address environmental remediation and restoration.

For ongoing global war on terrorism operations, the bill provides funding for additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for the warfighter, and $250 million for Ukraine.

Given the serious challenges and significant resources at stake, the committee continues to exercise strong oversight over the Department to ensure that our constituents' tax dollars are being spent wisely.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my ranking member and partner, Mr. Visclosky. His input has been invaluable. The bill before us is better because of his involvement.

I also want to thank our full committee ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, for her support for this important work done in this bill. Most importantly, I want to thank my full committee chairman and the previous subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), for his leadership and his support.

Sadly, this is the last Defense Appropriation bill that the chairman will manage in Congress.

Throughout his service, he has shown an unwavering commitment to the needs of our military and intelligence communities. I will miss his wise counsel and steadfast commitment to the members of our military services.

I want to thank all Members for their participation and input as we put together this bill. The subcommittee received over 6,600 requests from Members. The bill incorporates their ideas and recommendations, and I thank them for their continued support.

I would like to personally thank our hardworking staff for helping make this bill possible. On our majority staff: Jennifer Miller, Walter Hearne, Brooke Boyer, B. G. Wright, Allison Deters, Collin Lee, Matt Bower, Jackie Ripke, Hayden Milberg, Bill Adkins, Sherry Young, and Barry Walker.

On our minority staff: Becky Leggieri, Jennifer Chartrand, and Chris Bigelow. On my personal staff: Johnnie Kaberle, Jon Fay, and Spencer Freebairn.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019 is a great bill that takes the next critical step in rebuilding our military.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH260618.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH260618.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH260618.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH260618.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH260618.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH260618.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH260618.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH260618.008

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a distinguished member of the Defense Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns. It is important to discuss these important issues. I will continue to work with the gentlewoman and the department to ensure that these issues are addressed.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's concern to provide adequate funding for arthritis research. I am a strong supporter of funding in this area.

Each year, Congress provides funding for medical research through the Defense Health Program. Arthritis research previously has received millions of dollars in research grants.

I do appreciate his interest and engagement on behalf of our warfighters. I agree to work with the gentleman from West Virginia on this important topic.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

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

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the STARBASE program supports programs to improve the interests and skills of students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Military volunteers engage students through experimental learning, and the program has a proven record of success. As a result, the committee provided an additional $30 million in the bill for the STARBASE program.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program is a youth development program that works to improve the life skills and employment potential of our youth through military base training and supervised work experience. Like my colleague, I support this important program.

This is why the bill includes $175 million to support the program. An additional $6 million will allow the program to have a similar budget to the FY18 level.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I share the gentleman's support of the veterans who bravely served our country and were exposed to radiation during nuclear weapons tests. Military commanders have numerous personal military declarations, such as meritorious service medals, commendation medals, and achievement medals available to appropriately recognize members for their specific actions or sustained meritorious service. However, recognizing these individuals for their sacrifice is a very good idea; therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation for how Chairwoman Granger has conducted the business of this subcommittee. Her abiding priority has remained the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of every man and woman in uniform. Additionally, she has taken a thoughtful and bipartisan approach to our work. She has been transparent, considerate of every Member's request in this body, and is a fierce defender of the oversight responsibilities and constitutional prerogatives of the Congress.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Lowey, and the other members of the subcommittee for their efforts. This legislation would not have happened without the incredibly skilled staff that the chairwoman has just enumerated, and I will join her in thanking them for their outstanding work.

I would also be remiss if I did not also use a portion of my time to recognize that this will be the last time I will manage time on a Defense appropriations bill with my very good friend, Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, on the floor with us. He is a consummate gentleman, decent to his core, a tireless advocate for the people he represents, and always working for the best interest of our Nation and those wearing its uniform. He will be sorely missed, and this body will be lesser without him. I thank him for his service, and I thank him deeply for his friendship.

With regards to the matters before us, I would like to begin by calling attention to an issue of great importance to me: the full integration of women in the military. Female servicemembers are invaluable to the defense of our Nation. For the majority of the time that they have been allowed in the military, women have had to assimilate into a culture established by men for men. This is not the best way to maximize the effectiveness of our armed services.

While I appreciate the opening of combat career fields to women and the Department's emerging effort to ensure that combat equipment is designed and fitted for female servicemembers, I would submit that these are immediate-term solutions.

Bluntly, the rate at which women leave the service is detrimental to its readiness. Some of the reasons for their departures are glaringly obvious and will be difficult to overcome because they will require cultural and significant policy changes. But I am pleased that the House Armed Services Committee in their fiscal year 2019 authorization bill has taken a step to establish a female retention baseline and developed ways to improve female retention. Initiatives like these will help the Appropriations Committee to better focus funding where it can be most effective.

