Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 805, releases the reversionary interests on two parcels of land in Tulare County in California. These parcels are currently leased from the Union Pacific Railroad and contain a skate park and historic women's club, owned and operated by the city.

City officials want to make improvements to both facilities, but are unable to secure financing without clean and free titles to the property.

In the 19th century, Congress granted the land to Southern Pacific Railroad, the predecessor of Union Pacific, for use as a railroad right-of-way. Congress subsequently authorized the railroad to lease the land to Tulare for other public purposes. However, the land remains encumbered with a reversionary interest.

Congress passed a law in 1998 that released the reversionary interest on 12 parcels in Tulare. H.R. 805 deals with two additional parcels, allowing Union Pacific to sell the land to Tulare and clear the way for planned improvements.

The 1998 law was the first time Congress authorized the release of a reversionary interest for redevelopment purposes. At the time, the railroad had already sold the land at Tulare, even though it belonged to taxpayers, and Congress had to intervene to remedy the situation. Unlike the situation in 1998, the two parcels affected by this bill have not been sold and under normal circumstances, the Federal Government--not Union Pacific--should receive payment for the parcels if they are no longer used as originally intended by Congress.

However, the history of congressional involvement in Tulare justifies an exception to this standard. Due to the circumstances, I am happy to support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I think no Member of Congress enjoys an unnecessary crawl back, but I think the majority of the Members of Congress recognize our duty to protect the public interest.

We resoundingly support what is a very, very good bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 857, introduced by Representative Cook from California, is a comprehensive package of land designations designed to increase conservation efforts and recreation access throughout the California desert.

The bill adds approximately 329,370 acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System, expands three units of the National Park System, creates new areas set aside for off-highway recreation, and establishes the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area.

Representative Cook's bill builds upon the success of the California Desert Protection Act and the recent monument designations by President Obama to provide lasting protections and ensure ongoing recreational access throughout the region.

This bill closely mirrors its Senate companion introduced by Senator Feinstein that is moving its way through the legislative process in the Senate. Hopefully, that means we can deliver a version of this bill to the President's desk to provide a lasting conservation solution for a substantial portion of the California desert.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3392 requires the Bureau of Land Management to disclaim interest in 230 acres of land in northern Louisiana. The land at issue was originally surveyed in 1842, transferred to the Bossier Levee District in 1892, and conveyed to private owners in 1904.

However, BLM conducted a resurvey in 1967 after realizing that certain lands were omitted from previous Federal surveys. The resurvey puts more than 200 acres of land previously thought to belong to Louisiana and private interests back into Federal ownership.

Until recently, the results of this resurvey were largely ignored or forgotten, and now there are several homeowners with clouded titles and some confusion regarding the ownership of mineral rights in the area.

BLM is currently working to evaluate ownership and authorized conveyance where appropriate under the Color-of-Title Act. The Color- of-Title Act authorizes the BLM to convey public lands that have been acquired by peaceful adverse possession often caused by historical surveying anomalies, such as in this case. However, the Color-of-Title Act does not authorize the transfer of mineral rights owned by the United States, which is why this bill is necessary.

To be clear, under most circumstances, we would not support legislation to transfer Federal mineral rights without fair compensation to the American taxpayer, but this is a very unusual and special case. Over 40 years have passed since the BLM attempted to enforce Federal ownership of this land. This lack of clarity and communication is unacceptable. For that reason, I support this bill and I urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this bill. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4257 creates a process to expedite land exchanges between the Federal Government and State land grant agencies.

Currently, the primary method of eliminating State trust lands from conservation areas has been through legislative land exchanges, which can be time-consuming and complicated. This bipartisan bill, introduced by Representatives Stewart and Polis, offers a new way to speed up the process of removing State lands from Federal conservation areas.

H.R. 4257 could incentivize State land agencies to be good partners and supporters of additional conservation legislation by removing an important barrier to new conservation designations and improving the management of existing conservation areas.

Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to first thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for bringing a solid, bipartisan defense authorization bill to the floor.

As we consider one of the largest defense authorizations since World War II, we must demand responsible leadership from both the Pentagon and the Commander in Chief.

Responsible leadership starts with fiscal responsibility. A larger budget doesn't guarantee a more capable force. We must spend our money wisely. Instead of spending money on parades and walls or cutting civilian jobs that support our worldwide mission, we should focus on modernization, warfighter readiness, and our technological edge.

