Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 6865, the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022. The bill represents this Congress' commitment to the men and women serving in the Coast Guard and lays the groundwork for maintaining the Service's mission capability in the future.

It also honors our colleague Don Young, who passed away last week, and is lying in state in Statuary Hall today. Our thoughts go out to his family and staff.

The dean of the House, the Congressman for all Alaska, the former chairman of both the Committee on Natural Resources and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the longest serving Republican Member of the House, the former mayor of Fort Yukon: His titles were many, but they failed to fully capture Don's character and endless enthusiasm for the job he loved, representing the people of Alaska in Congress. He did that job for 49 years, and he did it well. His legislative record is as amazing as his personal legacy of the friendships he made over the last five decades. He was always a stalwart Representative for Alaska and will have a lasting legacy.

It is appropriate that we are naming this Congress' Coast Guard Authorization Act for Don. He served on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation since it was established in 1995 and on its predecessor subcommittee for 20 years before that. He was the only licensed tugboat captain in Congress, and the Coast Guard plays many vital roles in the always vast and beautiful, but often stormy and dangerous, waters of his home State.

The Coast Guard is one of the six United States Armed Forces, and they

help secure our country's borders. As we watch the Ukraine crisis unfold and recognize the apparent lack of readiness in the Russian military, we should be especially aware of the need to provide our Armed Forces with the resources they need.

This bill includes provisions to strengthen the Coast Guard's ability to keep Russian vessels out of U.S. water, a provision Don Young authored. Both sides of the aisle worked together to craft this legislation, recognizing that port and coastal security, drug interdiction, and maritime safety are important bipartisan issues to our Nation rather than Republican or Democrat issues.

The Coast Guard plays an important and unique role in national security and maritime safety. The Service is a critical component in carrying out drug interdiction efforts, keeping our ports and coasts safe, and conducting icebreaking operations. H.R. 6865 helps the Coast Guard better perform these missions and encourages the use of cutting- edge technology to improve operations, while also addressing ongoing issues like how to bring the Service's crumbling IT infrastructure into the modern era.

Despite the administration's failure to seek appropriate capital funding levels, this bill authorizes over $9 billion for the operations and support account and $3 billion for the procurement, construction, and improvement account for fiscal 2022 and provides a 5 percent increase in FY23. We had hoped that would offset earlier budget shortfalls, but given the rise in inflation, it will be needed just to stay even.

As others have noted, this legislation authorizes the purchase of a twelfth National Security Cutter and six Fast Response Cutters, which are necessary for the Coast Guard's future mission capabilities.

Vital to my district, I am also proud of the commitment made to the Great Lakes in this bill. Working with my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), the bill includes an authorization of a new dedicated icebreaker on the Lakes to keep commerce moving as much of the year as possible.

Thank you to Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Sam Graves, and Subcommittee Chair Carbajal for working in a bipartisan fashion to give the Coast Guard the resources it needs to accomplish its missions. I urge support of this bill.

On a side note, my first year as a freshman, I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and I inadvertently overlooked Don Young in the questioning order. That was not a smart thing for a freshman Member to do. I realized my mistake, and I apologized to him, and we became the best of friends. He also invited all of us to go to his king salmon barbecue here in D.C. I am really going to miss Don Young. He was really an American patriot.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of amendment No. 8 in the en bloc. This amendment helps veterans and their families navigate a bureaucratic maze at VA. It is very frustrating a lot of times when they receive medical treatment at a non-VA facility.

When a veteran is admitted to a hospital or emergency department they currently only have 3 days to notify the VA. If they fail to notify the VA in that 3-day window, any claim associated with that visit will be automatically denied.

There are circumstances when getting immediate medical care outside of the VA system is the veteran's only option, especially during a medical emergency. They and their family should not have to worry about paperwork and the bureaucracy if the veteran is facing a life- threatening condition or is unable to make his or her own healthcare decisions.

