Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 8. This bill is long overdue. For too long, Congress has failed to end the cycle of gun violence and death that too many families are now familiar with.

In 2017 alone, 40,000 people died from gun violence. Congress did nothing. Last year, five reporters at the Capital Gazette in my district were murdered in cold blood in a mass shooting that took place in their newsroom. Congress did nothing.

Gun violence is a crisis in our communities and a real national emergency that will no longer be met with inaction.

For the first time since Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, we will pass a bill in pursuit of our effort to protect our communities and end this scourge of gun violence.

The American people overwhelmingly want us to act. For the people, we will pass universal background checks out of the House as our first piece of comprehensive gun safety reform.

Mr. Chair, today is only the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, there is no national emergency on our southern border. There are no terrorists who are being apprehended. There is no invading hostile force, and border crossings remain at a 40-year low.

Pulling resources from military construction projects, as President Trump would do, projects meant to improve readiness and support our servicemembers, impacts our national security. It will hurt military families who are already dealing with military housing with mold and lead poisoning, and outdated schools and medical facilities.

This declaration of national emergency will keep thousands of Active- Duty troops needlessly deployed at the southern border and away from their scheduled training activities and operational readiness.

This is a fake emergency; and for President Trump to claim we need to build a wall to support our Armed Forces, it is absurd and ridiculous. This emergency declaration is just an overreaching and dangerous power grab to push forward the President's anti-immigrant agenda and supposedly boost his re-election chances.

There is no national emergency; only a crisis in the Oval Office.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is asserting its constitutional responsibility by cutting off U.S. involvement with the Saudi-led coalition in the devastating conflict in Yemen. I thank Representative Khanna for leading on this issue.

This brutal war has caused mass starvation and cut off humanitarian aid from reaching those most in need. The number of casualties has exceeded half a million men, women, and children. We don't know if this legislation will reach the President's desk or whether he will sign it, but with reporting that Saudi coalition members have transferred U.S. weapons to terrorist groups in Yemen, and the Trump administration choosing to ignore a deadline last week to report on whether Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for the death of journalist Khashoggi, we must keep up the pressure to end U.S. involvement in hostilities in Yemen.

At the end of the day, U.S. participation in this war is illegal, having never been authorized by Congress.

When the United States became involved with the Saudi-led war, this action was not covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force issued by Congress in the wake of 9/11. The Houthis, against whom the Saudi coalition is engaged, are not affiliated with al-Qaida. But because of the 60-word 2001 AUMF, three Presidents have warped that limited authorization into enabling a global-spanning war, broad enough to cover airstrikes in the Khyber Pass and to boots on the ground in Niger. This AUMF contains no time limits, no geographic constraints, and no need for congressional consent or oversight.

In the last 17 years, the 2001 AUMF has been cited as statutory authority for unclassified military actions in more than 18 countries, and Congress has been left in the dark about many of these operations. Our men and women in uniform have deployed time and again, shouldering a heavy burden while at the same time the public is becoming more removed from the conflicts in which we are engaged.

Today, less than 20 percent of the Members of the 116th Congress were present when this vote was taken in 2001. But after more than a decade of putting more and more war-making power in the hands of the President and greater burden on the shoulders of our troops, Congress must take a

stand. We cannot continue to be sidelined from the decisions critical to our national security.

The Constitution is clear. Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war. The President can respond to an imminent threat to the homeland or to U.S. personnel abroad, or if we are attacked, but this is the only situation in which he may dispense with congressional approval, because as current law dictates, once the President initiates hostilities against a new enemy, Congress, not the President, dictates whether hostilities can continue.

It would be wrong for Congress to allow any President solely on his or her own authority and aside from an imminent, clear threat to sustain our involvement in any conflict, especially one so fraught as the conflict in Yemen. The United States cannot enter any conflict in the Middle East, East Asia, or Africa with no clear strategy, no clear objectives, and no authorization from Congress.

The American people need answers, and our troops and their families deserve a public debate over the sacrifices we ask them to make. I understand that for many Members, after close to two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of debating, let alone authorizing, new military action is not going to be popular, even if warranted. But we were not elected to pass the buck or abdicate our constitutional responsibility. We must debate these issues.

