Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I will regrettably vote ``no'' on S. 2155.

It is regrettable because I believe our local banks and credit unions are struggling under the weight of regulations. I believe that we have bank rules that need fixing. I wanted to support a bill that would do so.

But I cannot vote ``yes'' for two reasons.

First, this bill cannot release the pressure small banks are under because it does not address the single biggest cause. Every bank and credit union I have met with cites one regulatory burden as paramount, and that is the Bank Secrecy Act, CTRs, anti-money laundering. And what does this bill have? Not one section, not one sentence, not one word.

Secondly, this bill makes changes I believe could set us back. It has been cited; the increase of SIFI designation from $50 billion to $250 billion is a large step down a dangerous road.

The insurance provision, on the other hand, also goes against my goal of returning power to State regulators, who provide the greatest consumer protection.

If my colleagues had been allowed any input, I think we could have accomplished the goal. But this bill doesn't solve the problem it aims for and may create new ones. Accordingly, I cannot support it. I ask Members, as well, to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, his name was Victor, although he went by Vic. He was the oldest of six on their very hard scrabble farm in rural South Dakota.

One day, he came home from school, when he was just in the eighth grade, and he was met at the porch by his father, who told him, in his broken English, that he would have to quit school to save the family farm, denying him the education that he wanted so very badly because, you see, it was the winter of 1930 and the Great Depression had arrived.

He lived a life of deprivation before and after, kicking around from job to job just to survive, just to keep from starving. World War II came. He volunteered, and afterwards, he became a truck driver and a teamster.

The woman he would marry, Jean, had a high school education, no college. She became a telephone operator and a member of Communications Workers of America.

Together, they worked very hard and they raised four children. They owned their own home. They had a wooden boat in the garage. They took annual modest vacations. They had healthcare coverage, and they helped each of their children attend college who wanted to. Then they had a secure retirement, and they owed it all to the strength of their unions.

Mr. Speaker, one of their four children stands before you today. Thank you, Teamsters. Thank you, Communications Workers of America. Thank you, unions across America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to say ``pause,'' take a step back, reject the rule, and give ourselves a chance to, frankly, do it better.

FISA reauthorization is inarguably one of the most consequential votes we will take in this Congress because the constitutional stakes are so high. Civil liberties are the core of our Bill of Rights, and we are asked to take action that affects them in the name of keeping us safe. I get that.

But it is critical that we get it right. I think we can do better. To make decisions of this magnitude, we should have the most robust process possible, full and open debate, and input from the stakeholders, thoughtful deliberations by the Members. The process for this bill thus far has decidedly not been that, has not been great. It was written and rewritten in secret and with minimal debate or stakeholders' input.

But--this is a big but--I am actually optimistic because I have seen a change in the last few days and I think we have an opportunity here. The administration is suddenly engaged, and we are seeing vibrant debate from stakeholders in the technology sector, civil liberties advocates. Members have had very serious discussions, including here on the floor today, but in the Halls, offering amendments to rules, unfortunately, which are not being allowed--save one.

We are being asked to shut all that down, that opportunity, and push through an extension that will run for 6 years. Frankly, stop and think: 6 years in the world of technology is an eternity.

So, for all these reasons, I ask my fellow Members to join me in opposing this rule and, instead, allow the House an opportunity to work its will, to take a little more time, and to do it better because we really do need to wrestle with privacy, with what privacy means in a world where our entire personal lives are stored somewhere online as ones and zeros. Frankly, that is happening at an even faster pace than it is now.

We need to debate how the Fourth Amendment protects us against search and seizures applying to our digital records. We are all being rendered into nothing but a massive storehouse of ones and zeros.

The tensions or balance between civil liberties and national security is a debate as old as this country, but they are not mutually exclusive. They are hard--they are darn hard--but they are not mutually exclusive and they are not impossible.

I know well how many threats we face around the world and I don't take them lightly. The fact that we have not faced another major terrorist attack since 9/11 is a testament to the skill and the hard work of the intelligence community, and I tip my hat to them. I am absolutely committed to giving them the tools they need to keep us safe, consistent with our constitutional rights.

But we live in an era of the most powerful spying tools the world has ever known. Twenty-five years ago conversations were ephemeral. They were conducted in person or over the phone. But now they occur over email or chat and they are archived forever. Our medical, financial, and legal records are all online; so are our photos. Our cell phones track us everywhere we go.