Responsible leadership, beginning with President Trump, must keep faith with those who serve and treat them fairly and justly. We are providing our troops with the largest pay raise in nearly a decade, but we must also honor the service of every American: the transgender soldier overseas, the Dreamer ready to defend the only country they know, the HBCU student aspiring to a national security career. And every member should be able to serve free from sexual harassment and assault.

Responsible leadership requires our national security leadership team to be responsive to evolving challenges and make strategic choices.

Our adversaries are attempting to shape the future. Russia is meddling in democratic elections worldwide and disregarding international borders and treaties. We cannot ignore this.

Our competitors are deploying every tool--military, economic, information, and diplomatic--and so must the United States.

While China has outlined strategies through 2050 to become the dominant global power, we must not hamstring our Defense Department or limit the diplomatic and development efforts.

This bill gives our armed services the tools and resources they need to defend our homeland, promote our values abroad, and respond to security threats around the world.

Congress is doing its part, and the administration must do its, to move from the vagaries of a Commander in Chief to responsible leadership within a strategic framework.

Mr. Speaker, there is a civil war in Syria and a humanitarian crisis that the United States simply cannot and should not ignore.

Today there are some 2,000 U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground in Syria who have spent the past several years engaged in the fight to defeat ISIS. That fight has been largely successful, yet troops remain in Syria to prevent a resurgence of ISIS. U.S. forces are engaged in hostilities against ISIS, not in the Syrian civil war.

Congress was informed in 2015 that our forces are in Syria pursuant to the AUMF enacted in 2001, in response to the attacks on 9/11.

Although U.S. ground forces aren't engaged in the Syrian civil war, our forces have engaged Syrian forces and its regime. Last year, a U.S. Navy F-18 shot down a Syrian war plane in the collective self-defense of our coalition partners. The use of force in self-defense is unquestionably authorized, however risky that may be in potentially drawing the U.S. into armed conflict with Syria or into the Syrian civil war.

In the fall of 2016, U.S. forces mistakenly and unintentionally killed Syrian troops in an air strike that was intended for ISIS fighters. Last year, the Syrian regime launched an aerial bombing with sarin, causing the deaths of nearly 100 civilians.

In response to Assad carrying out these war crimes, the United States military, at the direction of President Trump, fired 59 cruise missiles against a Syrian air base. It was the air base from which the aircraft were launched to drop nerve gas on innocent women, children, men, and civilians.

But that didn't stop Assad. Just 11 days ago, less than 10 days after President Trump instructed military leaders to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria as soon as possible, Assad again launched a chemical attack on more than 500 people.

In response, and without meaningful discussion with Congress, President Trump, once again, ordered air strikes against Syrian targets associated with the Syrian chemical weapons program.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the U.S. presence on the ground and our air engagements in Syria since 2015, this Congress has never openly and formally debated the question of authorization for the use of military force in Syria.

It is time for us to do our job. Assad is a barbaric, genocidal dictator. The use of chemical weapons is heinous, and the use of conventional weapons against civilians, which he is also guilty of doing, is equally heinous.

Syria is a humanitarian disaster. 400,000 Syrians, most of whom are innocent civilians, are dead. These facts are not disputed. For more than 70 years, the United States has been an anchor of international security, and I believe we cannot look away when a dictator brazenly and repeatedly violates international law.

The debate that is long overdue in Congress should not be limited to if, when, and how the United States should respond to the next chemical attack. Congress abdicated that responsibility in 2013 and in 2017, and I fear we are on course to do so again this year.

Deliberations over how and when to retaliate against the next chemical weapons attack must be part of the larger debate that we must have about our country's goals, policies, and strategy in Syria and whether another solitary military strike would be effective.

We should recognize that another military response will be hollow if not accompanied by a more robust, whole-of-government approach. We need to agree on a strategy that will permanently deter Assad from using chemical weapons, send a message to Moscow and Tehran, and push Assad to the negotiation table to achieve a lasting political solution to the civil war and humanitarian crisis.

Will this approach require greater support of the secular opposition in Syria? Will we have to work with our NATO allies to intervene more purposefully to contain Assad? These are the things--the issues--that every Member of Congress must grapple with as we weigh the use of military force. The President cannot act unilaterally.

I believe our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of an international system where we seek to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are never used.

I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, let's debate and vote on the authorization to use military force in Syria now.

Madam Speaker, enough is enough. Congress has a huge list of urgent, overdue bipartisan priorities for the American people, and we can't keep kicking the can down the road.

