Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act was passed 45 years ago. We have seen a recovery of approximately 2 to 3 percent of species since then, but when the baseball All-Star Game is in town, nobody is an all-star at 3 percent.

In my home State of California, an increasing trillions of gallons of fresh drinking water flow unused into the ocean, still fish species don't recover with all this new water introduced in the last 30 years. People's needs are decimated as people need to ask for a glass of water in a restaurant or soon decide if they will shower or wash clothes on a given day in their homes. Electricity is much more expensive than need be.

Home prices are so high in California, people cannot even live where they work, in many cases sometimes commuting 3 hours to where they work. No new lands, they say, are suitable other than building on ag land or on floodplains. This, while the State attempts to commit tax dollars to what they deem affordable housing.

The ESA back then that was passed with bipartisan support in 1973 was well-intentioned, we all agree, on preserving species. Liberal courts, nongovernmental organizations, and complicit Federal agencies have weaponized it to stop productive Americans, harm jobs, and increase imports.

The Congressional Western Caucus has a package of modest reforms to reset back to bipartisan goals of the Endangered Species Act, but we will hear how it is gutting the ESA when it is, instead, a series of course corrections applied to a 45-year-old law that has been reinterpreted and weaponized--accountability, transparency in data use, how it is gathered, how success is measured, instead of just being a roadblock for no-growthers, lawyers, and environmental groups.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Congressional Western Caucus Chairman Gosar and Mr. Bishop for their work in

this effort in making this happen and, hopefully, being fruitful in adjusting the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today sadly but, also, in honor of the passing of a dear friend from Shasta County, Mel Fisher. Melvin Francis Fisher was born in Detroit, Michigan.

I first came to know Mel and his lovely wife, Kathy--what a character this couple was--during the first time I went to a Pearl Harbor survivors event in Shasta County in about 2002.

Mel joined the Navy in 1940 to follow in the footsteps of his father, who was a fighter pilot in World War I. He couldn't have known what the journey was going to take him to; so, indeed, when he was in Pearl Harbor aboard the USS Whitney, that was where they were attacked by the Japanese. His ship was responsible for shooting down two Japanese planes that day.

Mel later went on to serve on the USS Indiana, participating in military engagements in Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, and more.

In 2010, my family and I had the privilege of accompanying Mel, Kathy, and their family to the 69th anniversary commemoration of the Pearl Harbor attack. Indeed, that is something I will always treasure.

His military service was very distinguished, but his family remembers someone who gave back to his community in service. He loved to fish on and around Lake Shasta.

He peacefully passed away on Father's Day, surrounded by his loving family. He will be greatly missed.

It was an honor for me to know such a man as Mel Fisher, who served his family faithfully and his community with love and is loved by so many.

God bless you, Mel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank President Trump for his willingness to resolve a major injustice. I am speaking, of course, about the news that the President has decided to pardon Oregon ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond.

They have already served jail sentences for a controlled burn on their land, which was adjacent to Federal lands that were already out of control with a fire. They used the fire tool to try and keep their own land from being overcome by poorly managed Federal lands and the fires that frequently occur upon them.

They served a sentence for that already. Yet overzealous prosecutors, using terrorism legislation in the law, came back after them again and forced them to serve even more time, unfairly. It was the type of law that was used in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing. Approximately 139 acres of Federal land was burned accidentally to try and stop fire.

The Hammonds aren't from my district. They are from Mr. Walden's district in Oregon, and I commend him for his work to help make sure this clemency has happened for these people. They are good citizens who are well-known in Oregon. They have relatives and many friends in my northern California district as well.

Their case is a prime example of the previous administration's overbearing regulation and enforcement on the users of public land, while, at the same time, their poor stewardship has caused these dangerous conditions.

It is too bad they will never get the time back that they served. But I am, indeed, glad for President Trump granting clemency to the Hammond family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Tenney, my good friend from New York, as well, for leading this night and for this tribute. It is well deserved for the great friend Ileana is and a great friend to us here, as well as an amazing Member for her district, for representing her people with energy and with all that it takes to be effective for the many years that she did so. And so you saw that level of energy here in this place and in our Conference.