The data available on us is unprecedented, and the fundamental principle of the Bill of Rights is that we have the right to keep our data private. We need new safeguards to ensure that.

So, by rejecting this rule, we have a chance to do it better. In so doing, both keep us safe and protect our constitutional rights.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.

Mr. Speaker, last night, after many of us went to bed, one of my constituents called 911. It was everyone's worst nightmare: an intruder in the house.

But then a superhero appeared, in the dark and in the cold, in the form of Pierce County Deputy Sheriff Daniel McCartney: a husband, a father of three, and a son.

His bravery last night was just one of thousands of times he protected us, having served 10 years in uniform as a police officer and 7 years in the Navy. His bravery last night cost him his life, as he was gunned down by the intruder.

We are all shocked and saddened by his loss. We share our grief with his family, friends, and his brothers and sisters in blue. Some of them will do Deputy McCartney's patrol tonight, in the dark and in the cold, and they will come running when we need them.

Not everyone can do what they do. These are special people with special skills and with special abilities.

May the life of Deputy Sheriff McCartney remain special to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, no Member of this body ever wants to come to this dais and say what I am about to say.

This morning, a train derailed as it crossed Interstate 5 near DuPont, Washington, in the heart of my district, sending railcars to the roadway below.

Lives were lost and families were shattered. Loved ones are severely injured, including a family member of one of my staffers. All this, of course, right in the middle of the holiday season.

Right now, many questions beg for answers. We need to determine what went wrong, and the NTSB will be investigating. But, for now, I am grateful for our first responders and the community for stepping up. So many set aside their grief and reported for duty, including many first responders who came in on their day off.

Our hearts go out to the families impacted by this horrific tragedy, and we ask for everyone's prayers for the victims to continue to recover.

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill targets the leadership of Iran, and, frankly, that is probably a worthy goal in some regards. I think it eventually envisions publicizing negative information about them, and that might be an effective tool as well. We all know that. We have been through campaigns. We know negative advertising works.

That said, I oppose this legislation, and I do so for two reasons. The first is resources are finite. They are not unlimited; they are finite. Tracking down all the assets of these named Iranian leaders takes significant time, effort, and personnel.

Where are those resources supposed to come from?

All around this city, everybody is agitating for deeper cuts to nondefense discretionary accounts. If we are going to make cuts, we are going to have to make some tough choices.

The personnel responsible for implementing this bill would be diverted from terrorist financing and money laundering. Let me say that again. The people, the personnel responsible for implementing this bill would be diverted from terrorist financing and money laundering.

Propaganda about corruption of Iranian leadership--which I stipulate to here up front--could be valuable, but it can't be more valuable than stopping actual terrorist financing. Terrorist financing should be our target. Money laundering should be our target, not garden-variety corruption.

We had a lengthy discussion in committee just yesterday about using money laundering authorities to fight human trafficking. For God's sake, that has to seem more valuable than propaganda. It has to.

So until we solve these tight budget constraints, I think we need to make the hard choice about what our priorities are and how to prioritize resources for stopping, again, money laundering and terrorism financing. Leave this effort for a world where the sequester has been lifted.

The second reason why I oppose this legislation, I can't help wondering: Shouldn't we apply this principle more broadly?

The idea here is that we should investigate and publicize it when a country's leadership has undisclosed assets, especially if those are overseas. That is the point of this legislation. We should investigate and publicize it when a country's leadership is using government resources to enrich itself. But why--why--just apply that principle to Iran?

I am informed in my point of view here by wisdom I found in this black, leather-bound book that I gratefully received when I was sworn into office 5 years ago. In fact, the passage that I will cite you actually occurs in two places. Let me share it with you now:

``How can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you, yourself, fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.''

So I wonder: When is this Congress going to turn its attention to the plank in our eye?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with a question.

Why is this bill so long?

Last year, we had a bill, H.R. 5729, to block the sale of Boeing aircraft to Iran. It was short and clear. It was only 2 pages long. I didn't like it and I didn't support it; but the truth is, I always respect people putting forth their honest beliefs.

