Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 14, 2018, at noon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the passing of a great man from California's first district, Michael Ciafardoni, Sr., who died at the age of 94. Born in Nepezzano, Italy, Michael immigrated to America in 1939 and was soon called upon just a few years later to serve his new country in the Second World War.

Although he was not yet a United States citizen, he fulfilled his civic duty nonetheless and served in the U.S. Army in WWII as a member of the 803rd Tank Destroyer Battalion, Recon Company, as a heavy machine gunner. He was the last surviving member of his company. Along the way, Michael experienced all that the European Theatre had to offer. He earned five bronze battle stars for fighting in some of the most consequential battles of the war, including the Normandy Invasion and the Battle of the Bulge.

Despite this impressive record, Michael insisted his proudest wartime experience was not any of those major engagements, but rather, the liberation of a small town in Czechoslovakia near the end of the war. Jewish prisoners were being held in the town of Volary, where they awaited transfer to a Nazi concentration camp. Fortunately, Michael and his company got there first--and they liberated them. To the people of Volary, these men were heroes.

When the 803rd was leaving town a few days later, they were ambushed by German soldiers. Private Charles Havlat, riding in the tank directly in front of Michael, was caught in the crossfire. The Germans unconditionally surrendered merely hours later. Charles was the last soldier killed in Europe. To this day, the town holds an annual celebration to pay tribute to the American soldiers who risked their lives to free them, and to Charles Havlat, who made the ultimate sacrifice.

I'm told that Michael's one wish was to be honored for his wartime service in Europe. That is a wish that I could not be happier to fulfill right here on the House floor in the United States Capitol. Amazingly, Michael was a war hero for a country that he wasn't even yet a citizen of. Thankfully, that didn't last long. In October of 1946, he earned U.S. citizenship for his exemplary service to his new country-- his new home.

In 1960, he and his wife Micki moved to Southern California, before relocating to North San Juan in 1983 to be closer to their children and grandchildren.

Like any true American, Michael was immensely proud to be here and ready to fight for his country without hesitation. Many people today could learn a lot from a guy like Michael. Before he died, he asked to see his Certificate of Naturalization, which brought a proud smile to his face.

The simple fact is, Michael was as American as any among us, and all who knew him were better off for it. He truly lived a life worth living and he made his family and his country proud. May he rest in peace. God Bless.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the passing of a great man from California's First District, Michael Ciafardoni, who died at the age of 94.

He was born in Nepezzano, Italy. Michael immigrated to America in 1939.

Although not yet even a United States citizen, he then served in the U.S. Army in World War II as a member of the 803rd tank destroyer battalion as a heavy machine gunner. He was the last surviving member of his company.

He earned five Bronze Battle Stars fighting some of the most consequential battles of the war, including the Normandy invasion and the Battle of the Bulge.

Michael insisted his proudest wartime experience was not one of those major engagements but, rather, the liberation of a small town in Czechoslovakia near the end of the war. Jewish prisoners were being held in the town of Volary, where they awaited transfer to a Nazi concentration camp. Fortunately, Michael and his company got there first, and they liberated them. To the people of Volary, these men were heroes.

When the 803rd was leaving town a few days later, they were ambushed by German soldiers. Indeed, the last soldier killed in Europe, Private Charles Havlat, was riding a tank directly in front of the one Michael was in. The Germans unconditionally surrendered just a few hours later.

To this day, the town holds an annual celebration to pay tribute to the American soldiers who risked their lives to free them.

I am told that Michael's one wish was to be honored for his wartime service in Europe. That is a wish that we are fulfilling right here today on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, he was a hero for a country that he wasn't even yet a citizen of. In October of 1946, he earned U.S. citizenship for his service to his new country, his new home.

Before he died, he asked to see his Certificate of Naturalization, which brought a proud smile to his face. Michael is as American as any of us.

God bless him and his family.

Mr. Speaker, California and the West, as has become all too frequent, have experienced devastating fires this year. The loss of life and damage to property has been immense, and we are just partially through the fire season.

Our firefighters, in particular, whether they are U.S. Forest Service, Cal Fire, volunteers, contractors, or municipal, have worked hard and sacrificed to protect the communities and resources, such as the firefighters I saw in northern California all the way up from Los Angeles County.

At the peak of California's summer fires, there were more than 14,000 firefighters from 17 States joined in this effort. The work is brutal. It is hot, smoky, tiring, and there are few breaks, if any. These recent fires took a heavy toll on these men and women.