The short-term funding bill congressional Republicans passed yesterday ignores the pressing issues facing our Nation: funding the Children's Health Insurance Program and Community Health Centers; delivering needed resources to fight the deadly opioid epidemic; protecting our DREAMers from deportation; and providing disaster relief for Americans ravaged by hurricanes, mudslides, and wildfires.

These issues aren't going away. We must work together to address them immediately. Yet House Republicans have passed a fourth short-term funding measure in 4 months.

This month-by-month approach is reckless and dangerous for the entire Nation. It hinders our military, medical research, and infrastructure investments. It hurts seniors who depend on Social Security and Medicare and veterans getting care at the VA.

We need to stop the gimmicks and the cycle of delay. This is no way to run the government.

Madam Speaker, let's stop putting off for tomorrow the things we need to do today. Let's get to work.

Mr. Speaker, every day, 122 DREAMers lose their protections from deportation. Every day, 122 young people in this country still consider whether they should go to class, whether they should show up for work, whether they should put on the uniform of our military in service to our country, because every day that Congress delays and does nothing means more bright, hardworking young people who know no other home than the United States are being asked to leave or risk being arrested.

Our inaction is creating an impending crisis for workforces, families, and communities around the country. We must pass a permanent, bipartisan solution to enable DREAMers to continue to live, work, and contribute to this country and that provides a pathway to full citizenship.

We have seen time and time again that the overwhelming majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle in both parties agree that we should protect our DREAMers. Yesterday, 115 business leaders, including CEOs from Amazon, Facebook, General Motors, and Verizon, asked Congress to act immediately.

DREAMers don't have the luxury of time. Hundreds of thousands of deserving young people are counting on us. We can't wait until March to make sure that our DREAMers are protected and included and welcomed.

Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now.

Mr. Speaker, today in Israel and Palestine-- it's hard to see fertile ground for peace. Peace is cultivated by tolerance and mutual understanding; when we work to move beyond hatreds and accept paths of compromise.

I'm disappointed that the Palestinian Authority has continued to fund further bloodshed and hatred by tolerating, encouraging, and even glorifying violence. They do so by making payments to those who kill in the name of hatred. This year alone, the Palestinian Authority has devoted hundreds of millions of dollars in its budget to provide payments to Palestinians in prison for terrorist attacks, and to the families of those who died while carrying out such attacks.

The Palestinian system provides more money to those who serve longer sentences, meaning the more heinous the attack--the greater the financial compensation. These payments are higher than the assistance provided to Palestinians living in poverty, and is four times higher than the average salary in the West Bank.

There is no question that this policy of financially rewarding convicted terrorists is abhorrent and must stop.

We've heard a lot about Captain Taylor Force--a U.S. citizen, a West Point graduate, and U.S. Army veteran who had survived combat in Iraq and was studying entrepreneurship at Vanderbilt University. Like the men and women with whom I served during my 30 years in the Army, Taylor was an American patriot whose future was bright. Yet his life was stolen from him by a knife-wielding terrorist. Shortly after the murder of Taylor, Fatah--the political party of President Mahmoud Abbas-- posted a statement online praising Captain Force's attacker as a hero and ``martyr.'' Taylor wasn't murdered by a single assailant, but by a political cultural and political system that foments hatred and rewards terror.

Yes, I understand the opposing arguments that seek to justify these payments or attempt to explain the context of the historic and political relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. Yet, the violence is unacceptable and cannot be supported by payments to those who commit violence.

There is no reason to believe these payments will end, without strong external pressure--and year after year, the United States is the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority. The United States government is right to seek a way to convince President Abbas to end this horrible behavior that incentivizes violence against civilians and who sees this as ``an integral part of the weave of Arab Palestinian society.'' Conditioning our Economic Support Funds might finally convince President Abbas to end financial support for terrorists and their families.

It's important to note that the House version of this bill preserves humanitarian democracy assistance, that has a direct impact on the daily lives of Palestinians--it will keep a network of hospitals running in East Jerusalem, allow for investments in wastewater infrastructure projects, and continue childhood vaccinations.

While the Taylor Force Act aims to push the Palestinian Authority to stop rewarding hate, violence, and terrorism, we need to do more to change the underlying culture of intolerance between the Israelis and Palestinians. Congress should consider increasing alternative forms of assistance outside of our traditional programs--assistance that could counter the influence of incitements and support civil society.