H.R. 5729, last year, blocked the licenses to sell U.S. planes-- straightforward. Torpedoing the plane sales endangered the JCPOA because, as we have indicated, it is an affirmative requirement and an obligation on the U.S. to approve plane sales if a sales agreement is reached. That was part of the deal: You won't build or continue to develop nuclear weapons, we will do certain things, including sell you planes.

Everyone knew what the bill would do and they could decide if they thought that was a good idea or a bad idea. It was very straightforward. It was effectively a proxy on the JCPOA.

This year, we have another bill to block the sale of aircraft to Iran. It is neither short nor clear. In fact, it is six times as long as last year's bill.

It subjects the licenses to an ongoing and complex certification requirement. It literally names and shames U.S. banks providing financing. And, again, it does this purposefully so that it might deter the sale of airplanes so that it might undermine the JCPOA.

Frankly, what I interpret, what I have heard this evening, is tantamount to that. This is, yet again, a proxy on the JCPOA. If you are against the JCPOA, vote ``yes.'' If you are for it, vote ``no.''

This bill, however, obscures its end purpose, that objective of undermining the JCPOA behind process and ambiguity. Why?

If you oppose the sale of aircraft, oppose it. Have the courage of your convictions. Don't just engage in this fearmongering. No matter how many times you say that people in Iran chant ``Death to Israel, Death to America,'' and whatever other form of fearmongering you engage in, at least have the courage of your own convictions. You did last year.

Stand up for what you believe in. If you want Iran to buy Airbus aircraft instead of Boeing aircraft, then say that. Stand up for yourself. Stand up for what you believe.

But let's be clear. That is what this bill will do. Don't dance around.

For my part, I think blocking the sale of American planes is a big mistake on so many levels. Let's be clear. It doesn't deny Iran the use of aircraft; it just will deny them American-made aircraft. It will deny American machinists jobs to work on them.

And need I remind anybody here what it means to be an engineer or a machinist at an aircraft company in this country? It means the kind of jobs that we all aspire to for our constituents. You know the kind; the kind that pay enough that you can buy a home, have decent healthcare, save enough money to send your kid to college if you want to, have regular vacations, and have a secure retirement. Those are the kinds of jobs we are taking away if we pass this bill.

It doesn't just prevent Iran from misusing aircraft, as has been suggested. It just prevents Americans from having maintenance and service agreements that keep eyes on the aircraft because, you see, if Airbus sells them these planes, we have no idea. If they are American- made planes, they come with after-sale maintenance and service agreements. We will have eyes on the planes.

It doesn't force Iran back to the bargaining table. It just jeopardizes and cuts the legs out from under the gains we have made in the JCPOA that I thought my colleague and friend from Connecticut spoke about so eloquently. We don't go to sleep at night worried that Iran is getting closer to a bomb, as we would have, as North Korea has.

So my friends, in summary, passage of this legislation will do three things:

Number one, it will cost America jobs, and good-paying jobs;

Number two, it will make us less safe because it will undermine the JCPOA and, in so doing, not allow us to ensure that these planes are not being used for a nefarious purpose;

And number three, it will actually make us less safe as well, in the sense that if it does, in fact, defeat the purpose of JCPOA-- The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walberg). The time of the gentleman has expired.

If it does cut the legs out from JCPOA, as is its purpose, as is clear, then, of course, we are back on the track of Iran developing nuclear weapons as North Korea has. Fewer jobs and less safe; not sure what it is about that proposition that would be appealing to anyone.

So, my friends, I urge you, in the strongest terms possible, be for American jobs. Be for America being safer. Be for us living up to our commitments, and vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Most importantly, I want to express and extend my gratitude to the gentleman from Missouri. This has been a three-year journey for this particular legislation; not uncommon in this environment. But it was a difficult journey at times. At no step along the way did the gentleman from Missouri ever waiver from his commitment to working as collaboratively as possible, in a willingness to work to find a solution, and he did just that, and I thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Ranking Member Waters for her efforts, without which this bill would never even have made it to the floor. I do believe that this bill is stronger as a consequence of the amendments that we have made, the changes that we have made to it; most importantly, those changes that will ensure that we do not interfere with the important work of law enforcement.

I have been very up-front about this. From my perspective, my interest in this bill grows out of my work on helping my State find ways to make sure our State-regulated marijuana businesses have access to banking services so that we can avoid the public safety risks that arise from huge cash stockpiles building up at these businesses.