In July, the Ferguson fire took the lives of Braden Varney and Captain

Brian Hughes, both killed while battling flames near Yosemite National Park.

Later that month, the Mendocino Complex fires, on record as the largest wildfire in our State's history, burning more than 459,000 acres, took the life of Battalion Chief Matthew Burchett from Utah, who died after he was injured while working on an active portion of the Ranch fire.

The Carr fire in my district was one of the most severe fires our State has ever seen. It devastated 229,000 acres, destroying nearly 1,100 homes, and took the lives of eight people, including three firefighters and one utility lineman: Jeremy Stoke, Don Smith, Andrew Brake, and Jay Ayeta.

This fire was so large and hot that it created its own weather system, including a fire tornado the size of three football fields with winds up to 165 miles an hour created by the fire, leaving families with little time to find their way through bottleneck traffic to safety.

Tragically, the fast-growing flames entrapped four residents unable to escape their homes in time, including Daniel Bush of Keswick, as well as Melody Bledsoe and her two great-grandchildren, James and Emily Roberts.

As the flames continued, more than 5,000 firefighters and emergency personnel put their lives on the line battling the fire, at times working more than 24-hour shifts.

Some of these individuals, as local residents, lost their own homes in the flames, yet they spent weeks protecting others. The courage of these men and women in some of the darkest times of these affected areas will long be remembered.

I thank my colleagues from California, together today for our support of each other. We have all felt this each in our own way as still more fires rage on right now throughout our State.

Mr. Speaker, I now ask that the House observe a moment of silence for all of those who lost their lives in these terrible fires and to stand in solidarity with the many individuals who are now starting the long, painful process of rebuilding their lives.

Mr. Speaker, as we return this week to Washington after our district work period this last month, I rise today to recognize and honor the many firefighters around California, particularly in my own district, who have been fighting so hard to extinguish these devastating wildfires of hundreds of thousands of acres.

The Carr fire quickly became one of the most devastating fires in northern California history, and, unfortunately, claimed the lives of three firefighters in the process. I am very grateful for their sacrifice and their unwavering efforts in the face of what had to seem nearly impossible odds. After all, when California's poor forest management practices turn our public lands into tinderboxes, containing a wildfire becomes extremely difficult.

I spent a lot of time in Redding last month, and I saw firsthand the challenges they faced and the great work being done to protect the citizens, the communities, and each other.

Local firefighters, CalFire, the Hotshots, Forest Service, smoke jumpers, all of them were ready to go and were working, participating, putting their lives on the line. We owe all these men and women a great deal of gratitude.

We can debate what may cause these catastrophic fires, the fuel load in our forests, and lack of management, but there is no question who put these fires out. We are very grateful to them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mrs. Walters from southern California, for leading the charge tonight on yet another example of a United States citizen being detained or arrested falsely.

At this point, 59 days into the process, no actual charge has been brought against Michael Nguyen. Is this justice or is this some kind of game they are playing with our citizens that isn't appreciated by our country and, certainly as my colleague, Mr. Lowenthal, was mentioning just a minute ago, that is something that, if it continues to happen, we have to continue to reevaluate our relationship with Vietnam?

Now, obviously, we went through some very difficul times in the 1960s and 1970s, but we have been building on that for a long time. We want to build on that. We want to have those good relationships and good trade and all of the opportunities that make our country, as well as theirs, stronger with positive economics. But that is very difficult when you have this kind of action going on against a United States citizen where, in this country, we enjoy due process; we foster due process; we encourage that.

And so for those whom we trade with, those whom we have partnerships with, those whom we want to have relationships with, we want to not only encourage that, but demand that, for the way our citizens are treated.

In California, we have a very strong population of Vietnamese immigrants and people from the region who have immigrated to our State, including in my own district, who have been very enterprising and become part of the community in the few decades they have been here now. Why would we not want to continue to battle for these citizens if they are going to travel back to Vietnam for whatever purpose: tourism, business, or seeing relatives that maybe didn't come over to the United States?

So we are here tonight to demand the release of Michael Nguyen as a citizen of the United States and as a citizen of California.

Michael's family has been wondering for a long time what is going on with their loved one. It has taken weeks to find out through some kind of update as to what Michael's status is.

So we strongly, joining in with our bipartisan coalition of Members here tonight, demand General Secretary Trong and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam respect the rights of our citizens and consider again the consequences that might come should this illegal imprisonment continue or there be more like it in the future.

