Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 46 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 7, 2018, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Mr. Sandy Croft after 34 years of dedicated service to the Pleasant Ridge School District and the community of Nevada County.

Born in Pasadena, California in 1958, Sandy spent time in Santa Barbara, and Newport Beach, before eventually settling down in Grass Valley in 1969. He started school in the Pleasant Ridge School District in third grade--the same school district he will retire from as a teacher this year. Graduating from Nevada Union High School in 1977, he then attended Westmont College. Less than a year later, tragedy struck his family when his older brother passed away. He moved back home to be with his mother shortly afterwards. Not willing to give up on school, Sandy continued his education closer to home at Sierra College. Soon after, he received his secondary teaching credential in Social Science and English at Sacramento State. He went on to receive credentials in both Physical Education and Industrial Arts.

Sandy is not only a successful, dedicated, and driven individual, but he's also an avid outdoorsman. Growing up in rural Grass Valley, he'd often explore the old gold mines and dig for remnants of Native American artifacts. In high school, Sandy was a hunter, a fisherman, and a star tennis player--which he continues to play recreationally to this day.

In 1979, Sandy married his high school sweetheart, Lynn Baker, and they will be celebrating 38 years of Marriage on June 9th. Sandy and Lynn together have three children--Lindsey, Benjamin, and Hayley--as well as two grandchildren.

Of everything Sandy has accomplished, his greatest love was to teach in the same school district he attended as a child and to share his love for history by taking students on trips to Washington D.C. and New York City every year.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Sandy Croft for his commitment and service to the youth and community of Nevada County.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that 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. By banding together, these local consumer-owned utilities, including several in my District, achieved economies of scale necessary to build generation and collectively face the challenges of an evolving electric utility industry.

The Agency's mission is to provide members with reliable, efficient, and cost-effective wholesale power, energy-related services, and advocacy on behalf of public power consumers through joint action. I can tell you, through my decades of dealing with NCPA during my tenure in Congress as well as the California legislature, that the Agency meets that mission with flying marks.

NCPA has been a pioneer in implementing innovative technologies that benefit the environment, as highlighted through its construction of both the world's first integrated wastewater geothermal system, which greatly prolongs the life of invaluable geothermal renewable resources, and the nation's first ``fast start'' combined-cycle natural gas turbines. The Agency also owns and operates nearly 260 megawatts of in- state, hydropower resources that generate carbon-free electricity for Californians while also providing outdoor recreation benefits. NCPA also regularly represents its members' interests in issues related to the Central Valley Project.

I ask my colleagues to join me in commending and congratulating NCPA on 50 years of invaluable service to its public power members and their respective communities, the State of California, and the county.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of a bill I have introduced, H.R. 2946, which would repeal the burdensome 12 percent Federal excise tax on heavy trucks, known as the FET.

It was first created to help fund World War I--that is right, World War I, 100 years ago. The antiquated FET is the highest excise tax levied by the Federal Government today. The financial and regulatory burdens created by the FET hurts truck retailers, drivers, and businesses across the country. It depresses the market for newer heavy- duty trucks, which are cleaner, more efficient, and everybody in government seems to be clamoring for them to be replaced for those reasons.

A repeal of this outdated legislation would seek to promote the use of more modern trucks on our roads--again, something government seems to want and demand. By incorporating this repeal effort into any future infrastructure funding measure, Congress can rebuild our Nation's crumbling road system while ensuring our commercial truck fleet is both cleaner and safer.

I urge my colleagues to support inclusion of this bipartisan bill and repeal the FET, which only hampers economic growth and discontinues truck replacement, which is what everybody seems to want.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the timely Senate action of the just passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019. Similar to last year, the NDAA is geared towards increasing the readiness of our military and properly equip our troops for their safety and for their effectiveness in their mission.

The steady decline of our Armed Forces under the previous administration is well documented. Now we are continuing the revitalization we started last year by investing in our soldiers and providing them with some of the necessary equipment needed to get their job done.

This is about providing for the well-being of our troops and their families, including the largest pay raise in 9 years. We are also investing in critical missile defense and nuclear deterrence programs that will substantially improve our national defense capabilities.

In order for America to continue as a leader of the free world, our military must be ready to defend us from all and any threat. As we head into this Memorial Day holiday, we can, in part, honor the fallen by an effective NDAA, giving our military what it needs, and support, indeed, as we remember this Memorial Day weekend.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H. Res. 774.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passage of the Right to Try Act--better late than never.

After months of jumping through parliamentary hoops to pass this legislation out of both the House and the Senate, we are finally able to put the Right to Try Act on the President's desk.

This bill would allow very sick or terminally ill patients to request access to drugs and treatments that have yet to be approved by the FDA. This is a bipartisan issue. So far, 40 States have already adopted Right to Try laws but are unable to actually enforce them. This bill changes that.

While giving terminally ill patients the right to try experimental medicine won't always be successful, it does give patients one final avenue of hope. For those who have exhausted all other possibilities of conventional treatment, they deserve the opportunity to leave no stone unturned. Also, the industry can learn from their experience.

