Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the committee for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise to strongly support the David Paul Nelson and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act.

In the last year we have made some pretty incredible progress in reducing the security clearance backlog, yet, frankly, after all the progress we have made, we are still--and you are hearing this number correctly--left with nearly a half a million people on the waiting list for security clearance.

Earlier this year, the average wait time for top secret security clearance was reduced to 468 days, down from 534 days.

So, in other words, when we are out there competing for young talent to come in and be a member of the intelligence community, say in a field such as cyber, we are told we have to tell them, ``Cool your jets. We will get back to you in a year, year and a half or so.''

Indeed, closer to home, my senior military adviser is a distinguished graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point. He served not one, but two tours in Afghanistan, where he had a security clearance, and yet when he joined a staff in the House of Representatives, to again earn a security clearance, it took 20 months, nearly 2 years.

We are losing good people when we subject them to that long of a wait time.

This bill makes some progress. It will build on the progress we made this year by providing needed reform to this mission. It creates a system of accountability and clear goals for how the process should run.

Furthermore, the bill allows for innovation on using digital tools, and reciprocity among agencies to improve our efficiencies when clearances are needed to be transferred from one agency to another.

Our government can and must efficiently and effectively review security clearance applicants. We owe our national security workforce at least that much. This bill will help us to do that, to further reduce it, so that the intelligence community can compete for the best and the brightest in a timely fashion.

Mr. Chair, for that reason, among many, I urge Members' support for the Intelligence Authorization Act.

Madam Chair, I was standing when he was recognized. The gentleman from Ohio did not yield to him. And when he asked to claim time in opposition, he did not say ``although I am not opposed.'' And you did not, therefore, ask if there was no objection.

He was not legitimately recognized.

He asked for time in opposition but did not state that he was not opposed.

You did not ask if, therefore, there was no objection. He was not legitimately recognized.

The offerer of the amendment did not yield to him. The gentleman from South Carolina claimed time in opposition but did not say ``although I am not opposed.'' He supported the amendment. And you did not ask if there was no objection.

Madam Chair, you didn't ask if there was no objection, which is the customary practice.

Madam Chair, I thank very much the graciousness of the gentleman from Ohio, although I think his amendment is wrongheaded.

Here is what is real:

Climate change is real, number one.

Number two, it has significant national security implications.

Number three, the only smart thing to do is to borrow the old motto from the Boy Scouts, ``Be prepared.'' Passage of this amendment, which would remove the Climate Security Advisory Council, renders us less prepared.

We all know that the intelligence community and the DOD have, time and again, assessed the measurable effects of climate change--rising sea levels, higher temperatures, more frequent extreme weather events, new stressors on natural resources and agriculture--have tangible impacts that exacerbate economic distress, human insecurity, political instability, and other humanitarian conditions detrimental to our national security.

The smart thing to do is to be prepared, to have the advisory council that can work across the intelligence community, that can collect the information, coordinate the information, so that we know what is coming, we know what we are being presented with, and we can confront it in a smart way.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to please defeat this amendment and pass the underlying bill.

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

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

My amendment is about creating economic opportunities in Indian Country. It is about improving housing conditions, creating jobs, and helping Native communities meet their community development needs.

It is a bipartisan amendment, and it provides an additional $5 million for the Indian Community Development Block Grant program, which is one of the most flexible, most competitive grant programs of its kind and, might I add, one of the most effective.

Frankly, I was disappointed to see the President's budget request attempt to eliminate the program, especially when the problem statement associated with the need to increase our investment in infrastructure is so clear.

I have said it before, and I will say it again here today: We are in the middle of a housing crisis, in large part because we simply do not have enough homes.

While it is true that housing shortages exist across the country, nowhere is the issue more pronounced than it is in Native American communities. Native Americans experience worse housing conditions and a higher incidence of homelessness than nearly every other demographic.

One of the most important duties I have as a Member of Congress is ensuring the sovereignty of the four Tribes in my district that I have the privilege to represent, as well as the 29 Tribes in my State, and to help them as they work to provide better opportunities for Tribal members.

That is our Federal trust responsibility. Cutting this program violates that trust responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Indian Community Development Block Grant program and, in doing so, supporting the many Native American communities who will benefit from it.