My amendment simply just lengthens that window and adds another day onto that window to report the claim. When you think about this, if you are going in on an emergency basis and after you get stabilized--it might take a couple days in the hospital to get stabilized--that extra day doesn't seem like much, but it is really important because they get stabilized and they get time to sort through where they are at. That is so important. We have helped hundreds and maybe thousands of veterans back in Ohio, and this comes up all the time, and they have to fight to get their claim.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important, just a little bit of extra time. It is a no-brainer issue. I appreciate the chair putting it in the en bloc because it is really important because veterans, especially when they are in a non-veteran facility and have emergency care, they shouldn't have to worry about that deadline, and it just gives them a little extra time.

Mr. Speaker, I support amendment No. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Dusty Johnson and John Garamendi for their work on this bill.

While I support this bill, I do have concerns about the process under which it has been brought to the floor, and whether, by itself, it will have much impact on the supply difficulties we are currently facing.

Neither a hearing nor a markup was held on this bill. Given its complexity, I believe a hearing and a markup would have given Members a better opportunity to fully understand and perhaps improve the bill.

The bill gives the Federal Maritime Commission, the FMC, enhanced authorities to prevent ocean carriers, who operate ships in the container trade, from engaging in anticompetitive activities in regards to shippers, and give shippers enhanced input into the FMC complaint process.

I have concerns about giving bureaucrats at the Federal Maritime Commission more authority to insert themselves into privately held contractual agreements. However, it appears to a great extent, the delays, port congestion, and higher shipping prices are due primarily to short-term contracts, unwillingness or inability to share data by all parties to operate efficiently, equipment shortages, lack of warehouse space, chassis truck and train capacity, and labor issues, rather than anticompetitive practices by ocean shippers.

If ocean carriers were the sole problem, we would not see container ships waiting for weeks to unload. Ag exports are at record highs for some commodities, and it is unfortunate that some of the ag shipments have not been able to make it on ships in a timely and efficient manner. However, it is not clear to me that the decision that led to these products from being stranded are due to practices that are anticompetitive under U.S. law.

This bill would prohibit carriers from unreasonably declining cargo that can be safely and timely loaded and is going to a port on the ship's itinerary. It will be curious to see how often this provision is used.

As I said, I am willing to support this bill to assure that detention and demurrage is used as an incentive to move cargo efficiently, not-- as some have claimed--as an indiscriminate corporate profit center, and to provide shippers additional protections.

However, as has been said by the sponsor, this bill isn't perfect and there is still more work to be done. I expect it to address the supply chain more broadly and not assume that alleged anticompetitive behavior by ocean carriers is the sole cause of the current supply chain disruption.

The legislation needed must, number one, be comprehensive and look at long-term port truck chassis, train, intermodal connection, and warehouse capacity needs.

Two, assure the availability of transparent, enforceable contracts to assure goods can be shipped at the agreed time and cost;

And three, improve data sharing among the parties in the supply to assure that everyone knows where and when they must have equipment to move containers efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation and ask that we continue to work to address the whole supply chain crisis.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend votes due to a previously scheduled health obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay''on rollcall No. 311.

members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

Armstrong (Timmons)

Babin (Arrington)

Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))

Fulcher (Johnson (OH))

Grijalva (Garcia (IL))

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Kirkpatrick (Stanton)

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

McCaul (Nehls)

Meng (Jeffries)

Napolitano (Correa)

Payne (Pallone)

Reschenthaler (Timmons)

Rush (Underwood)

Ryan (Kildee)

Sires (Pallone)

Stefanik (Smucker)

Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3684, which is nothing more than the Green New Deal in disguise. Whether it is creating dozens of new government programs or propping up failed passenger rail projects, the House Democrats' my-way-or-the-highway bill is bloated Big Government at its worst.

Democrats blocked every Republican attempt to improve the bill, including my amendment in committee that would stop taxpayer dollars for funding art through transit projects.

H.R. 3684 also bends the knee to Beijing, allowing communist China to profit off American investments in electric vehicles.