USAID oversees a $26 million people-to-people reconciliation fund--of which $10 million is allocated annually for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--through its Conflict Management and Mitigation program. These grants provide funding for Israeli and Palestinian NGOs that bring people together to change attitudes and build bridges, like the Center for Shared Society that goes into schools to increase dialogue between Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Jewish youth. When I visited Israel in August, I heard directly from prominent Arab Israelis who described to me how effective these programs are.

We should also support economic partnerships that promote the least ideological and most pragmatic elements of Palestinian society--like tech companies and startups--that will increase economic opportunities and improve the quality of life for Palestinians. These include the ``Peace for Profits'' initiatives.

Directing U.S. taxpayer dollars towards these program, would send a loud and powerful signal that we remain invested in Palestinians and are choosing those who promote reconciliation and peace over those who support violence. The Taylor Force Act gives us an opportunity to reassess our assistance to the Palestinians. And we must do it in a way that brings us closer to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Mr. Speaker, the American people do not support the GOP tax plan being considered today.

After promising a simple and fair tax system, Republicans offer a complicated mess. Their tax plan picks winners: the rich, and big corporations, getting nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts. They create losers, like teachers, seniors, students, people with disabilities, and working families who will pay more.

This GOP tax scam also targets our Nation's veterans. More than 300,000 veterans have benefited from the work opportunity tax credit, most of whom served after 9/11. Yet this bill eliminates the tax credit and abandons our servicemembers when they return home and transition to civilian life.

Today, one of every three veterans is underemployed, and 1.8 million veterans are stuck in low-wage jobs. Every single veteran should be able to get a family-supporting job at home after serving our Nation. This tax bill asks our veterans and their families to again sacrifice, this time so billionaires and big corporations get a huge tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, veterans deserve a better deal and so do American working families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of every immigrant who has been granted temporary protective status in my district and across the Nation. We have nearly 23,000 in Maryland, the sixth highest in the country, and 4,000 in my district, one of the top five districts in the country.

Many people with TPS fled countries such as Haiti, El Salvador, Somalia, and Syria, ravaged by armed conflict or environmental disasters. For over 20 years, they have raised their families here in the United States. They are our neighbors and our coworkers. Their kids attend our schools. TPS holders have been woven into the fabric of our communities.

Earlier this week, those from Nicaragua were told they will be deported. Those from Honduras are next. Deporting people and giving them mere months to pack their bags after 20 years in the United States is cruel and isn't who we are as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, as the Trump administration puts the lives of thousands in legal limbo, I urge my colleagues to ensure TPS holders can stay and pursue an earned path to citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today against the GOP tax plan that benefits the top 1 percent by raising taxes on millions of working families. It eliminates important tax incentives for middle class families and those who strive to join the middle class.

This bill would no longer allow Americans to deduct interest on student loans, making college even more expensive.

By capping the mortgage deduction, it keeps the American Dream of owning your home in economically vibrant areas of my State out of reach.

The bill ransacks Medicare and Medicaid by $1.5 trillion, and if you have a sick child or a family member with disabilities or long-term medical needs, you will struggle just to make ends meet.

While the tax cuts for billionaires and corporations are permanent, the help for working families would disappear over time.

Raising taxes on middle class families isn't the kind of tax reform our country needs. This isn't the relief they were promised. This isn't the relief they deserve. Working moms and dads can't simply hope that corporate tax cuts turn into profits that trickle down to them.

Mr. Speaker, we need to invest in economic growth, not in hurting working families across America.

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, Congress enacted with strong, bipartisan support the Children's Health Insurance Program.

It fulfilled one of the highest responsibilities we have, which is to ensure the health and well-being of our Nation's children. Children without health insurance are less healthy, they go to the emergency room for chronic conditions like asthma and diabetes, and they do worse in school.

The program is extremely successful, increasing insurance coverage for children to 95 percent nationwide. Because of this, 138,000 Maryland children--and more than 8 million around the country--have received routine checkups, vaccinations, sick visits, prescriptions, dental and vision care, and emergency services.

We should not only reauthorize CHIP but work together to ensure every child in America has insurance.

Instead, the Republican Party is breaking the history of bipartisanship that CHIP has long enjoyed. Republicans are forcing us to choose between insuring kids and taking away coverage from 700,000 low-income Americans, raising premiums on seniors, and cutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Mr. Speaker, let's stop playing politics with the healthcare of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I regrettably voted incorrectly on November 1, 2017 during Roll Call No. 596, the Pearce Amendment No. 7 to H.R. 2936.

I inadvertently voted AYE when I meant to vote NAY on Roll Call No. 596.