Finally, I thank my colleagues, Representatives Don Young, Gwen Moore, Jared Huffman, Deb Haaland, and Tulsi Gabbard, for joining me in offering this bipartisan amendment.

I also sincerely thank Chairman Price and his staff for putting together such a comprehensive appropriations package that funds our Nation's vital transportation and housing programs.

Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chair of the subcommittee, again, very much.

It seems to me that often around here, we have solutions in search of problems. That is absolutely not the case in this instance. The problem statement here is clear. It is screaming in its need and the depth of the need.

As a consequence, again, I thank the chair of the subcommittee and the bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it was, indeed, 100 years ago in this very room that the House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, granting women the right to vote.

The vote was here, but the work was out there, because the fact is the victory was due in no small part to the countless trailblazers who championed women suffrage throughout the decades.

Many of those trailblazers called home that which I call home: the Pacific Northwest. That included activists like Emma Smith DeVoe of Tacoma and Mary Arkwright Hutton of Spokane. It was because of their efforts that Washington State became the fifth State in the Union to enact women suffrage in 1910. These efforts built the momentum to pass and ratify the 19th Amendment nearly a decade later.

But the point is, as we celebrate this anniversary, let us not allow the progress we have made beget complacency; because the long, hard- fought battle for equality and representation spans generations and continues to this very day.

Let's continue to affirm those principles as we recognize and commemorate the 100th anniversary of women's right to vote.

Madam Speaker, today I recognize Sheida Sahandy for her extraordinary and unwavering dedication to the people of Washington state and efforts to restore Puget Sound. For over five years, Sheida served as the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency leading the coordination of Puget Sound recovery.

Sheida received her bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and then went on to study law at Columbia University. After working as an attorney for several years, Sheida returned to the classroom and earned her master's degree in Climate, Energy, and Environmental Policy from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Back in Washington state, Sheida used her notable background and legal expertise to spearhead programs and initiatives as Assistant to the City Manager for the City of Bellevue, where she created the City's first citywide environmental stewardship initiative.

In January 2014, Governor Jay Inslee appointed Sheida to serve as Executive Director of the Puget Sound Partnership, where for years she demonstrated her commitment to sustainability and conservancy issues in Washington state. The Puget Sound Partnership works with hundreds of partners and stakeholders to coalesce around a common goal: accelerating the collective effort to recover and sustain the Puget Sound. On federal-level issues, Sheida worked with the Congressional Puget Sound Recovery Caucus--which I co-chair along with my friend and colleague, Derek Kilmer--to convene key decision-makers here at the Capitol for the annual Puget Sound Day on the Hill. This event brings people from across the political spectrum to Washington, D.C. to advocate for increased federal attention to Puget Sound. Sheida also worked tirelessly with the Congressional Puget Sound Recovery Caucus to successfully craft and garner support for the PUGET SOS Act, which would increase federal and state coordination on recovery efforts.

Whether it's leading efforts at the state level to revitalize the salmon and orca populations, or working with legislators in Washington, D.C. to enact critical legislation, Sheida has always been an effective leader and the driving force behind the Puget Sound Partnership's success.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the selfless service of Sheida Sahandy, and I wish her and her family happiness as Sheida proceeds to the next chapter in her remarkable career.

Madam Speaker, from volume I, page 14, section 2, entitled: ``Russian `Active Measures' Social Media Campaign,'' it read as follows:

``The IRA''--which was a Russian troll farm. ``The IRA and its employees began operations targeting the United States as early as 2014. Using fictitious U.S. personas, IRA employees operated social media accounts and group pages designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and accounts, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists. Over time, the social media accounts became a means to reach large U.S. audiences. IRA employees traveled to the United States in mid-2014 on an intelligence-gathering mission to obtain information and photographs for use in their social media posts.''

Madam Speaker, today I recognize Major Sean M. Donohue of the United States Army for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to our Nation. Major Donohue will soon transition from his current assignment as an Army Congressional Liaison in the House of Representatives to serve as the Command Surgeon for the Center for Initial Military Training at the US Army Training and Doctrine Command. This unit is the largest charged with training all initial entry Soldiers in the Army.