Mr. Speaker, as a combat veteran and a Member of Congress, I know it is one of our most important and solemn responsibilities to decide when and how we send Americans into harm's way. We cannot shirk that responsibility because of its gravity. We must embrace the tough decisions our role requires us to carry out.

I hope today is the beginning of our long-overdue debate over the AUMF and the true costs of war on our country and the men and women who fight and die serving it.

Madam Speaker, I rise to demand, insist, and beseech President Trump to end this shutdown now and open the Federal Government.

I represent the fifth largest number of Federal Government employees. Every day I see, I hear, and I feel the pain and suffering of the Federal Government employees and contractors in my neighborhoods and my communities. One out of every ten residents in my Maryland district live in a household headed by a Federal Government employee or contractor.

This Monday at a community event supporting our Federal employees, I met a woman with her 2-month-old infant child. She is an essential employee at the Food and Drug Administration. She needs to be and wants to be on the job, but she simply can't. She can't because she can't afford to pay for childcare for her infant daughter.

She is having difficulty paying for groceries, providing lunch money for her two elementary school-aged boys, and is on the verge of not being able to pay either her rent or her car note.

She was sobbing uncontrollably. She was weeping painfully, and pleading for you, Mr. President, to open the government, to let her work with dignity, to support her children, and to do her job.

President Trump, end this shutdown now.

Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis in our country, but it is not at our southern border. There is a crisis mounting at every airport, every national park, in the homes of furloughed Federal employees and stop-work Federal contractors across this country, from Los Angeles through Kansas City to Baltimore. It is a crisis that is hurting the lives of countless Americans whose food won't be inspected, whose water may not be clean, whose flight may not be safe, and whose bills may not be paid. It is a crisis of the President's own making.

Right now, we are on the verge of the longest government shutdown in our Nation's history, a shameful display of what happens when the President governs solely to appeal to his political base, rather than on behalf of all Americans.

Why are we here, Mr. Speaker? Because the President has committed himself to a wall that many experts say is ineffective. It is ineffective; it is expensive; and it is downright absurd. It has become a vanity project that began as an applause line in a campaign speech in which then-candidate Trump deemed the entire migration of people from the south rapists and criminals.

It is clear, the wall is the only policy objective that matters to the President, and he is willing to say or do anything to get it. He will push hundreds of thousands of American families into suffering for his wall, and he has gone so far as to threaten us with a declaration of national emergency if he doesn't get his way, a declaration of national emergency not because we are in the middle of one, but, rather, as the President put it, because he can't make a deal.

What is this national emergency on the border that the President is so concerned and afraid of? The past 2 years have seen border crossings drop to a historic low. Most undocumented immigrants in this country are visa overstays.

Mr. Speaker, 0.1 percent of all Border Patrol arrests in 2018 were members of MS-13. Yes, that is a problem that we are sadly and tragically familiar with in Maryland, but that doesn't make it a national emergency.

Most drugs smuggled through the southern border come through official ports of entry, not between them. And despite the President's false claims, there aren't thousands of terrorists coming across the border.

Customs and Border Protection, an agency in which the President has considerable confidence, said they encountered six people with names that are like those on the terrorist watch list. Last year, more suspected foreign terrorists were apprehended at the northern border than at our southern border.

Sure, we need strong border security, and not just at our southern border. But the President knows this isn't a national emergency but, perhaps, an alarm to his own political future.

What will hurt our security and create a real crisis is if he takes money away from the Armed Forces to fund the wall. If the President used funding from the military construction budget, facilities used by our men and women in uniform--like shipyards and aircraft hangars, ammunition supply points and training ranges, and childcare centers and family housing--those would continue to slide into disrepair. This would impact military readiness and the quality of life for our military families.

Or the President could decide to use money from infrastructure projects from the Army Corps of Engineers, projects meant to protect cities like Houston or Ellicott City in Maryland from flooding and would threaten tens of thousands of Americans who may find themselves in a real emergency during the next hurricane season.

The use of these authorities, like the deployment of our troops to the border, is irresponsible, unnecessary, and misguided.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have a crisis on the border. We have a crisis in the Oval Office. To President Trump, the wall, his symbol of division, matters more than substantial improvements to border security and true comprehensive immigration reform.