Specific to the bill, the chairwoman has provided an accurate summary, but there are a few areas I would like to highlight. This bill increases funding by almost $200 million above the budget request for several important environmental cleanup accounts. The subcommittee under Chairwoman Granger and previously under Chairman Frelinghuysen has been very proactive on emergency environmental issues, including those caused by firefighting chemicals. Those living on or near military facilities and everyone throughout our country should not have to worry about access to clean drinking water.

Oversight of the management and expenditure of $674 billion is a core function of this subcommittee. As such, this bill contains several cuts to accounts that have large, unobligated balances or have under executed. The funds generated by those cuts have been invested in programs and initiatives that provide more benefit to our country and the warfighter. Unlike the recently debated and much-ballyhooed rescission bill, these are actions of real substance that will benefit the taxpayer.

I believe good oversight is fostered by constructive and informed dialogue between the committee and the agencies. Oversight cannot be effective when proposals are presented at the last minute with the intention of forcing a decision. Oversight cannot be effective when complex changes to a program are first communicated to the legislative branch through the media. I have great respect for the service secretaries and chiefs, but there needs to be an improvement in the timeliness and quality of communication. The committee report to accompany this bill contains several sections encouraging the department as a whole and with a special focus on the Army to adhere to congressional direction, increased transparency for budget exhibits, and improve the quality and timeliness of communication.

I am cautiously optimistic that the bipartisan budget agreement, which provided relief from the Budget Control Act, will provide a pathway for completing the fiscal year 2019 bills in a somewhat timely manner. However, the next two fiscal years present daunting obstacles to make it even more important to complete our work as soon as possible.

Most obvious is the return of the BCA caps for fiscal year 2020, which if left unchanged will require the department's base funding to be reduced by $71 billion from the level provided in this bill. A reduction of that magnitude would cause great disruption. Inexplicably, multiple Congresses have managed to alleviate the budget caps for 7 of 8 years, but only after significant and protracted political theater. I know the senior leaders in the Pentagon are not taking chances and have begun to identify programs to cut in 2020 that will carry the least associated risk for the warfighter if these caps are not adjusted.

Additionally, senior military leaders have testified that arresting the erosion of our military's competitive advantage requires real budget growth of at least 3 percent above inflation through 2023, and that increasing that competitive advantage would require even higher growth. I agree with the assessment that we need to make smart investments, but I do not believe a growth rate of that magnitude is sustainable. Unless we act responsibly on the revenue side of the budget and address entitlements in a meaningful fashion, the money will not be there.

While we are on the floor today debating the funding for the DOD bill, we must consider that maintaining our competitive advantage in defense also requires other investments that we do not immediately equate with military matters. As only 29 percent of Americans aged 17 to 24 qualify for military service, investments in our youth, difficult-to-retain populations, education, and public health are equally important.

Since fiscal year 2016, the annual funding level for the Department of Defense has increased by $100 billion. To put this into context, a $100 billion increase is larger than the annual budget for the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Transportation. It is greater than the combined annual budgets of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior.

Finally, I remain concerned that while we have seen plenty of long- awaited, long-term planning and strategy documents generated by the Pentagon and the White House over the last 500 days, the bulk of our ongoing military operations continue to be authorized by legislation from 17 years ago. There have been four Presidential elections and eight congressional elections since 2001 and its Authorization for Use of Military Force. I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order any amendments on this matter. It is a shame that this Congress cannot muster the will to even talk about this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I, again, thank the chairwoman for her great effort and her true partnership, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), ranking member of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a member of the Committee on Appropriations as well as the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and thank him very much for offering it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2083. This legislation claims to

protect salmon in the Columbia River by authorizing an increase in the annual permits to kill California sea lions, Steller sea lions, and harbor seals.

It is true that many of our salmon and steelhead runs are not doing well. In 2017, runs of wild salmon and steelhead were the fourth lowest since 1979, and the most recent 3-year trend is steadily downward. It is devastating, I agree, but we should be legislating to address the real threats facing salmon recovery. Impacts to salmon caused by seals and sea lions pale in comparison to the harm caused by so many other threats.

Let's take a minute to go over some of the significant threats facing salmon: habitat loss and degradation, pesticides and toxic contaminants polluting tributary habitats, hydropower, invasive species, hatcheries, overfishing, by-catch, human population growth, climate change, and the bill the House Republicans pushed today to block court-mandated water releases from Federal dams to aid in salmon recovery.

I cannot support this bill. It does not address the root causes of salmon population decline and, instead, unfairly scapegoats sea lions.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to be standing here today to debate a bill that has become quite familiar to the House Natural Resources Committee over the past three Congresses.

I must point out the obvious fact, Mr. Chairman, that killing of sea lions is not a silver bullet for a salmon recovery. This bill is a five-cent solution to a $10 problem.