I was always pleased to be able to work with her on issues, but just seeing her for a minute each time because she would--Claudia talked a little bit about the height disparity, so for her and me, it is quite something else. But she would always come up to me. And me coming from a ranching background and farming background in

northern California, I have always got these cowboy boots on. So I just got the handle from her: Hey, Cowboy, how are you doing?

And I didn't really know what to call her, so I just went with ``Cowgirl.'' So she is my Miami cowgirl friend. So that was just part of the fun of having such a great colleague like that, and I was really, indeed, disappointed to see and to hear and to know that she was deciding to hang it up here. But everybody--everybody--has that time.

She led here with, again, grace and dignity, but also with enough fire to get the job done. I know she was an amazing Representative for the people of her district and for all of us to hear the diverse sides of all the issues that affect her part of Florida and how that might contrast with my part of California. And you take that into mind because she is effective at getting a point across respectfully but, again, with the pizzazz it takes to be an effective leader here. So we will dearly miss her.

To my friend, from Cowboy: Cowgirl, enjoy your next endeavor here, and it has been a pleasure to work with you. God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak a little about decorum and civility. Here in Washington, D.C., we have a lack of it, it seems, and it is spreading all over. We are seeing it in the news. We are seeing a lot of it happen right here in this building.

Just a few days ago, an intern on the Senate side decided it would somehow be good or proper to make obscene comments as the President was walking around in the building. That intern received only a slap on the wrist for doing so.

We see it happening inside this Chamber in several ways. It is in something as simple as the 1-minute speeches we have in this Chamber each day. Members frequently blow through that time up to 80, 90 seconds before finally being gaveled down.

House rules are supposed to mean something. Sometimes in those speeches, even though they know it is against House rules, Members are disparaging individuals, calling them out by name, only to be gaveled after the speech is over with, instead of during, to stop that bad behavior.

About 2 years ago in June, we even had a sit-in that occurred in this Chamber in a big part of this side of the room over here; a sit-in where bootleg videos were being sent out and C-SPAN broadcast them, outside of the House rules, because one particular group felt like their voice needed to be heard, even outside of the rules, instead of working within the process the American people sent us here to do. Very disappointing.

Then, just last week, one of our Members decided that they wanted to play a tape recording that came allegedly from inside one of the detention centers along the border, outside of clear decorum of House rules. The Member was repeatedly told it was outside the rules. Yet that recording went on for at least 3\1/2\ minutes, disrespecting this institution, disrespecting what the people sent us here to do.

We need to have enforcement of these rules. They need to be stronger. We need to empower the Speaker and the Chair to enforce the rules. When it is time, shut off the mike. It goes against the grain of what the American people sent us here for in the over 200 years of this institution.

Outside of this room we have Members of this body actually publicly calling for intimidation and harassment of fellow workers in government, whether it is in the Cabinet or fellow Members of this body.

What have we come to as a country when that behavior is called for by elected Members of this body? What have we come to?

We have seen it on the streets after the election and after the inauguration of this President, with Antifa and other groups claiming to be the voice of, I don't know who. Certainly, it isn't the voice of the people, hiding behind masks, hiding their identity, and causing wanton destruction.

When words like this come from people elected as a part of this body, that just fuels the fire, not only for bad behavior and disrespect for people who are doing their jobs, maybe with a different opinion from others, but respectfully doing their jobs; harassing them in restaurants or in markets, at the gas station, or wherever it is going to be; it is completely out of line.

I do not know where we are going as a country when our elected officials are calling for that kind of bad behavior.

So what are we going to do about it?

A lot of what drives this is what the people think, when the people demand that their elected leaders ratchet up their behavior to be just a little bit better.

You don't have an institution here when there are no rules, no order, no function. Instead, you have chaos. You can't get anything done around here, or anywhere else--even something as simple as a board game--if people are not following the rules. All that breeds is more misbehavior and more rule breaking.