If President Trump wants to address the real crisis in our country, let's end this shutdown and pay the people who work for the people. Let's reduce our silent backlog, protect Dreamers, and fix our dysfunctional immigration system. We need real action and a bipartisan solution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4033, the National Geologic Mapping Act Reauthorization Act, a bipartisan, practical piece of legislation.

I am proud to have cosponsored this bill with my friend from Colorado and colleague on the Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Lamborn.

Our bill would reauthorize the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program for an additional 5 years, which is the primary source of funds to produce geologic maps in the United States.

Even though most people are not familiar with geologic maps, it is hard to overstate their importance.

Geologic maps are essential in supporting a variety of industries, services, and activities that hold immense societal and economic value.

Geologic maps are used to locate groundwater resources and evaluate groundwater quality leading to better land and habitat management decisions.

Geologic maps help city planners, emergency responders, and landowners assess how vulnerable an area is to sinkholes, landslides, earthquakes, floods, and other deadly and destructive natural hazards.

Geologic maps enable the government and industry to locate and develop mineral resources used for a variety of scientific applications and in military technology and in consumer products.

Further, geologic maps provide valuable information that engineers and developers use when designing and constructing highways, bridges, tunnels, and other transportation assets.

In my home State of Maryland, the value and importance of geologic maps are evident. Even though Maryland is a compact State, it has an incredible variety of landscapes and geology stretching from the beaches on the Atlantic Coast to the Appalachian Mountains.

This type of diversity in our geology demands a robust understanding of the science and an extensive mapping of underground formations.

On top of this, Maryland is home to several institutions that rely on the secondary and tertiary benefits of the USGS geologic mapping program. The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Prince George's County, the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, and our military cyber operations in Fort Meade all reap the rewards of a Nation that has broadened its knowledge and capabilities by investing in geological mapping.

There is no doubt the U.S. mapping program is vital to our Nation's safety and prosperity, and I urge a vote in favor.

Mr. Speaker, today is the deadline for the Trump administration to reunite more than 2,500 children with their families. It is clear to me that they are not going to make this deadline.

Hundreds of parents have been deported without their children. HHS has not been able to identify the parents of nearly 100 children.

Even when the administration reunites children and parents, there is only chaos and confusion:

Reunifications are occurring in parking lots in the middle of the night;

Parents are not being informed of their rights and are desperately giving up their chance to stay in this country. They don't have access to lawyers;

After reunification, there is no rationale in deciding which families are released and which are sent to detention centers.

This entire process is unacceptable and abhorrent. That is why I am introducing legislation to immediately appoint a single authority to oversee reunification across the government. We need someone to effectively manage this process.

No more excuses. No more delays. Mr. Speaker, we have to reunite every child immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first, thank the House and Senate conferees for their work. This fiscal year 2019 Defense Authorization Act takes the crucial next steps to rebuild our military by making greater investments in training,

equipping, and providing for our forces. This bipartisan bill is essential to helping our troops prepare and respond to the complex security challenges we are facing around the world.

But as we authorize the largest budget for defense since World War II, it is imperative that President Trump lead responsibly so we can ably defend ourselves and the values we stand for around the world.

That includes: Enhancing U.S. defense posture in Europe and confronting Russian aggression.

We provide record funding for the European Deterrence Initiative that deepens our commitment to our NATO allies.

We strengthen our ability to combat ongoing Russian cyber campaigns that seek to undermine our democracy.

And we prevent the administration from recognizing Putin's illegal annexation of Crimea.

It requires the President to spend our defense dollars wisely.

We should be focusing on increasing readiness and extending our warfighting edge, which is why the NDAA increases funding for training in each service, modernizes range and test facilities and boosts spending on maintenance and spare parts.

And we in invest in modern equipment that have the capabilities to confront Russia and China and other emerging threats.

We must also support the men and women who choose to wear the uniform. That is why we are providing our servicemembers with the largest pay raise in nearly a decade.

And we are overhauling the Transition Assistance Program to provide servicemembers better-tailored resources as they prepare to enter civilian life.

But we must do more to ensure that we extend and preserve the ability to honorably serve to every person in our armed forces, such as:

The men and women deserving a harassment-free workplace.

The Dreamer promised citizenship.

Or the transgender American who wants to continue serving.