I am disappointed that some in the Senate chose to delay this very time-sensitive bill, but I am pleased the President now can make Right to Try the law of the land.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Native Daughters of the Golden West as they celebrate their 132nd year of existence.

In 1886, in the historic mining city of Jackson, California, 20 women met in Pioneer Hall, lead by Lilly O'Reichling, to form an Order of California-born women, united in their love for the Golden State.

Founded under the principles of love of their home, veneration of the pioneers of California, and a deep faith in the existence of God, the Native Daughters of the Golden West is one of the oldest associations of California born leaders. Their mission is centered on preserving our State's rich history and improving the quality of life through education and community service.

The organization has since grown to over 4,500 members, with 80 parlors throughout the State. Their work continues to leave a strong legacy of charity and community building, through providing assistance in areas included, but not limited to, children's health and education, veteran welfare projects, community and church events, mission restoration, and the protection of our diverse natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, please join with me in honoring the Native Daughters of the Golden West on this impressive milestone and for their dedication to preserving and improving our way of life in California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to commend our Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, for his first major foreign policy speech this morning.

Secretary Pompeo didn't mince words, saying Iran would be hit with the strongest sanctions in history if their government does not change their aggressive behavior in the Middle East.

After rightly pulling the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, this administration has made it clear: They are willing to actually solve the Iran problem, unlike the previous administration or those before that.

Secretary Pompeo laid out the conditions Iran must meet: cease their nuclear program; end support for terrorist groups such as Hamas, al Qaida, and Hezbollah; and withdraw from Syria, among others.

It is a long list of actions, but as Secretary Pompeo noted, it is a list of Iran's own creation, not ours.

I want to see a peaceful Middle East as well, a solution for the people of Iran themselves--next year will be 40 years under this type of regime. Before that, they had freedom--especially for the women of Iran that would like to enjoy the freedoms to associate as they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Secretary Pompeo for his commitment to researching an agreement and holding Iran accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the rest of my colleagues who have spoken up here as well.

This is a great opportunity to, I think, shed light on some truth on what this really means with title X, what has gone on in the last couple decades, really.

The proposed Protect Life Rule used to be the way of doing business in this country for the way funding would be directed to those providing health services. In recent years, a significant portion of that has been now allowed to go towards those who are providing abortions.

A key element to always remember is abortion is not family planning. This rule we are talking about here that I urge President Trump to move forward with would draw, indeed, a very bright line between abortion and family planning, as was clearly intended in the statute. Currently, 266 Planned Parenthood abortion centers are also funded under Federal title X locations.

So what is the general opinion of the public on this? Nearly two- thirds of Americans do not believe that their dollars should be funding abortions. America's taxpayers don't want this. They don't want to be complicit in it. They don't want to be a part of it.

So what is the effect? Family planning funding will not be reduced by a single dollar. It is just which services will be provided by which locations is the question here.

The Protect Life Rule would not decrease title X funding by a single dollar but, instead, will be directing those dollars to the sites willing to comply.

Less than 500 of the roughly already 4,000 title X services under the current rule are Planned Parenthood facilities, less than 500 out of 4,000. So for those claiming that only Planned Parenthood provides these, in some cases, so-called services, there are plenty of those places that are already doing that without Planned Parenthood's help. Indeed, this will provide more opportunities for women and girls to find locations that will provide health services with the dollars going where they are so desperately needed--rural America, especially.

It doesn't have to be just Planned Parenthood, as we would hear so much from the other side of the aisle who desperately defends them at every turn. Clinton-era regulations allowed funding for abortion centers and required all grantees under title X to refer for abortions.

What about those centers and those facilities that have a conscience on this issue? They don't want to have that. We are going through that in California right now. It is going in front of the Supreme Court, whether it is right or not or constitutional to force pro-life centers to refer for abortions. Clinton-era regulations require that as well.

In the new Protect Life Rule being put forward, I hope President Trump and his administration follow through on it to help protect those freedoms to decide if those centers want to be part of that or not. Indeed, centers that don't promote and push abortion will be the ones that come forward and receive this type of funding that is so necessary and the right thing that the American people and the majority want to see happen.

So I commend this effort. I commend the administration for contemplating and pushing through with this. I thank my colleague, Mr. Smith, for always being that strong voice for what is right. Well done, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the leadership many California elected officials showed this week in coming to Washington, D.C. and sitting down with President Trump to talk about the problems and dangers as a result of actions taken by Sacramento Democrats in a sanctuary State and what it has done for the State of California. I commend them for bringing the truth and the clear danger this means for our communities in the State of California, and across the country.

One of the leaders in my own district, District Attorney Stacey Montgomery, as well as a friend of mine, Assemblywoman Melissa Mendez, and many others, stepped forward to bring a strong message of how this endangers Californians and sends the wrong signal to those who want to immigrate properly to this country. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that effort by those leaders.

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

Mr. Chairman, the largest broadband deployment gap exists in rural communities, where more than 12 million Americans lack coverage.