There are a lot of people across this country who feel like that with the government out of control, legislation out of control, rules are for suckers. Why should they play when no one else is; when our borders aren't enforced; when laws on the books aren't enforced; and they see people being given rewards, whether the benefits of citizenship or just as simple as running this House Chamber. It is very discouraging and disappointing to the American public.

This institution is a much older and much more hallowed place than any one of us will ever walk through for whatever time we are bestowed the opportunity to serve people in our respective districts 2 years at a time.

So it is high time that we have the rules in place, and that they are enforced, but also to look inwardly at ourselves as Members of this body to uphold the rules, the integrity of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my colleagues in this House for passing H.R. 299, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act. The legislation makes 90,000 Vietnam sea-service veterans eligible for disability pay for health issues that could possibly have been caused by Agent Orange exposure.

The truth is, we don't know for sure how many have been exposed to Agent Orange, but we owe them the benefit of the doubt that we give to Vietnam servicemembers who have served on land as well.

It is a long time coming. They pleaded with us for years to pay attention to Agent Orange, and it has been obscured for a long time. It is well-documented that some of these soldiers weren't treated very well when they returned home to this country. They finally are going to receive the respect and the care they deserve.

I want to thank our chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Dr. Phil Roe, as well as the author of this legislation, my California colleague, David Valadao, for their tireless work on making this happen.

Countless veterans have developed health issues as a result of Agent Orange exposure, and it is about time we set this right for our blue water Navy vets who are eligible for these benefits that they need and their families pleaded for.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we finally got this done for them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just highlight an amazing thing we saw last night at the Congressional Baseball Game: the power of prayer and perseverance. Exactly 1 year after that horrific shooting out in Virginia, we saw our Officers Griner and Bailey as well as our friend here on the floor, our whip, Steve Scalise, take the field, as well as Mr. Scalise taking second base escorted out by our colleagues, Mr. Richmond and Mr. Wenstrup.

It was amazing to see that happen. Again, it is the power of prayer and perseverance with him taking the base and taking his position on the field.

You couldn't write it better in a Hollywood script, in that the first ball hit in the infield went right to Steve. He fielded it and threw the runner out at first base.

What an amazing thing, and what an inspiration for all of us.

God bless you, Steve, as well as the officers who were hurt on the field that day. A year later here we are seeing great things happen in a bipartisan way, a nonpartisan way, and a miraculous way.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 38 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Tuesday, June 19, 2018, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, recently, I was invited by a young friend,

Tyler Nissen, at the Palermo Middle School in Palermo, California, to come address their class, the class belonging to Mr. Seth Davis.

I spoke to the students about the importance of individual civic engagement in our Republic and all things in Congress.

That is when it hit me: How does the public stay in touch with what we are doing here if they can't be in the gallery or visit Washington, D.C.? It really occurs that C-SPAN is an important aspect for people to be in touch, that network whose entire purpose is to allow those watching at home to be able to do so, to be involved in what goes on in the inner workings of this town and this process in Congress.

In the grand scheme of our whole country, it is actually fairly new, having begun in 1979. Today, nearly anyone can tune in or go online, on an internet connection, and be a part of the debate, thanks to the camera coverage we have in this room as well as in our committees.

As a nonprofit, unedited, and uninterrupted channel for all things Congress, even the Presidential inauguration or State of the Union Address, C-SPAN is an integral part of our Republic. I hope more people will partake of that great tool like the students are at Palermo Middle School--and Tyler Nissen and his classmates--to be in touch with what goes on in their government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Northern California Power Agency, also known as NCPA, on its 50th anniversary.

NCPA was established in 1968 by a consortium of locally owned electric utilities to make joint investments in energy resources that would ensure an affordable, reliable, and clean supply of electricity for customers in its member communities.

The agency's mission is to provide members with reliable, efficient, and cost-effective wholesale power and energy-related services. I can tell you that, during my time in Congress as well as my time in the California State Legislature, the agency meets that mission with flying marks.

They also own and operate nearly 260 megawatts of in-state hydropower resources that generate carbon-free electricity for Californians while also providing many outdoor recreational benefits, helping to meet the renewable mandate for electricity in the State.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the NCPA for 50 years of invaluable service to its public power members and their respective communities.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the regulatory overreach that has been happening to the agriculture community through misuse of the Clean Water Act.