The array of national security threats facing the United States is more complex and diverse and the strategic environment has never been more competitive. The Defense Authorization Act gives our military service components the tools and resources for the United States to maintain its military advantage, counter adversaries, and defend the international order that has created a safer and more prosperous world.

Congress has done its job. Now the President must make the tough choices to implement the national defense strategy and truly safeguard our national security.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump had a straightforward mission in Europe last week: stand with our NATO allies and stand up to Russia's Putin. Instead, President Trump squandered U.S. influence and abdicated our leadership by abusing and dividing our allies and fawning over a tyrant who actively seeks to undermine our democracy.

While Putin may not be dictating American policy, President Trump is seemingly pushing forward his agenda. Putin wants to restore Russia as a great global power at the expense of the United States. He wants to expand Russian influence over Europe by weakening NATO and the European Union. In Putin's mind, when the United States and Europe flounder, Russia is stronger.

If Putin was calling the shots, he would have encouraged President Trump to criticize NATO and raise doubts on whether we would defend our allies if they haven't paid their bills. He would invite President Trump to undermine the European Union, our largest trading partner and investor, by lauding Brexit, denouncing trade, supporting antidemocratic populists, and undermining Germany and Chancellor Merkel. And that is exactly what happened.

Rather than projecting unity, President Trump's participation at the NATO summit generated nonstop images of division. Substantive issues received little or no attention.

Putin is the biggest winner from any disunity in NATO. During the Cold War, American and NATO troops held the line in Europe, containing and defeating the Soviet Union.

I served in Germany for 5 years at that time and witnessed firsthand how we won the Cold War. But we didn't do it through military power alone. We won because NATO military strength helped create the space for democratic dissidents in Eastern Europe to come together and bring down Soviet rule from within. This was the success of America's strategy--pursued by Presidents from Roosevelt to Kennedy, to Reagan-- of advancing American values.

For seven decades, the NATO alliance has ensured that America's strength and influence are magnified around the globe. Our alliance has extended the promise of peace, security, and prosperity to much of the democratic world, and it has maintained the inviolable promise of collective defense.

America needed its allies after we were attacked on 9/11, and our allies came through. They fought and died with us.

And threats to our collective security have not vanished in the 21st century. These shared security challenges should have been at the top of President Trump's agenda, but they weren't.

Since Putin's annexation of Crimea, NATO has found renewed purpose and effectiveness, stepping up exercises and establishing the enhanced forward presence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

Additional measures may be necessary to continue to confront Russian aggression. This includes Secretary Mattis' 30-30 plan to establish the readiness of 30 land battalions, 30 air fighter squadrons, and 30 ships ready to deploy within 30 days of being put on alert; Poland's proposal to bring more U.S. troops to the country and setting up a joint armored division with 15,000 American troops, and as many as 250 tanks and armored vehicles; and completion of the European missile shield by 2020. None of this was discussed.

Contrary to President Trump's declarations, NATO members have been increasing defense spending since 2014: almost $46 billion, the biggest buildup by U.S. allies in 25 years.

NATO is also expanding its training mission in Afghanistan and launching a new one in Iraq, showcasing NATO's ongoing commitment to the fight against terrorism. Yet President Trump chose to deride our most important allies.

With as much passion as President Trump questions our European allies as freeloaders, his actions suggest a desire for a cozy relationship with Putin's Russia. Russia is one of our most aggressive adversaries, working to rupture the relationship between the United States and our closest partners, weaken our influence in the Middle East, and pose an ongoing cyber threat.

Other than elevating Putin and failing to mention Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, what good did President Trump accomplish during this summit? I have no answer as to why he, unlike any of his Republican or

Democratic predecessors, is so unwilling to defend the interests of the United States and our allies against Russia. All that is clear is that, by embracing our adversaries and denigrating our allies, President Trump is inviting grave and historic consequences for the United States.

Mr. Speaker, today, I simply call on President Trump to unequivocally affirm the United States' commitment to our European allies and to condemn Russian aggression, meddling, and malign influence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Virgin Islands for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the committee for its consideration in support of H.R. 4890 as well as thank all the members of the Maryland delegation for their steadfast support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4890, which designates the post office at 9801 Apollo Drive in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District the Wayne K. Curry Post Office in honor of our late county executive.