So we will continue to work together with Congresswoman Walters and our Secretary Pompeo to ensure that Michael is returned to his family as soon as possible because, again, he hasn't even been charged with anything other than being a U.S. citizen in Vietnam. It is high time that he has his rights restored and not have this be harmful to him, his family, and our relationships.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to honor the life of a local community leader and retired Chief of Police, Robert Franklin Pasero.

Bob Pasero was always an active member in the community of Orland. I had the privilege of meeting Bob when he was serving as the Orland Chief of Police from 2004 to 2010, and upon his retirement celebration. Bob was a role model for many in the City of Orland because of his interactions and care for the people around him and the good humor he brought with it. As the Chief of Police, he always led people in the right direction with his fatherly attitude and compassion. Bob was respected and loved by the people around him.

You would also find Bob doing the announcing at the local Glenn County Fair parade each year, having something encouraging to say about each entry as he knew just about each one personally.

After Bob retired as Chief of Police, he did not let that stop him from serving his town. He wanted to honor those who served our country so he assisted in facilitating the Motor-Icicle Run in honor of Orland's veterans.

As a minister of his church, Victory in Christ Community Church, Bob mentored and married many young couples. Bob also organized events for his church such as the Annual Soup Bowl where once a year he and his church would make and serve food to the homeless in the community. Bob also had a passion for music and used his talent to serve God as the leader of the Victory in Christ Community Church worship band. Bob counted himself as a ``prayer warrior'' constantly asking for prayer through social media and personally for people he knew of in need, touching many lives with his strong faith .

Bob Pasero passed away on July 25, 2018 after a hard fought battle with cancer. He will always be remembered by his family and neighbors for his contagious love for life and for others that he so gladly served.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Robert Franklin Pasero for his commitment and service to the community of Orland.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an amicus brief filed by our majority whip, Steve Scalise, in defense of the Bladensburg World War I Memorial in Prince George's County.

The 93-year-old memorial honoring fallen soldiers has recently come under attack simply for being shaped like a cross. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the memorial unconstitutional because of the inherent meaning of the cross as a religious symbol.

What kind of world do we live in where a monument to honor fallen soldiers of World War I--93 years old--is being threatened because of its shape or religious meaning?

What is more, this is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, which has been litigated. It could only be described as hostility towards religion, not neutrality.

What is next, Arlington National Cemetery? the U.S. Capitol? or countless other national monuments, historic sites, or traditions?

The Supreme Court has a chance to reverse this decision. I urge them to set precedent that will protect America's historic monuments in perpetuity.

Mr. Speaker, families who are veterans also sacrifice a great deal when their loved ones have been deployed and even when they come home. Current law, unfortunately, doesn't allow a spouse to be recognized by the VA-provided grave marker after that spouse has passed away.

Some veterans in the north State in my district recognized this issue and brought it to my attention. The VA even requested this change in this year's budget request. The budget requires a change in law by Congress.

That is why I introduced the Honoring Veterans' Families Act in order to correct this problem. Under the legislation, the VA will have the ability to replace the marker of a veteran to add an inscription about their spouse following the loss of that spouse.

Veterans certainly should have the option of including their spouse on their own tombstone if they so choose. This is a bill that, unfortunately, is needed to once again honor our veterans and the sacrifices of their families. Let's hope we can pass it.

Mr. Chair, in rising to support my colleague, Mr. Denham, on this amendment, I note that the California State Water Board is contemplating their next water grab, and how disconnected from reality these regulators are.

In the latest plan, they want to take 40 percent of the flows from San Joaquin. Concurrently, they have a pending proposal to also increase the volume of flows from the Sacramento River, in my region, that washes out to the ocean, all under the guise, the failing guise of protecting fish. They are contemplating 45 to 65 percent of unimpeded flow.

We already know that when it comes to protectin people or fish, Sacramento always decides to choose the latter. This plan defies even basic common sense or fairness.

Instead, it relies on questionable science to impose arbitrary restrictions, with no solutions to address the loss of habitat for native species, or even the predators in the delta, which we already know to be a major threat to the fish population. Up to 90 percent of the affected species are devoured by these predator fish.

It offers no recourse for the devastating impact it will have on jobs and local economies.

I would like to remind the regulators, California voters overwhelmingly supported the effort to direct $2.7 billion for water storage projects, recognizing the need to invest in infrastructure such as Sites Reservoir.