The recapture provision of the Clean Water Act was never meant to swallow the original intent of the agricultural exemptions, the clear ag exemptions in the law. But that is exactly what has started happening, and if this amendment passes, it will only get worse.

The agriculture industry is already one of the most overregulated in the country, and there is little clarity for farmers and ranchers about what exactly those regulations are and how they apply to their operations.

This amendment provides additional uncertainty. It was never the intention of the Clean Water Act to punish farmers for conducting normal farming operations such as plowing or doing stock pond maintenance, yet that is what is happening. Without the ability to freely conduct these normal activities, farmers and ranchers are unable to do their jobs and grow the food we need as a nation.

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

The ongoing expansion of enforcement under 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.

This hasn't been happening for 40 years. It was never the original intent. This is a fairly recent expansion of the interpretation of the law. Indeed, it is ridiculous that a farmer has to worry about being slapped with a fine, in some cases millions of dollars. This has occurred for simply conducting normal farming activities on their land where there are clear exemptions for agriculture.

In my own district in northern California, there have already been lawsuits against residents for farming without Federal permission. Cases like these across the country cost farmers millions of dollars in legal damages, and they risk running farmers out of business.

If this amendment is not defeated, these damages to the farm community will only grow. It is not a situation we want to put upon an industry that is already, in many cases, in financial crisis.

Farmers and ranchers deserve our support, and they deserve the ability to make decisions about managing their land, whether it is going to be in a crop this year or not, and not have the Federal Government decide if it has been idle for a few years now that that is an abandonment of their land. Market conditions and a lot of different things affect what a farmer's decision is going to be; but, indeed, it is their land without having more ambiguity and aggressive enforcements over things that really clearly are exempt in the Clean Water Act. So we don't need additional red tape, and we don't need these threats.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would invite my friend, Mr. Beyer, to come talk to the ranchers and farmers who are being hit with these new interpretations and aggressive interpretations coming out of the divisions of northern California to see what is happening to them for simply applying farming techniques to their land.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

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

Mr. Chairman, again, it has been a much more aggressive interpretation of the exemptions under the Clean Water Act that were clearly made by Congress to allow normal farming activities, the normal crop rotation that you would use.

Indeed, if these activities were applied even more aggressively, normal year-to-year crops could find themselves unable to be planted because of plowing or disking or land planing, things that are considered normal in the millions of acres we have in northern California that are under agriculture.

So the activities of the EPA and the Army Corps go above the law to impose these requirements, and they certainly expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act well beyond what Congress had ever intended 40- plus years ago.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment today aims to protect private property rights of farmers and ranchers by upholding the longstanding policy of ``once a PCC, always a PCC,'' otherwise known as a prior converted cropland.

There are over 53 million acres of prior converted cropland throughout the country, and for more than 30 years, both Congress and the administration have clearly stipulated these lands were not waters of the United States. These are lands that have been previously cleared, drained, or otherwise altered and operated for decades of farming activity. They do not have the same geographical values as a wetland and should not be regulated as such.

This view was further reinforced by the Clinton administration in its 1993 wetlands plan, specifically exempting prior converted cropland from this regulation. This should apply regardless of any change in use, including agriculture back to non-agriculture use.

However, in recent years, the EPA and Army Corps have used a creative interpretation of their abandonment criteria to regulate prior converted cropland, massively devaluing farmland that had been previously converted from wetlands for the purpose of agriculture decades before.

We have already seen this in a number of cases, where the EPA presumes cropland is under their jurisdiction unless the property owner proves otherwise, either through lengthy and expensive soil testing or by taking land out of production and fallowing it for years.

If this rule continues, there is no obstacle to prevent agencies from applying this more broadly, including to any project in the U.S. being planned on prior converted croplands actively used for agriculture production.

Furthermore, this regulation has set a terrible precedent by being authored in the Federal Register, where there is no public comment or review period.