The fact is the sea lion predation pales in comparison to the harm caused to endangered salmon runs by habitat loss, dam operation, pesticides, invasive species, and several other human activities. The bill does absolutely nothing to address any of these major causes of salmon decline.

For example, NOAA Fisheries has found that the estimated salmon and steelhead production in the Columbia River basin is over 10 million fish below historic levels, with 8 million of that loss attributable to hydropower development and operation.

I must also point out the hypocrisy here. The bill before us today is described as a salmon protection act, but

it follows a series of House Republican priority bills that would push the West Coast salmon population to the brink of extinction.

Just this April, my Republican colleagues pushed through the House H.R. 3144, known in the fishing community as the ``Salmon Extinction Act,'' intended to block protection measures that experts tell us are necessary for salmon survival.

Last year, we saw similar attacks on salmon, Tribes, and the salmon fishing industry when House leadership rushed H.R. 23, also known as the GROW Act, through the House. This bill sought to eliminate protections for wild California salmon and put California's native fisheries and the thousands of jobs it supported on the path to extinction, meaning thousands of job losses across California, Oregon, and Washington State. House leadership pushed that bill even though estimates showed that 78 percent of California's native salmon will be extinct this century under current trends.

The congressional war on salmon has continued with riders in this year's appropriations bills. For example, the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill, approved by this Chamber earlier this month, will block the restoration of salmon runs in the Columbia River and California's San Joaquin River.

As if that were not enough, the Interior and CJS Appropriations bills also include riders that are being supported by the Republican majority. Yet here we are talking about killing hundreds of seals and sea lions because my Republican colleagues claim they want to recover salmon.

Let's be clear: The anti-salmon legislation and riders coming out of Congress are far bigger threats to salmon recovery than the sea lions' snacking habits. Restoring wild salmon that are under threat requires a sophisticated response that tackles the most pressing issues impacting salmon populations.

Instead, we are here today scapegoating marine mammals that are themselves under threat from this House's effort to roll back the Marine Mammal Protection Act in order to help oil and gas companies.

Marine mammals and salmon have coexisted together for millennia. Unfortunately, neither one has enough defenses against the agenda of the Republican Congress. We don't have to pick and choose which creatures are worthy of survival. I would encourage my colleagues to get serious about addressing the whole range of stressors that are driving salmon to extinction: dam operations, pesticides, invasive species, and human activities that are preventing full salmon recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject today's effort to force Congress to pick and choose between wildlife, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

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

H.R. 2083 authorizes the lethal taking of over 1,000 sea lions and an unknown amount of seals annually. Counter to what we have heard, the bill will not significantly aid in the recovery of salmon populations but needlessly targets seals and sea lions.

I think we have to put this piece of legislation in context to what this House has done and what the Natural Resources Committee has done: a pattern. It is another example of how my Republican colleagues view wildlife management policy in the 21st century. We have too many attacks on wildlife in this Congress.

Last year, Republicans released a bill to overturn a 2016 judicial decision to allow the shooting of cormorants without ever considering nonlethal management. The claimed rationale is to protect sports fishing and aquaculture, although scant science, evidence, or fact exists to prove that the birds significantly impact fish populations.

In February of last year, this Chamber voted to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to shoot bear cubs from a helicopter and gas wolf pups in their dens on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges to artificially inflate populations of moose and caribou prized by trophy hunters.

In the 115th Congress, Republicans have introduced dozens of bills and policy riders targeting the Endangered Species Act and species like the gray wolf, grizzly bears, greater sage-grouse, delta smelt, and Chinook salmon.

The Trump administration's announcement that the Department of the Interior will now consider trophy imports on a case-by-case basis gave life to harmful bills in Congress that support trophy killing of elephants and lions in African countries for purported conservation purposes.

In the midst of all of the mass shootings in the country, committee Republicans tried to disguise an NRA-backed bill as a sportsmen's bill, the SHARE Act, which would deregulate silencers and armor-piercing bullets. All these attacks on wildlife have been constant, they have not been backed in science, and they have not been supported by science or fact.

We all would like to see legislation that would tackle the real threats facing imperiled wildlife and, in this particular legislation, to do a study to assess that and then to talk about the kinds of efforts that could be undertaken to protect the salmon. But to merely do that without the science and the study I think is a mistake, and it fits into a pattern that is all too common and puts this legislation within the same context and the same pattern as the other pieces of legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate that the proponents of the legislation on both sides of the aisle, I understand, are representing not only constituent interests, but what they see is a good piece of legislation.

Let me just end by saying that similar legislation has been proposed in previous Congresses, but this bill would allow more killing of seals and sea lions than all of those before it. When this version of the bill was introduced in 2015, it proposed an annual taking of 92 California sea lions. Under this legislation, H.R. 2083, this would increase by tenfold and would include the killing of Stellar sea lions and harbor seals. I am disappointed that the legislation before us today has gone in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.