A native of Tacoma, WA, Sean began his military career after graduating from the University of Puget Sound, enlisting after the 9/11 attacks as a medic in 2002. Sean was commissioned in 2009, completed his clinical training as a Physician Assistant at Fort Carson and promptly deployed to Afghanistan as a Battalion Surgeon with the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. Since then, Sean has served in numerous leadership and staff positions around the world. His wife is a dedicated military spouse, Lexey, and they have three boys: William, Jack and Maximus.

In 2017, Army Medicine selected Major Donohue to serve as Legislative Liaison to serve in the Army House Liaison Office. In his role as a legislative liaison, Major Donohue served as the primary liaison between Members of the 115th and 116th Congresses, their Staff, Legislative Committees, and the U.S. Army. In this role, he planned, coordinated, and accompanied Congressional and Staff Delegations on numerous worldwide fact-finding and investigative missions and built the relationships and trust needed to increase the trust and confidence the U.S. Congress has in the U.S. Army.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the selfless service of Major Sean M. Donohue and his family as they proceed to the next chapter in his remarkable career as they continue to serve our great Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment to ensure that the EPA is laser-focused on helping address the biggest source of water pollution in the United States: stormwater runoff.

Stormwater runoff is what happens when rain falls--we get a lot of that in Washington State--and it flows across roofs, parking lots, and streets. As that rainwater heads on its way to rivers, lakes, and bays, it picks up all sorts of toxic, nasty stuff like metals, oils, fertilizers, and pesticides, just to name a few.

Toxic stormwater has a direct effect on the health of our waterways and, more importantly, on our economy. Nowhere is that more clear, frankly, than in my home State of Washington and in the Puget Sound, which is, by water volume, the largest estuary in America.

We actually have video of polluted stormwater literally killing salmon in a matter of hours--not days or weeks, but hours--and our endangered southern resident orcas, which we are on the verge of losing altogether, are harmed both by having fewer salmon to lunch on and by absorbing the pollutants directly into their body.

We have made a lot of progress in this country in dealing with point- source pollution, but stormwater runoff is a lot tougher to deal with now. It is a lot more decentralized, and there are a lot of jurisdictions involved. It is going to require a lot of improvement in water infrastructure over time.

State and local governments are kind of stepping up to be sure to meet this challenge. They know the harms posed by stormwater, but their budgets are stretched thin. What they really need is a strong partner in the Federal Government.

That is part of why I am so glad the House just last night passed a companion bill to this, the Innovative Stormwater Infrastructure Act, on consent. It had strong, bipartisan support. It creates a task force at EPA comprised of Federal, State, and local governments, along with nonprofit and private partners to develop recommendations for finding some innovative ways to fund stormwater infrastructure.

But the recommendations coming out of that task force won't be very useful if we don't know more precisely what and how big the need is. That is why the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey is important. That is a survey that Congress actually required of the EPA to conduct under the Clean Water Act on a periodic basis. It is a comprehensive assessment of the outstanding need for stormwater and wastewater control facilities nationwide.

We know there is a need. In my State alone, we estimate that stormwater runoff can be solved with a $19 billion, with a B, infrastructure investment over the next generation.

The last survey that EPA did dates way back to 2012, and a lot has happened since, a lot of water under the bridge, pun intended.

To be clear, we are dealing with data that is 6 years old. In order to make sure our communities are able to deal with the problem, frankly, we need to have better and more current data. That is what this is about: good data, good science.

This is what this amendment seeks to do by ensuring the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey is prioritized by the EPA, no new money, just prioritized to get that done as required under the law. It is, frankly, not that large of an expenditure to undertake.

We have to make sure that the agency is in fact using every tool in its toolbox to help our communities address stormwater. I will say it again: The number one leading cause of water pollution in America is stormwater. Of course, that starts with being able to have a full picture of the problem we face.

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

Mr. Chair, however the chairman has journeyed to his conclusion, it is deeply appreciated. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pretty simply put, this bill is about addressing the single largest source of water pollution in America, which is stormwater runoff.