Sadly, we have already seen these risks materialize. Before, on this floor, I had mentioned the name of Travis Mason, 23 years old, a Marine veteran, working as a security officer at a retail establishment for marijuana in Colorado, studying to become a law enforcement officer, who was, a year ago last summer, shot dead by perpetrators who believed that there was a stockpile of cash behind those doors.

Travis left behind a widow and, yes, three small children. He had a set of twins. So part of what this bill will help is that there be no more Travis Masons--no more Travis Masons. We are passing this bill, in fact, in part to prevent another tragedy like that.

Now, Mr. Luetkemeyer and I worked together with the FDIC to provide clarity to their banks, and I think the FDIC's financial institutions letter of January 2015 was a key breakthrough for banks in Washington State and others. It simply said for banks worried about customer risks, like the Bank Secrecy Act and antimoney laundering--which is the main concern, frankly, around marijuana businesses--the FDIC does not expect them to avoid entire industries, but rather to make determinations on a customer-by-customer basis.

This was assurance that Washington banks needed to begin providing banking services to well-regulated, good-actor marijuana businesses. So now a handful of Washington banks and credit unions are serving marijuana businesses. Our State banking regulator is working closely with the State marijuana regulator. Scores of Washington marijuana businesses have set up bank accounts. We are getting cash out of those businesses and into the financial system, where it can be monitored. We draw down that cash stockpile. We reduced the public safety risk that I talked about earlier. We have an improved public safety condition. It is a model that needs to be spread to other States who have adopted, as it were, expanded marijuana legislation.

I view this bill as codifying the FDIC's financial institutions letter and expanding it to other bank regulators so that all lenders can operate under this same principle: that we judge consumers individually rather than by the industry they are in.

Let me repeat that: that we judge consumers individually rather than by the industry that they are in.

Mr. Luetkemeyer has been dedicated to that principle for years. I have been honored to work with him in this endeavor and I am pleased to be at this point where we have broad bipartisan support for this legislation.

Again, my hat is off to Mr. Luetkemeyer. To all of my colleagues, I urge a vote in favor of this underlying bill, in favor of a more balanced regulatory scheme, and a bill in favor of increased public safety.

Mr. Speaker, Bryan Black was the kid in Puyallup, Washington, with boundless potential, always striving to do more. He excelled in the classroom and, get this, both on the wrestling mat and at State chess tournaments. Go figure.

When he grew up, he took his potential to the United States Army, where Staff Sergeant Bryan Black conquered Ranger School and Special Forces Selection.

Sergeant Black was not just a warrior and a protector, he was a healer. As a Green Beret in the elite 3rd Group, he served as a medic, always encouraging and caring for those around him.

On October 4, Sergeant Black was killed in Niger.

Our hearts ache for his wife, Michelle; for his sons, Ezekiel and Isaac; and for his parents, Hank and Karen. Their son, husband, father, friend, and patriot will be remembered.

Precious few among us dedicate our God-given ability to protection of our country, but as Sergeant Black's father, Hank, so eloquently said: Some people could, would, should. Others do. Bryan did.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a bipartisan amendment in support of the Small Business Administration's ScaleUp program. Like many of you, one of my favorite things to do when I am back home is to visit local businesses, businesses like Beech Tree Woodworks in Olympia, which just invested in some amazing new cutting-edge machinery; or Zoe Juice Bar in Olympia, which opened with just four employees not that long ago, and they now have more than a dozen, and they are still growing.

These businesses have all expanded with the help of SBA's ScaleUp program. ScaleUp is a program that gives small businesses the tools they need to become not so small anymore. It works within existing community networks to provide the education and technical assistance and access to capital that small businesses need to grow.

I include in the Record an article from my hometown newspaper which discusses the positive impact ScaleUp has had on our community.

Why Is Trump's Pro-Business Administration Hurting Businesses in

Thurston County?

(By Rolf Boone)

President Donald Trump once declared that he would be the

``greatest jobs president that God ever created.''

After a recent decision to cut a business owner training

program in Thurston County--and 14 other locations around the

country--some might question Trump's claim.

``The program was under review by the Trump Administration

and the decision was made to let the program expire in its

entirety at the end of September,'' said Melanie Norton, a

spokeswoman for the Northwest region of the U.S. Small

Business Administration.