Wayne Keith Curry was born in Brooklyn, New York, and grew up in a racially segregated neighborhood in Cheverly, Maryland. His family was among the first non-White families to integrate the community in the early 1950s. He and his older brother were the first African American students to integrate Cheverly Tuxedo Elementary School and then Bladensburg High School.

Wayne began his career in public service in the administration of Prince George's County Executive Winfield Kelly, Jr., from 1975 to 1978. Through his vision, devotion, and tireless work ethic to make a better Prince George's County, he quickly rose through the ranks of county government.

He went on to serve in various roles, including community affairs assistant, administrative assistant to the county's chief administrative officer, and senior assistant to the executive.

Mr. Curry commuted nightly to Baltimore, eventually graduating with honors from the University of Maryland Law School, receiving his juris doctorate in 1980.

From 1980 until 1983, Wayne worked as counsel for a large real estate development company in Prince George's County, and later decided to start his own law practice in 1984. During this time, he served as general counsel for Dimensions Health Corporation, among other high- profile clients.

Although he was a partner at a lucrative law firm, public service had a strong grasp on his heart. He served as chairman of the United Way Campaign of Prince George's County, president of the Prince George's County Chamber of Commerce, chairman of the School Superintendent's Advisory Committee on Black Male Achievement, and chairman of the Prince George's County Substance Abuse Advisory Board.

When the opportunity presented itself, he ran for Prince George's County executive in 1994. Running as the underdog, he ultimately prevailed. He made history when he became the first African American to serve in the county's highest elected office.

He brought a renewed vitality to the office and focused his administration on the economic empowerment of his constituents.

The transformation of Prince George's Count reflected Wayne Curry's own life from a sleepy southern hollow that was rural and all White to a large African American majority and increasingly cosmopolitan.

County Executive Curry presided over a period of unprecedented population growth, development, and modernization of Prince George's County and making it the national standard of African American success in local governance. Under Wayne's leadership, Prince George's County became the first county in our history where education and income levels rose as it transitioned from majority White to majority African American.

His business-friendly approach led Prince George's County through a severe financial crisis, the end of court-mandated bussing, the construction of 26 new schools and a new stadium for the Washington Redskins.

He saw the county go from a deficit of $108 million to enjoying a $120 million surplus, protecting the county's AAA bond rating.

County Executive Wayne K. Curry passed away on July 2, 2014, at the age of 63 after losing his battle to lung cancer. He is survived by his wife, Sheila Curry; his son, Julian Curry; and daughter, Taylor Curry.

Wayne Curry never sought to make history, but simply to serve the community and the people and to better their lives. He was always about the future and getting it right.

Wayne K. Curry will live on through his historical impact on the people that I represent, and this bill will honor the vision, contribution, and legacy of the iconic Wayne K. Curry and will be a daily remainder in the heart of the county he cared so deeply about.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 28, a gunman targeted a cherished community newspaper and our Nation's free press, killing five people.

The Capital Gazette is one of our Nation's oldest newspapers, having served Maryland's capital city of Annapolis for 291 years. In fact, it was one of the first newspapers to publish the Declaration of Independence, although it appeared on page 2 because local news always took precedence.

The Annapolis community, which Congressman Sarbanes and I have the privilege of representing, is a tight-knit community. The men and women lost in this horrific attack were friends, neighbors, and extended family members.

We rise to honor the lives of:

Rebecca Smith, who was quiet but had a ``big heart'' and described herself as a ``bonus mom to the best kid ever'';

John McNamara, who went by Mac, who loved covering sports as much as playing them;

Gerald Fischman, the consummate newspaperman working 12 hours a day or more, who editorialized about gun violence and became a victim of it;

Rob Hiaasen, a giant in stature and in character, who generously mentored young journalists; and

Wendi Winters, a prolific writer, mother of three Navy officers, and an American hero who charged at the gunman and saved lives.

Those who were senselessly gunned down were members of our valued local press cops. In America, we cherish and value our free and independent press. It is a crucial pillar of our democracy. We should not tolerate threats and hatred directed at the media and should support those who bring us the news every day.

Today, we also honor the brave and swift action by first responders who were on the scene within 1 minute of 911 calls.