My amendment seeks to unify the policy of the United States Department of Agriculture on prior converted cropland with the EPA, and, indeed, once it is a prior cropland, it is always a prior cropland, regardless of its use.

By unifying these policies, this amendment will ensure that all prior converted croplands that are exempt will remain protected from overregulation and reinterpretation of the Army Corps and EPA.

My amendment will not force wetlands back into agricultural lands. It will not prevent any current wetlands from being regulated as wetlands. This simply says that the land we have already converted away from wetlands will stay that way, not be unfairly regulated under the intent of Congress when this legislation was originally passed.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply reiterates that the long-held policy that prior converted--and these are key words, ``prior converted croplands''--all these prior converted croplands were done over 30 years ago before laws were changed to prevent such activity of converting wetlands. Every intent of Congress, and even the Clinton administration, worked to clarify that you cannot use the Clean Water Act.

Indeed, you talk about 40 years' worth of policy. It has only been in recent years that a more aggressive reinterpretation of policy by Army Corps and EPA has started coming after people requiring 404 permits if they choose to do something different with their own private land after 5 years.

This is affecting people in my own district, and they are losing million-dollar lawsuits because of this reinterpretation, not one set up by Congress when the original legislation was passed.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not prevent any current regulations on current wetlands. Again, it goes after the aggressive rulemaking that EPA, with their cohorts in the Army Corps, have put upon landowners and farmers and ranchers in more recent years.

So, if we sit back and watch bureaucrats attempt to gain control over every ditch, puddle, and pond they can

get their hands on, then we are in a bad way in agriculture and, as well, the sacred private property rights our country is founded on. It is a major threat to the livelihood of ag and rural America.

So, again, the intent here is not to roll back any current wetlands but simply to allow people, if they want to make crop changes, they want to make decisions on their land that they are paying the property tax on, they are paying the mortgage on, if they want to change their use of the land, they should have that right in the United States of America and not have to get permission for something that has been--the key words here--prior converted under the law.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for ``aye'' votes of this body, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, when I first got to the U.S. House, a WRDA bill hadn't passed in 6 years. Since then, Chairman Shuster has led a renaissance in the committee, putting us back on the 2-year cycle, which I applaud him and all of our colleagues on the committee for spearheading these efforts. What we are looking for is predictability and stability in this process. Just a few weeks ago, that process continued, as the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 passed through the committee in a unanimous and bipartisan fashion.

Now, WRDA stands before the House ready for final passage. This legislation will institute, importantly, a review process of the Army Corps of Engineers' backlog that can save, in the near term, $3 billion. Now, with $100 billion worth of work identified, and maybe $2 billion per year allocated, when will we ever get caught up on this unless there is a review and new process put in place?

We will also implement a study to improve Army Corps' administration and procedures, and greatly increase the role of local shareholders in carrying out water development projects like we have seen in Sutter and Butte Counties in northern California. Indeed, the public will be much better served in safety when working on these levee projects and getting them done timely and for lower costs.

This whole WRDA legislation will be key for important flood control work and levee work, in addition to the many other things that have been talked about today. This bill is an important next step in moving this process forward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to remember and honor the

men who stormed the beaches of Normandy 74 years ago today, June 6, 1944, known as D-Day. The largest amphibious assault in the history of the world was also one of the bloodiest. By the end of the day, 10,000 Allied soldiers were killed or wounded.

But with that, the irreversible liberation of Nazi-occupied Europe had begun, and just a couple of years later, it would be complete. It is now 74 years again from that day, and most of those who were there to witness it are no longer with us.

It sometimes seems we may forget that sacrifice that they and many others made so that we could all be free--liberate Europe and keep America safe. We must not lose sight of what is important.

The obstacles we face today do not compare with the nightmare our fathers and grandfathers faced on those beaches. On D-Day, Allied soldiers indeed carried the weight of the free world on their shoulders. The Nazi threat was obviously very real, and that threat was soon defeated.

I pray that this generation and the next recognizes the gravity of this heroism, never forgets, and takes into account what it takes to remain free as a nation and as a people that love freedom and export that freedom.