It is a nationwide issue from D.C., to Los Angeles, to Milwaukee, to Louisiana. But it is also one that is acutely felt in my home State of Washington, because there, it really does rain a lot. When that rain falls, the rain runs off the roofs. The rain runs down the streets. The rain runs into the storm drainage system. Along the way, it picks up all sorts of nasty, toxic stuff that has been alluded to earlier, stuff like fertilizers, metals, oils, and pesticides. That stuff, all that bad stuff, runs into our lakes and our rivers and, ultimately, in my region of the country, into Puget Sound, which is the largest estuary, by water volume, in the United States.

It has been estimated by scientists that stormwater accounts for up to 80 percent of all water pollution. Gone are the days of the easy-fix solutions of point-source pollution, where we could just pass a law saying: You can't do that anymore. Figure it out.

This is a lot more difficult. It is a lot more decentralized. It is a lot more pervasive. Frankly, it is no less harmful.

And it hurts not just our environment. Let's be clear, this hurts our businesses as well, especially those that depend on clean water.

In our State, we have a robust shellfish industry that employs thousands of people. Stormwater can kill a salmon in a matter of hours. We actually have time-lapse films from underwater showing this, and it is not very much time that has elapsed. This isn't something where they ingest the metal, and then months or years later they die. You can literally watch them die as the stormwater hits the water.

And they are fundamental. Salmon are fundamental to the economy and the culture of the Pacific Northwest and especially to the Native people, who have depended on them since time immemorial.

Salmon support, in fact, in our region of the country, a $30 billion a year economy.

Salmon are also the prey of choice of our beloved southern resident orcas, which we are precariously close to losing altogether. Frankly, we can't save the orcas if we don't save the salmon, and we can't save the salmon if we don't save Puget Sound, and we can't save Puget Sound if we don't deal with stormwater runoff.

Every region has its own story. The gentleman from Louisiana told his most eloquently, and I thank him, about how stormwater is punishing our waterways and, along with it, our way of life and our economy.

That is why State and local governments are implementing green stormwater infrastructure, like rain gardens and permeable pavement, and are building new gray stormwater infrastructure to reduce combined sewer outflows. But that is not enough. It is not enough by a long shot.

State and local governments are stretched thin, and that is why we need the Federal Government to step up and do its partnership role in this.

Back in my State, we estimate that the stormwater problem could be solved with $19 billion in investment between now and 2036; and, frankly, almost all of that is in the Puget Sound region, 98 percent.

That is a lot of money and that is why H.R. 3906 is an important first step to help the experts and the stakeholders come together and come up with innovative ways not to be duplicative and to think outside the box.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by thanking Chairman Shuster; Ranking Member DeFazio; along with Subcommittee Chairman Graves; Ranking Member Napolitano; my colleague and my friend from New York, Congressman Katko; and their staffs for their work on this bill. I appreciate their help to bring greater attention to the problem of stormwater runoff.

But let's be clear: We have to do more; we have to do a lot more. I look forward to continuing to work with the committee to increase the Federal Government's partnership role in tackling this urgent threat, which, again, is the number one cause of water pollution in America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member. I am here to support the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act.

Mr. Chair, I was just placed on the Intel Committee a year ago January, and I have learned an awful lot, most notably, how incredibly difficult it really is to do the work of an intelligence officer. And I want to, frankly, take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the IC for their dedication and service.

For as difficult a job as it is, it is even more difficult, if not impossible, to do it without a security clearance. In the first quarter--you are hearing this number correctly--of this year, the average processing time for a top security clearance was 534 days. That backlog creates difficulties in hiring in the intelligence and defense agencies. And, frankly, it is creating a legacy problem for our future.

And you are hearing this number correctly, too. The backlog of people waiting for those clearances is now over 700,000, and that is what has led the Government Accountability Office to declare this ``a high risk issue,'' and that means that it is one of the areas that the GAO believes is most in need of reform.

The country cannot wait 2 years to recruit top talent for our IC. Applicants for clearance, of course, should be carefully scrutinized, and the United States should take care that only responsible and trustworthy parties gain access to our Nation's classified information.

We absolutely should guard it as a national treasure. But we need to give the IC the people it needs to collect, process, analyze, and distribute information, pure and simple. So the bill before us today does, in fact, include language to address the issue of security clearances.

As we progress forward, we must do so methodically, with feedback from the most affected. We have a long process ahead of us, but if we don't take steps now, frankly, pretty soon it is going to be too late. We must address the security clearance dilemma, and we must pass this bill to begin that process.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago we reached another troublesome milestone for Puget Sound's magnificent, but endangered, orca population.