There is plenty of room for commonsense, bipartisan efforts on actual transportation infrastructure: Fixing roads and bridges, repairing airports, and even responsible investments in broadband.

But the majority is intent on ignoring these bipartisan prospects with irresponsible spending on socialism and driving up debt on the backs of American taxpayers.

I reject H.R. 3684, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, for 6 years, a bipartisan agreement in the last surface transportation reauthorization prohibited transit funds going to nontransportation, art-related aspects in federally funded transit projects. The majority's bill ends that bipartisan agreement and allows for the diversion of transportation infrastructure funding to ancillary and unnecessary art projects. My amendment would keep this prohibition in place so that transportation infrastructure funding goes to actual infrastructure projects.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree there is a real need for investments in critical infrastructure, though the majority is attempting to expand the definition of infrastructure to include virtually anything.

Rerouting these investments to unnecessary art projects or to pay for artists on the project design team is a misuse of taxpayer dollars. We need to focus on repairs for roads and bridges, not feel-good frescoes and metro station murals.

The amendment will allow excess transit funding to be directed toward improving our highway systems.

My colleague from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today suggested that if the Soviet Union could have artwork as part of their infrastructure projects, the United States can as well. I am not sure we should be taking infrastructure advice from the bankrupt nation that gave us the Chernobyl incident. And the comparison to the Soviet Union is unintentionally appropriate: This bill is bloated with socialist policies.

Simply put, this amendment makes sure that infrastructure funds are used to fund actual infrastructure. A vote against this amendment codifies art as infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to prohibit Federal funding for unnecessary art projects.

Mr. Speaker, Americans depend on basic infrastructure to get to work and go about their daily lives, but our infrastructure is crumbling.

The majority's bill proposes spending $715 billion over 5 years to make a transformational investment in our infrastructure, including more than $109 billion on transit. That is an extraordinary amount, especially after all the relief we have provided transit agencies over the last year, nearly $70 billion in total.

For now, let's ignore the fact that none of this bill is paid for, because instead of concentrating our taxpayer resources on real infrastructure, the majority thinks we have the luxury of spending these resources on art, sculptures, and nonfunctional landscaping.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times we have to say that art is not infrastructure. It does not provide mobility. It doesn't get you to work or to the store. Our limited resources for transportation should not be wasted on art. That is why this body in the FAST Act put in place a bipartisan ban to prevent wasting our valuable transportation dollars on nonfunctional art.

Interestingly, it seems that some on the other side still agree. Just a few hours ago, the Democratic leadership tried to allow a vote on restoring this commonsense ban but failed. This was an interesting development, particularly since I offered an amendment during the committee markup 3 weeks ago to ensure we keep the ban in place. Of course, given this partisan process, the majority voted against my committee amendment.

Throughout this whole process, the majority has turned its back on bipartisanship and commonsense. My amendment now will keep in place 2015 the protection against wasting transportation money on art. We simply can't afford to decorate the walls when the house is crumbling. We shouldn't be putting art before the horse. It doesn't even pass the laugh test that the majority continues to defend this policy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend votes in Washington, D.C. due to a health issue which prevented me from traveling from my home district.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 120 and YEA on Roll Call No. 121.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend votes in Washington, D.C. due to a health issue which prevented me from traveling from my home district. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 123; NAY on Roll Call No. 124; YEA on Roll Call No. 125; YEA on Roll Call No. 126; NAY on Roll Call No. 127; YEA on Roll Call No. 128; NAY on Roll Call No. 129; YEA on Roll Call No. 130; YEA on Roll Call No. 131; and NAY on Roll Call No. 133.

Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of this year, so much of our time in this Chamber has been used to move one messaging bill after another.

Many of these bills are thinly-veiled attacks on the President, but this amendment goes above and beyond.

Under this amendment, the Department of Defense is prohibited from staying at any property owned by President Trump or his family.

To be clear, this is not a prohibition on the Department of Defense utilizing facilities owned by any President; this amendment is about Donald Trump, President Donald Trump. It explicitly names the President over 50 times. Fifty times in this amendment the President is named.