Locally, the program was known as ScaleUp Thurston, a

multi-week course that helped businesses beyond the start-up

stage grow.

The two-year-old program was based in Lacey at the Center

for Business & Innovation, a partnership of the Thurston

Economic Development Council, its business resource center

and South Puget Sound Community College. Celia Nightingale is

the director of the center.

ScaleUp received about $200,000 a year from the SBA, she

said.

The decision to discontinue the program clearly was not

data driven because it produced results, with businesses

increasing their revenue and adding employees, Nightingale

said.

``I find it hard to believe,'' said Kevin Leneker about the

decision. Leneker is chief executive of Olympia-based Single

Handed Consulting, a vocational rehabilitation business that

helps injured workers return to work. After participating in

ScaleUp in 2016, his revenue grew 57 percent and he increased

his staff to 25 from 10.

The course taught him to step back and think bigger picture

about the future of his business.

``Work on your business, not just in it,'' he said.

Jason Phillips, owner of Zoe Juice Bar in Olympia, also

took part in ScaleUp.

Phillips said the course allowed him to fine-tune his

business systems and procedures. It also introduced him to

other business owners and the importance of networking. His

juice bar opened in December 2013, followed by a production

space for cold-pressed juice in Tumwater. His business opened

with four employees. He now has 12-14, he said.

``It's really disappointing,'' he said. ``It was a great

resource for small businesses, and small business represents

jobs and families''

``You feel like you had a friend in your corner,'' he added

about ScaleUp.

ScaleUp may have been viewed as a duplication of services

already offered by the SBA's Small Business Development

Center, Nightingale said.

Leneker praised the services of the Small Business

Development Center, but he thinks there was little overlap.

``Not even close,'' he said.

Nightingale said the current ScaleUp program will run

through Sept. 29. After that, the plan is to seek grants and

corporate sponsorships to keep it going, she said.

Perhaps the city of Lacey will step up with some funding.

Lacey City Council recently learned about ScaleUp's end

after Councilwoman Rachel Young, a small business owner who

serves on the Thurston EDC board, reported the news to a

stunned council on July 13. That led business owner and Mayor

Andy Ryder to wonder aloud about possibly funding the

program.

It wouldn't be the first time the city has stepped up when

the federal government would not. The city led the creation

and funding of the Veterans Services Center Hub.

SBA currently plans to phase out this program at the end of this fiscal year--in other words, in 17 more days. After hearing from so many people whom it has benefited, I felt compelled to offer this amendment which will provide the funding to continue ScaleUp for another year.

ScaleUp communities can be found at every corner of America: in Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Maine, Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Arizona. I thank my friend from Arizona, Ms. McSally, for working with me on this bipartisan effort.

Mr. Chairman, we are in a tough budget environment. I get that. But that makes it all the more important that we focus on programs that have been proven to be a good investment, programs like ScaleUp.

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

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that our constituents were only informed 5 short weeks ago that ScaleUp was ending in 2 months. This amendment is the only recourse available given that very short timeframe, and because evidence-based measures of ScaleUp performance are all very positive, none of us had any reason to believe that the program would not continue, and the announcement came as a complete surprise to all of us.

The fact of the matter is, I don't agree with the decision of the Small Business Administration, and it is our job as a function of our oversight and check and balance responsibility to pursue our disagreement, as it were, because their decision flies in the face of the evidence.

I would argue that the appropriation process exists so that Congress can exercise this independent oversight of the spending priorities of the executive branch and assert itself in exactly this sort of a circumstance.

Mr. Chair, I would dearly love to work with the chair of the Small Business Committee on legislation to specifically authorize the ScaleUp program, but that is a longer term issue. This program will end at the end of this month if we don't act now, taking away a very valuable program that is working--evidence, metrics, measurable. It is getting the job done.

Why wouldn't we pass this amendment, it is fully offset, there is no increased spending here, and have the existing program continue while we work on a more permanent solution.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment in the name of helping small businesses grow. Two out of every three jobs created in America are created by small businesses. This program, ScaleUp, has been proven to work. There is not one shred of evidence that has been offered here today to suggest it isn't doing the job for which it was intended to do.