If that project already existed, the reservoir would be nearly full right now, providing enough water to serve 3.6 million Californians for an entire year, and relieve the stress on the Sacramento and Central Valley water systems.

Mr. Chair, we need some common sense. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Denham's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and note Nevada County Farm Bureau in my district in northern California that is celebrating this weekend their 100th anniversary of existence in Nevada County, helping farmers and ranchers with the very diverse types of crops they have, not like in the flatlands, but nestled in the foothills and the mountains of Nevada County.

They have different crops: hay crops, tree crops, even a level of forestry that they are all involved with there. The Farm Bureau has been a leader a long time in helping those folks to navigate regulations, ideas for better propagation of their crops, and just a better way to do things in the community.

We appreciate their leadership and all of their memberships to help make farming strong.

Congratulations to the Nevada County Farm Bureau on 100 years of helping their members in Nevada County.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment today simply aims to increase funding to help combat illegal marijuana grow operations in our Nation's national forests. Illegal marijuana grows pose a significant threat to public safety as well as the environment.

According to the DEA, the majority of illegal marijuana production that occurs in Federal land is carried out by Mexican drug cartels. These cartels smuggle deadly weapons, illegal pesticides, and other dangerous materials across the border to grow illegal substances on our public lands.

Siskiyou County, in my district in northern California, has actually declared a state of emergency over the damage illegal marijuana production has caused to neighboring communities, the surrounding environment--again, damage much beyond what anybody would ever accuse legal industries of, farming, timber, whatever--and they are using, again, banned chemicals in the process, damaging wildlife, the environment, water supply, across the board.

While the majority of illegal grow activity occurs within California's borders, States across the country are also affected. Drug trafficking organizations are operating on 72 national forests in 21 States throughout the country.

Our agencies need the funding and tools to take proactive steps to push back against this growing, large threat. According to the Forest Service, it would cost over $100 million over 5 years to reduce the spread of this problem in California alone.

My amendment would increase funding to the National Forest System account by $4.5 million. Indeed, that is barely scratching the surface of what is truly needed, but it is a good start, and then we can fashion a pilot to show the good we can do over time.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate my colleague's position there, but we are talking about, again, what the Forest Service says themselves is a $100 million problem over 5 years, or $20 million per year. This would seek to boost that.

If you saw the emergency situation, again, in areas like my district and adjacent, you would probably agree this

$4.5 million boost would be very important in order to get a good start at that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the conversation here, but when you look at the depth and the danger of what is being brought into our States and my own part of northern California, my colleague in the Cleveland National Forest, this is an acute problem. The environmental damage is unspeakable with the amount of chemicals, the damage to the wildlife, and the threat this poses to people out there innocently hiking camping, utilizing the forest or maybe for even logging operations.

So we need to kick-start this as strongly as possible, and that is why I offer this amendment tonight in order to counter and send a message that we are taking this seriously where Federal employees, Federal agents have feared to tread in recent years because of this tremendous threat that the Mexican nationals and gang activity has caused in our national forests that belong to the people.

So, again, I urge my colleagues to support this. It is an important start and weaves into so much with human trafficking, environmental destruction, and even, in some cases, murder associated with the problems of the growth of this product in our national forests.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment.

My colleague today has labeled this language a loophole in the bill, which is false. A loophole is used to get around a law. The language he wants to strike requires EPA and Army Corps to follow the law.

I ask once again my colleague, a friend of mine and a nice guy, to come visit us in northern California and meet with the farmers and ranchers who have seen firsthand this misuse and abuse of the Clean Water Act and to gain an understanding why this language is necessary. It is not theoretical. This is regulatory overreach at its worst going on right now.

The recapture provision of the Clean Water Act was never meant to swallow the original intent of the agricultural exemptions clearly laid out in the act, but that is exactly what has been happening. If this amendment passes, it would only get worse.

It was never the intention of the Clean Water Act to punish farmers for conducting normal farming practices, normal operations, such as plowing or doing stock pond maintenance, indeed, continuing what it is they have always done.

There is a difference between filling a river and a difference between plowing the corner of a field. These exemptions were constructed to address that difference.

The ongoing expansion of enforcement, indeed, the reinterpretation of clear exemption, is not what has been going on for 40 years as asserted, but only in recent years under the previous administration have they reinterpreted these laws; otherwise, you wouldn't have these farmers and others in such a fuss over what they have done for many decades.