We lost yet another southern resident orca, this time a 23-year-old male known as L-92. This is the third death just in the past year, and the sixth in the past 2 years.

There are now just 75 southern resident orcas left, the lowest number in 34 years. In fact, that is 13 fewer whales than when the population was initially listed in 2005 under the Endangered Species Act.

I am sad about this loss and frustrated about this loss. Indeed, I am beyond frustrated. I am beyond frustrated because we know what needs to be done to save this iconic species in the Pacific Northwest. But, quite frankly, the Federal Government isn't living up to its partnership responsibility.

Back home in Washington State, the State government and local partners are stepping up. Governor Inslee earlier this year created the Southern Resident Orca Task Force, and he charged two terrific public servants, my friends, Stephanie Solien and Les Purce, with leading it. But these partners can't do it alone; nor should they.

We all have to fully invest in the Puget Sound in orca recovery programs. Mr. Speaker, I remind you Puget Sound is the largest estuary in the United States of America.

The good news is we know where our efforts need to go. Eighty percent of the southern resident orcas' diet is Chinook salmon, and these salmon populations are in just as much danger of extinction as our orcas. Most of those salmon are gone. They are being eaten by sea lions and seals; and where they swim in Puget Sound it is simply too polluted.

The pollution killing them is from storm water runoff--toxic metals, chemicals, and oils. It kills literally in a matter of hours, and we have the film to prove it. Storm water runoff remains the largest source of pollution in Puget Sound, and we cannot save our beloved orcas and our salmon if we do not stop that. Period.

So we will fight for funding to tackle these problems. But I also believe we have to raise awareness. That is why last week I introduced H. Res. 959, which would designate June 2018 as National Orca Protection Month. In Washington State, we gather every June to celebrate our southern resident orcas. We join Native American Tribes who have always recognized and honored the spiritual and cultural significance of that which they call the Blackfish.

But as the orca population has declined, these celebrations have turned into calls for action. National Orca Protection Month serves as a reminder of work that requires a year-round focus. It is vital that the Federal Government play its vital partnership role.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to please support this resolution to designate National Orca Protection Month. Let's give our Federal agencies the resources they need to prevent the extinction of this beautiful and magnificent species and ensure that orcas survive for generations yet to come.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask for the chairwoman's assistance on an impending threat to our national security.

Roads surrounding military installations play an important role in preserving military readiness. Our Armed Forces need to mobilize quickly, and we need functional roads in order to do that. The same is true for other infrastructure supporting defense communities where our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines live and raise their families.

This is a problem all over this country and a severe one, but it is especially acute right outside Joint Base Lewis-McChord in the 10th Congressional District of Washington, which I have the privilege to represent and is the largest force projection base in the Western United States. More than 50,000 people report to work there every day. It is the second most requested location in the Army, second to Hawaii. Still, I am thrilled when they get new things like, recently, the C-17 Weapons Instructor Course and a Security Force Assistance Brigade.

What I am not thrilled about is the frustratingly long wait times at the front gate for JBLM or the heavy traffic diverting through neighborhoods to avoid traffic jams.

My very first term in Congress, I introduced the COMMUTE Act to help address these issues. I have been working on the problem every year since. This year, both the House and Senate authorizing committees acknowledged this need by creating the Defense Community Infrastructure Program, or DCIP. This program builds off the COMMUTE Act and encourages infrastructure projects near military installations that are caused by their presence.

I know being stuck in traffic is not something unknown to most Americans. We are all too familiar with the horrible feeling of approaching an unexpected slow crawl on the road. But when this affects our military's ability to get to the base to do the job and be ready for anything, that is when we can't just sit and sit and wait and wait, as I have, year in and year out, for it to get better.

If servicemembers cannot get on and off base, they may decide to never leave the base. But military bases are not islands in our districts. They are integral parts of the community. Expecting servicemembers to stay behind the force protection of their bases exacerbates the civil-military divide.

It is shortsighted and foolhardy not to consider the infrastructure surrounding and supporting our installations. The Federal Government must play a role in addressing military community infrastructure projects.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman very much for acknowledging this problem and for her commitment to work to address it.