Please, support this amendment, support small businesses, support your check and balance responsibility, support the creation of jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to recognize the passing of a friend of mine for 30 years--a friend to me, to our Nation, and a friend and champion to our servicemembers--Major General Timothy Lowenberg.

Tim truly believed in service and began his public life at a young age, first in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps at the University of Iowa.

It is rare in life to have the opportunity to meet a person whose very courage is contagious--Tim's was. A

person whose patriotism and steadfast advocacy never failed to inspire, but that was Tim.

General Lowenberg testified before Congress many times as the adjutant general of Washington State. Many of you may have met him. He was always advocating for measures to keep us safe, and on behalf of his fellow servicemembers.

Sadly, Tim died suddenly on August 27, leaving behind a legacy built over 44 years of service to the military and the community. His wife, Mary, and his daughter, Cathy, lost a devoted husband and loving father, and our State and Nation lost a true patriot.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment helps our local communities preserve and restore important historic sites through a successful Federal-State partnership.

For more than 40 years, the Historic Preservation Fund has helped our States and Native Tribes leverage funds to revitalize communities and create opportunities for economic growth.

In my district, for example, the Historic Preservation Fund was recently used to rehabilitate Olympia's historic Stoker House, which is now home to a small clinic that provides much-needed mental health counseling services.

This year, funds were also used for Washington State's Youth Heritage Project in Tacoma, which introduced high school students to the maritime heritage of the Puget Sound region.

This amendment would simply restore Historic Preservation funding to last year's levels. It is a small but effective Federal program that deserves continued support.

This is a bipartisan amendment, and I am thankful to have the support of the co-chairs of the Historic Preservation Caucus, Congressmen Turner and Blumenauer, along with Congressmen Smith, Courtney, and Keating.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the 2018 Intelligence Authorization Act, but first I would like to tender a point of personal privilege.

Happy birthday, Madam Speaker.

This Intelligence Authorization Act has very strong bipartisan language. I just want to highlight two areas where the IAA furthers what I believe to be high priorities for our national security.

First, section 605, which I had the honor to author, sets in motion how to change the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, we also call it CFIUS, to better protect our keystone technologies.

This IAA provision dovetails with some broader work that we are doing in the Financial Services Committee, in fact, across the aisle with Congressman Pittenger and myself and others. It would modernize the process to better protect and prevent strategic foreign adversaries like China or Russia from taking advantage of our open markets in a way that undermines our national security.

America's technological edge is, in fact, a cornerstone of our national security, but our strategic adversaries know that, too. They are increasingly seeking to obtain these critical technologies and resources through commercial transactions, i.e., they are buying them. CFIUS is a place to safeguard us against this risk, but it needs modernization, more resources, and authority and support from the intelligence community.

Russian meddling in the 2017 election showed us what happens when an adversary tries to exploit our political openness. Now they are trying to exploit our economic openness. Our intelligence community is vital in protecting against both of those threats.

Let me also underscore this point: The fiscal year 2018 IAA takes steps to safeguard our Nation's edge, our advantage in space, which is, I am sorry to say, increasingly threatened by adversary nations. To mitigate that risk, the bill supports some truly cutting-edge space technologies and invests in and oversees programs to ensure the resiliency of overhead architecture. At the same time, it keeps up with the Intelligence Committee's long-running efforts to stimulate innovation.

In particular, the committee report accompanying today's legislation asks the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to examine new approaches to public and private sector collaboration, with the goal of fostering the faster, smarter development of automation, artificial intelligence, and similar technologies.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation. I hope all my colleagues will join me in both wishing the Speaker a happy birthday and in voting ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to share my admiration and appreciation for the institution of Fort Lewis, which this year is celebrating 100 years in Washington's South Sound. In 1917, as the United States was fighting at the peak of World War I, the people of this community came together to show solidarity and sacrifice. Pierce County overwhelmingly passed a bond to raise $2 million dollars to purchase and donate over 60,000 acres to the Army in order to found Camp Lewis. Civil-military partnerships and cooperation are a heritage we proudly continue to this very day.

What started as a modest training area has grown to become the premier power projection platform on the West Coast. Camp Lewis became Fort Lewis in 1927 and then Joint Base Lewis-McChord in 2010. It is now the fourth largest military base in the world, with active duty service members, National Guard, Reservists, and civilians working side by side to ensure our national security.