Wireless communications companies require access to land or infrastructure to site the antennas necessary to provide service. Often, to reach more rural areas throughout our country, they require access to Federal land to ensure more complete coverage, including for providing emergency services. This need is expected to increase as providers deploy facilities to support 5G wireless services, which will require more antennas spaced closer together.

Unfortunately, the process for securing access to Federal land and property has been problematic, with red-tape bureaucracy being the main issue. Providers have experienced lost or missing applications, paperwork left to languish for years, varying or undisclosed rules within agencies, redundant historical or environmental reviews, and inconsistent denials of the process.

In some cases, providers do not even receive a response from Federal agencies, resulting in stalled build-out and discouragement in rural areas. This is completely unacceptable.

My amendment today seeks to streamline and expedite the regulatory framework necessary to utilize Federal lands for broadband infrastructure deployments.

Specifically, the language would require the Secretary of Agriculture, within 1 year of enactment, to issue regulations that would streamline the siting process for Forest Service land and ensure that the process is uniform across all of the organizational units of the Forest Service, while eliminating overlapping requirements.

Applications would be trackable and deemed granted if not acted upon within 270 days, which is 9 months.

Lastly, any fees collected for allowing siting on Forest Service land can be used for processing the applications and the development, management, and improvement of sites for communications facilities.

I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that simply aims to improve access to rural broadband coverage for rural Americans, who deserve it, across this Nation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), my colleague and good friend.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Arizona. I appreciate the support and his excellent words toward that.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, again, the concerns about this might be on environmental issues. This amendment does not allow anyone to circumvent environmental protections already in place. It simply requires an agency to fix the current regulatory maze, filled with excessive red tape, to deploy broadband infrastructure. That is it.

To be clear, if you wanted to deploy broadband networks across the country that support 5G, we should really be doing something about it now.

Americans rely on broadband for their jobs, telemedicine, distance learning, emergency services, and many more good reasons. Again, with almost half of rural Americans not having access to good broadband internet today, they will continue to lag behind and suffer if we do not address these regulatory barriers.

Mr. Chairman, 270 days, 9 months, really, that should be a long enough gestation period to process applications by these Federal agencies.

Mr. Chair, I ask for the ``aye'' vote, and I appreciate support on both sides of the aisle.

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

Mr. Speaker, in addition to National Police Week, it is also National Infrastructure Week.

Currently, much of our Nation's infrastructure is in disrepair. Dilapidated roads, crumbling bridges, and battered levees and dams litter the country from coast to coast.

In large rural areas like my district in northern California, the infrastructure gap is even more exaggerated, where funding is even more difficult to come by, as it is in all rural areas of the U.S. We have to stretch every dollar as far as possible. It is not enough to simply put more money into the system, but to make those dollars more effective.

Currently, local counties must jump through multiple, duplicative regulatory hoops from both the State and Federal Government. That only wastes time and money, and it makes no sense.

We have seen that local agencies have proven to be far more effective than their Federal counterparts. That is why we have to streamline the permitting process to allow States more authority to conduct environmental reviews on their own and reduce the regulatory burden.

The President's MOU to have ``one Federal decision'' policy, one-stop shopping, and, indeed, one lead agency will streamline that vastly and help us get our highways done and our levee projects, multiple things that need to be done to make us safer and more economically sound-- basic bipartisan reforms that will make sense for the American people in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join so many of my colleagues in recognizing National Police Week.

These days, it seems like our uniformed officers don't always receive the respect and admiration they deserve, making this week all the more important in my mind.

I am especially thankful for Officers David Bailey and Crystal Griner, who, as everyone in this Chamber knows, saved many lives when they took down an armed gunman at last year's baseball practice.

Our law enforcement officers now deal with this type of threat on a daily basis, sometimes even from deranged individuals who specifically want to kill cops. There were 135 officers killed in the line of duty last year, but unlike me and you, they know the risks when they go to work in the morning, and they accept them.

For these men and women who wear the badge each day and dedicate their lives to making our communities a better place, it must often feel like a thankless job.

Well, not today. I want every law enforcement officer around the country to know that you are appreciated and you are admired. Thank you for everything you do, and God bless you and keep you safe in your duties.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend President Trump for withdrawing the U.S. from the disastrous Iran nuclear deal.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons--and ballistic missiles capable of delivering them--is a serious threat to its neighbors in the Middle East, as well as eventually the U.S. But the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, hatched by John Kerry and the Obama administration, does little to curb that pursuit.

The fact is, there aren't nearly strong enough measures in place to actually hold Iran accountable for compliance with the deal. It is too bad the Obama administration has already traded billions of U.S. and foreign dollars in exchange for promises Iran clearly has no intention of keeping. We can't get those dollars back either.

Of course, now Iran isn't even using this money for its economy, as reported. Much of it is being funneled directly to active terrorist organizations around the Middle East.

This deal was a danger from the start, and it lets Iran off the hook. We must do better. We must negotiate better than has been done.