Over the summer, I will work with relevant stakeholders, including the authorizing committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Association of Defense Communities, which strongly supports this proposal, to get the gentlewoman and her staff a sense of the scope of this problem.

I look forward to working with the Defense Subcommittee on tackling the problem and finding the resources to update and repair infrastructure around military bases.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. I do indeed rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky.

The bill we are considering today, unlike the Senate CFIUS bill, does not have specific language dealing with board seats. That notwithstanding, Chairman Barr and I share an understanding that the language of the bill that covers ``involvement, other than through voting shares, in the substantive decision-making of the United States business'' gives CFIUS jurisdiction over investments which would confer membership or observer rights or the right to nominate someone from the board of directors or equivalent governing body of a business.

I ask my friend to confirm that understanding.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this exchange.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation which is urgently needed. Our adversaries and competitors are indeed actively exploiting gaps in our existing CFIUS process, which I would argue has not been materially modernized in 30 years, and there are gaps.

Right now, purchases of land near our most sensitive national security installations which are purchased to facilitate espionage go unreviewed unless there happens to be an existing business on that site.

Investments that could give our strategic competitors influence and insights into our critical technology or the critical infrastructure our country relies on go unreviewed because they fall just short of control of a company.

Rights changes that can confer control of a company even without new equity being contributed are not clearly within CFIUS jurisdiction.

There is a gap between CFIUS' existing authority over joint ventures involving a whole U.S. business and the export control system's authority over individual pieces of technology and know-how.

Good news. We close these gaps in this bill.

I appreciate deeply the willingness of Chairmen Hensarling and Barr to work to ensure this legislation effectively addresses investments that could expose details of critical technology or critical infrastructure to our strategic competitors and to incorporate other improvements suggested by our national security committees.

Frankly, however, as is no secret, I think there are some other changes that I would like to have had made. For example, the Senate and the original House bill contained delegation authority to help manage an increased workload and more senior officials to oversee the CFIUS process.

I also continue to believe that the blacklist used in the House bill will ultimately be too easy for our adversaries to evade. Compared to the approach taken by the Senate bill and the original House legislation, the blacklist is also kind of a missed opportunity, I think, to encourage our allies and partners to establish their own CFIUS-like mechanisms compatible with ours because the truth is, we are no safer if we block our competitors from buying a capability here but they buy it from one of our allies or partners. That all said, this is a very important step forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to stand before you today and urge your support on what I believe is a critical issue of national security. I am equally glad to express my deep appreciation to the ranking member and to the chairmen, both Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Barr, and to my friend, Robert Pittenger.

Last statement of the obvious warning, none of us is any better than the quality of our staff. I want to acknowledge that I have been very ably assisted on this matter for the better part of a year by Erik Ashida of my staff. He has been with me 6 years.

Mr. Speaker, he is leaving staff because he has been admitted to the extremely prestigious SAIS program, School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. I know each of us has experiences who have been here any length of time, when you have had a young person be with you for many, many years, it creates a sense of loss when they finally decide to take that next step. I am only able to do this because I know that as ably as he has served the people of the 10th Congressional District in our State from which he is from, I know with equal confidence that he will continue to serve America upon completion of his graduate program. He has been the point person in my office working with Members' offices, and I am deeply appreciative to him for all of his service.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this House to endorse and to support this very important national security measure.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2083.

You have heard a good number of arguments in favor of this bill today: the urgent threat posed by sea lions to endangered salmon and steelhead; the fundamental importance of salmon to the economy and culture of the Pacific Northwest and, especially, the native peoples who have depended on these stocks since time immemorial.

But I want to talk about another reason, which was alluded to earlier, and that is the issue of the orca. June happens to be National Orca Month in Washington State. The southern resident orcas are an iconic species for us. They reside principally in the Puget Sound, and they are dying. The very fish that are taken by these sea lions migrate there and are an important part of their food stock.

There are 75 resident orcas left, less than when they were put on the endangered species list, fewer orcas today than when they were listed. A large part of it is that they don't have enough Chinook salmon to eat, and the reason for that is because the sea lions are eating them first.

I want to remind the Chamber these sea lions are not even indigenous to the Columbia River. They have only been here a little more than three decades. They came here and found lunch and, along with it, put our orca at risk.