The soldiers stationed at Camp Lewis fought valiantly in World War I. The Ninety-First Division took part in the Battle of Flanders where it captured 2,300 German prisoners and 400 machine guns, despite facing enormous odds. Incredibly, five members of the Division were awarded the Medal of Honor for their bravery, including First Lieutenant Deming Bronson, a graduate of the University of Washington.

America's 34th President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, served at Fort Lewis as Chief of Staff of Third Army Division with the rank of Colonel between 1940 and 1941 before going on to become the Supreme Allied Commander in World War II. In that conflict, Fort Lewis units, including the 41st Infantry Division and the 3rd Infantry Division, deployed to New Guinea, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, and Central Europe. Their record was astounding; soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division earned 16 Medals of Honor.

From early on, Fort Lewis was a bastion of diversity. In 1943, Fort Lewis was home to the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, with heroic women serving in the motor pools, on sentry duty, and as medical technicians. The military, under President Truman's Executive Order, helped lead society toward desegregation in the 1940's and 50's. When the segregated ``South Fort Lewis'' and the black soldiers there joined ranks with the rest of the post, both the units and soldiers became stronger.

The storied history of Joint Base Lewis-McChord has chapters in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The Soldiers and Airmen stationed there have fought for freedom and democracy across the globe and back here at home. The base is now home to the Army I Corps, the Air Force 62nd and 446th Airlift Wings, the 7th Infantry Division, the 1st Special Forces Group, the 2nd Battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and Madigan Army

Medical Center--the Army's second largest medical treatment facility. They lay claim to an inspiring and influential past, only to be surpassed by a great future, full of potential, full of bravery, and full of patriotism.

Mr. Speaker, our country owes Joint Base Lewis-McChord and the brave women and men working there an insurmountable debt of gratitude. On the 100-year anniversary of its historic founding, I want to say thank you for the past century of protection, hope, and comradery coming out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about tackling a problem that, frankly, affects every single one of us in every single one of our districts, and that is storm water.

Most of us probably don't think about it very much, but, frankly, when rain falls--it does a lot of that in the Northwest--and flows through our streets and off the shoulders of our highways, it picks up all sorts and kinds of pollutants. We are talking, frankly, about some really nasty stuff: toxic chemicals like arsenic and flame retardants, as well as oil and pesticides.

Stop and think. The single largest contributor of water pollution in the United States of America is storm water runoff--up to 80 percent in some places.

Toxic storm water runoff harms our rivers and our lakes and our waterways. But it not only harms our environment, it harms our businesses that depend on clean water, like the shellfish industry of Washington State which employes, literally, thousands of people.

In Puget Sound, the largest estuary in America, storm water runoff literally can kill a salmon in a few hours. Well, salmon and other fish are a way of life in Washington, to the tune of a $30 billion, with a B, economy.

Salmon also serve as a vital resource of immeasurable value. For the 19 federally recognized Tribes in the Puget Sound, salmon is their way of life. They are called the salmon people.

If we fail to address the problem posed by storm water, these resources will continue to decline, and our communities will continue to pay an avoidable price.

So what are we doing right now to stop this from happening? The answer is: a few things, but nowhere near enough.

If we are going to truly address the problem, the Federal Government needs to do the basic, and that is set an example. The good news is that Congress has recognized this in the past, because about 10 years ago this body passed a law which requires Federal agencies to reduce storm water runoff when they develop or redevelop property. That is a commonsense requirement, but we can't stop there.

Research shows that the most cost-effective and efficient way to reduce storm water runoff is through what is called green infrastructure, or low-impact development, things like rain gardens and permeable pavement and green roofs.

You probably won't be surprised when I share that the largest storm water research center in the United States of America is in my district at our land-grant university, Washington State University's extension campus in Puyallup. So I am a witness to the promise and the potential of this approach.

This amendment simply provides funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to determine to what extent they are using these technologies and techniques to comply with the requirements already imposed by Congress.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to help communities and businesses impacted by toxic storm water runoff, it is crucial that the Federal Government set the example and lead the way. So I ask you to join me as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and ensure that Federal agencies are using the latest and most efficient technology to manage storm water runoff.

Finally, I want to extend my deepest appreciation to the chair of the committee, my friend from Idaho, and the ranking member from Ohio very, very much. I urge adoption of this amendment.

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