Today, we honor the enduring courage of the Capital Gazette staff. Their dedication and service to their readers and their commitment to a vibrant, free press are a tribute to their profession and professionalism and to the resilience of the Annapolis community.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to pause for a moment of silence to honor Rebecca, John, Gerald, Rob, Wendi, and all those impacted by the shooting at the Capital Gazette.

Mr. Speaker, from May 15, 2018 until May 22, 2018, I was absent from the House of Representatives. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

H.R. 613, Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Correctional Officer Self- Protection Act of 2017 (Rep. McKinley, R-WV)--YES.

H.R. 4854, Justice Served Act of 2018 (Rep. Carter, R-TX)--YES.

H. Res. 285, Expressing the sense of the United States House of Representatives that Congress and the President should empower the creation of police and community alliances designed to enhance and improve communication and collaboration between members of the law enforcement community and the public they serve (Rep. Taylor, R-VA)--

Mr. Chairman, I rise before you today to offer my amendment No. 24 to the fiscal year 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

Mr. Chairman, in the proposed NDAA, the chief managing officer of the Department of Defense is to develop a plan no later than March 1, 2020, to transition certain functions and services from the Defense Information Systems Agency, or DISA, to other elements of the DOD.

My amendment on which I worked closely with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Congressman Ruppersberger, prevents funds from executing this change. In fact, the administration has objected to this change in the NDAA because it would ``weaken the Department's ability to secure its cyber networks and inhibit DISA's mission to provide seamless communication to warfighters and senior leaders.''

While our men and women, Mr. Chairman, in uniform focus on defending our values abroad, DISA is constantly managing the information network that supports our entire defense apparatus and fighting for American interests on the global stage.

DISA's primary mission is to secure our network infrastructure for our warfighters and intelligence and security agencies. The question regarding DISA's fate has never been asked or answered by this Congress nor the Pentagon.

While I commend the effort to find efficiencies within the Department of Defense, it remains unclear what would happen to DISA's missions and functions if the measures in the NDAA were executed.

According to retired Lieutenant General Harry Raduege, who served as DISA Director from 2000 to 2005, he said: ``We have looked at reorganizing DISA in the past, disestablishing it, but the missions are going to have to be performed somewhere.''

DISA is an agency where numerous other functions from other agencies have been folded in over time, and the operations include global missions, such as commercial satellite communications, leasing for all of the military, secure communications for the White House and other senior government and government leaders, support to the Joint Staff, and disaster response communications.

Over the years, many missions and activities that even today are relatively unknown have been transferred to DISA because everyone has been looking to increase efficiencies and effectiveness.

By eliminating DISA, Congress may be increasing the costs, manpower requirements, and cyber risks that can be better managed via a shared services approach currently envisioned by DISA.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee chair and the entire committee for consideration of the amendment. Let's support our warfighters and help them focus on the threats that we face today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill reauthorizes the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, which funds vital navigation and safety services of NOAA's Office of Coast Survey, which maintains more than 1,000 charts and publications used by Federal and State agencies, private organizations, and the public.

It is no small feat to do this for our Nation's 95,000 miles of shoreline and 3.4 million square nautical miles of water.

It is critical that we ensure Federal capacity for hydrographic surveys, mapping, and charting. NOAA vessels and data support a wide range of activities and inform decisions with significant economic, environmental, and safety impacts.

As we face rapidly changing ocean conditions, hydrographic services will only become more important. This is particularly true in the Arctic, where we will eventually see almost entirely ice-free summers. It is not a matter of if, but when and how soon. With that comes an entirely new seascape for maritime commerce and transport, defense, and natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague Mr. Young for his hard work. I encourage adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5751 redesignates the Golden Spike National Historic Site as the Golden Spike National Historical Park and directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program known as the Transcontinental Railroad Network within the National Park Service.

On May 10, 1869, a historically very significant day in the history of our country, the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts were linked for the first time in our Nation's history when the 1,912-mile system of hand- built tracks was completed in Promontory, Utah.

This national historical park designation is a fitting tribute that acknowledges the significance of this event. The bill will also help the National Park Service educate the public about the history, construction, and legacy of the transcontinental railroad without additional funds.

I would like to thank the chairman for his efforts to preserve an important part of our history. This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.