This amendment says the DOD can't do for President Trump what it does for every President in the past: facilitate Presidential travel.

This is a new low. In 2016, the GAO found the Department of Defense spent more than $2.8 million facilitating a 4-day trip for President Obama, which included a Florida vacation.

While the bulk of the Department of Defense's spending on Presidential travel is airfare, the Federal employees who are staffing the trip need to eat and sleep.

When you travel with President Obama, you can eat and sleep wherever is most convenient and most cost-effective, but when you travel with President Trump, you had better pack a sandwich and a sleeping bag, because you can't buy a hot meal or reserve a hotel room because everything is usually so full.

This is an unreasonable restriction on the DOD and on this administration.

The focus on who owns the facility instead of which facility meets the needs and mission of the Department is disgraceful.

A number of people travel with the President and the Cabinet, and they need the flexibility to choose the best facilities. Placing unnecessary restrictions on these choices for political motivations impedes the Department's mission.

As was just stated by my colleague from Colorado, this President donates his presidential salary to charity.

And he doesn't have time to worry about what the Department of Defense is doing because he is making America better.

We have the lowest unemployment in decades. We have got wages going up. We have got a strong economy.

He is working on trade deals. He is fighting for every worker out there, every farmer, every business; and I don't think he really has time; and it is about time that the other side of the aisle moves on and realizes who is the President of the United States, and the great things that are happening in this country, and not doing such juvenile tactics of restricting the Department of Defense to where they can go; because this would also include an employee of the Department of Defense not being able to use the expense account if something comes up.

He has got assets all around the world. It might be more applicable to be at a Trump facility. He has got things in Istanbul, the Philippines, all around the world, and you never know. We shouldn't tie the hands of the Department of Defense. It is up to them to make those decisions, and not for us to put ridiculous restrictions on.

So I sincerely urge defeat of this amendment for many of the reasons I simply have said. In the standards of this body, this is the lowest standard. We have gone to a new low.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate 84-8 and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today. Let's vote on it.

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

I rise today to support H.R. 1449, sponsored by Representative Kelly. H.R. 1449 names a post office in Olympia Fields, Illinois, in honor of Captain Robert L. Martin.

During World War II, Martin joined the Army Air Force and trained at the airfield in Tuskegee, Alabama.

As a member of the famous Tuskegee Airmen, Captain Martin flew over 63 missions. He was attached to the 100th Fighter Squadron, providing air support for Allied bombing runs into Central Europe.

Captain Martin was decorated with a Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with oak leaf clusters, and the Purple Heart. In 2007, President Bush awarded Captain Martin the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery in World War II.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1198, which names a post office in Henderson, Nevada, in honor of the city's veterans.

The men and women from Henderson, Nevada--and all veterans--who fought to protect this Nation should be honored. They leave their homes and their families to defend our freedom. Veterans put their lives on the line for the liberties we enjoy. Today, we celebrate and honor the veterans from Henderson, Nevada.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 828, introduced by the gentleman from New York's First District, Congressman Lee Zeldin.

H.R. 828 names a postal facility in Smithtown, New York, in honor of the man who represented the First District of New York four decades ago, former Congressman Bill Carney.

Congressman Carney was elected in 1978 to represent Long Island. He served as a Member of this body for four terms, until 1987.

Before coming to Congress, Mr. Carney served in the United States Army Medical Corps. From there, he went on to serve his local government as a member of the Suffolk County legislature. Congressman Carney is remembered as a lighthearted man of the people.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), my friend.

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

Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend votes the week of January 22-24 due to a medical procedure performed in my home State of Ohio.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 044, YEA on Roll Call No. 045, NAY on Roll Call No. 046, NAY on Roll Call No. 047, YEA on Roll Call No. 048, NAY on Roll Call No. 049, YEA on Roll Call No. 050, and NAY on Roll Call No. 051.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on January 14th due to a doctors appointment in my home state of Ohio. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call No. 30.