Our State resource managers estimate sea lions consume about 20 percent of the Columbia's spring Chinook run--20 percent, one in five.

We all recognize saving these iconic orcas will take a comprehensive solution. I don't deny that. And, of course, it isn't a silver bullet, but it will help. It is something this body can do today to save our orcas.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, with my compliments to the gentlewoman from the Third Congressional District and all who have worked so tirelessly on behalf of H.R. 2083.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Department of Defense and Intelligence Overhead Architecture Subcommittee, I rise today to congratulate United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Shaun Easley for his exceptionally meritorious service while serving as a Congressional Liaison Officer at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) from December 2015 to June 2018.

While at NGA, Lt. Col. Easley exhibited superior leadership and became a well of institutional knowledge for the organization. Thanks to his exemplary work, the relationship between Congress and NGA is stronger than ever. He is a force-multiplier, widely known for the quality of his work by officials across the government.

Lt. Col. Easley has a knack for making the seemingly inaccessible, within reach. When I have worked with the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency, I find them to be professional and informed on parliamentary procedure, which enhances productivity between the legislative and executive branches of government. The high level of detail in the discourse between the NGA and me reflects back on Lt. Col. Easley's extensive experience and expertise, which he clearly provides to key agency stakeholders informing them on the intricacies of the legislative process.

I watched closely when the NGA Director, Robert Cardillo, testified during the agency's first open hearing in front of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2016. The Director's comprehensive Statement for the Record helped enrich transparency, and drive understanding of NGA's unique capabilities and mission with members of Congress and the American public. It came as no surprise to me that Shaun supported that mission, continuing the high standards set by the NGA personnel. Shaun's impact will long be appreciated by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and by my fellow members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and thanking Lieutenant Colonel Easley for his dedication and service on behalf of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the United States, and to wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment is simply about making sure the Federal Government is setting the example in leading the way in addressing the single largest source of water pollution in America, which is stormwater runoff.

Most of us probably don't think about it, but, frankly, when rain falls--and it does a lot in my neck of the woods--and flows through our streets, it picks up all sorts of pollutants. We are talking about some really nasty stuff, frankly: toxic chemicals like arsenic and flame retardants, as well as oils and pesticides. This stormwater hurts our lakes, rivers, and waterways. In fact, in many bodies of water, it accounts for 80 percent of the pollution.

It not only hurts our environment. Just as importantly, it hurts our businesses that depend on clean water, as an example, Washington's shellfish industry, which employees literally thousands of people.

There are probably no places in America that are more impacted by stormwater runoff than in my home on the Puget Sound, which is the largest estuary in the United States. Studies by the Washington Stormwater Center in Puyallup, Washington, have shown that stormwater can kill a salmon within hours. They have time-lapsed films. But you don't have to watch them in time lapse because it happens that quickly.

Salmon and other fish are our way of life in Washington, and we are talking major business impact--a $30 billion economy.

Salmon also serve as a vital resource of immeasurable value to the 19 federally recognized Tribes in Puget Sound. They are the Salmon People, and salmon--chinook salmon, specifically--are also the prey of choice for our beloved southern resident orcas, which we are precariously close to losing altogether. There are fewer today than when they were listed under the Endangered Species Act many years ago.

So, if we fail to address the problem posed by stormwater, these resources will continue to decline, and our region will lose irreplaceable icons of life in the Pacific Northwest.

Now, granted, we are doing a lot to address this threat already, but it is nowhere near enough. If we are going to truly address the problem, then the Federal Government needs to set the example.

The good news is that Congress already knows this and acknowledges this because, in 2007, this body passed a law which requires Federal agencies to reduce stormwater runoff when they develop or redevelop property. That is just a commonsense requirement.

Since it was enacted over a decade ago, there has been no accountability for Federal agencies to show they are meeting these standards. So this brings us to my amendment. It would simply direct the GAO to study whether the Army Corps of Engineers has been able to meet these stormwater runoff mitigation requirements, and if they aren't, what changes they can make to improve their ability to meet them.

Madam Chair, if we are going to help our businesses and communities impacted by stormwater runoff, it is vitally important that the Federal Government set the example and lead the way.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.