The ongoing expansion of enforcement of the Clean Water Act has chipped away at the rights of landowners and has made it a danger to farmers to effectively utilize their own property--key word, ``own.'' This isn't somebody else's wetlands. This isn't someone else's habitat. This is land that belongs to farmers who have been practicing farming in the way they see fit for many years before this reinterpretation.

It is really ridiculous that a farmer must worry about being slapped with a fine in the millions of dollars just for plowing on their own land or a decision to rest that land, let it lie fallow, or wait for improved market conditions.

In my district, there have been lawsuits against residents for farming without Federal permission. Cases like these across the country have cost farmers millions of dollars--yes, millions of dollars--in legal damages, and they risk running farmers out of business. I don't know of many farmers who can absorb million-dollar fines very many times and continue doing what they are doing.

If this amendment is not defeated, these damages to farm communities will only grow. America's farmers and ranchers deserve our support. They deserve to be able to make decisions about managing their land, managing their crops, have crop rotations that make sense to them for market conditions, or just allowing the land to rest without having to seek an onerous permit if they let their land rest for a couple years, this without more regulatory ambiguity and red tape.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, indeed, I appreciate my colleague's comments and thoughts on this.

We are not talking about conversion to suburbia. We are talking about a reinstitution of a crop that may have been lying fallow for a few years or changing from a crop such as a hay crop to wheat.

Indeed, one of my growers up north got in big trouble because they wanted to put in a wheat crop on their own land, which isn't wetlands unless we want to start reinterpreting that way by EPA working with their henchmen in the Army Corps, basically out of the Sacramento office, to keep coming after him and finding more and more people. This puts more wind in their sails to come after people who are making an honest living, not trying to develop houses or suburbia.

Indeed, I would agree with the gentleman on that. And that is going to require a fairly difficult permit process, especially in my home State of California, if you want to start turning this ag land into suburbia. It is not what we are after.

There was a farm bill some years ago called the Freedom to Farm. What has happened to that? What has happened to that concept?

With clear exemptions in the Clean Water Act for normal farming practices, not new interpretations that have been put in place in the previous administration we are still trying to unwind and get their attention on, that is why this amendment would be damaging towards that effort.

It is not a fight over clean water; it is a fight over Federal control. They never intended for this.

It is unfortunate I have to even be here today to defend simply requiring the bureaucrats to follow the law and the clear exemptions that were put in place under the Clean Water Act.

Activities of the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers go above the law to impose these requirements, again, significantly expanding the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, which clearly exceeds congressional intent when they passed the Clean Water Act 40-plus years ago.

Mr. Chair, again, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for an agency that works extremely hard to keep our country safe, and that is Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE.

While some on the other side of the aisle have called for ICE to be abolished--yes, that is not a joke, and indeed, have proposed a bill that they are now running away from, they failed to put their money where their mouth is on the issue when their bluff was called.

ICE is, in fact, one of the most important components of our country's interior law enforcement. Without them, even the most modest level of border security would be difficult. In 2017 alone, the numbers are staggering: 226,119 illegal aliens removed; 32,598 Homeland Security criminal arrests; 4,818 gang arrests, including 796 MS-13 members; and 2,370 pounds of the very dangerous fentanyl drugs seized, which only a small amount is very dangerous to thousands of people.

The statistics should speak for themselves. ICE is critical for our country and its law enforcement. We should be doing everything we can to support them instead of threatening and abolishing an agency that works around the clock to protect our borders and our interior from these great threats. We should appreciate this branch of law enforcement, not try and run it out of town.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 35 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, the USA has approximately 121 sites around the country that are storing nuclear waste in approximately 39 States. They are in temporary facilities, temporary storage that could be subject to all sorts of problems, whether it be terrorist attack or other issues with nature.

I had the chance recently to visit Yucca Mountain, the facility in Nevada that would be the repository for nuclear waste, if it could be approved and put in place.

I was impressed with what I saw for many key issues. Seismic activity is very low in the area, if any. We have an issue where it could be a very hardened site for attack. It would be very difficult to attack it. And the issues with groundwater are nil, since groundwater is so deep in the Nevada desert, well below the areas proposed.

We need to do something about this situation with nuclear waste being stored temporarily the way it is or with moving forward with a project like Yucca Mountain, which is the only one approved in the United States currently under the law.

Mr. Speaker, further delay means further peril for the way this stuff is being stored currently. We need to move forward on this.