Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill

(H.R. 5787) to amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to give effect to more accurate maps of units of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System that were produced by digital mapping of such units, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5787, the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2018, sponsored by our colleague from Florida, Congressman Neal Dunn.

This legislation codifies modernized, digital maps under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and was developed in a collaborative manner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Members whose districts are impacted by the map revisions. Only those maps that received sign-off from the affected Members were included in this package.

I thank Mr. Dunn, Ms. Blunt Rochester, and all who participated in this process for their hard work on this important issue.

The Coastal Barrier Resources System has proven to be a win-win for the

taxpayers and the environment since its enactment in 1982, saving the taxpayers billions of dollars by avoiding Federal investment in undeveloped storm- and flood-prone areas. H.R. 5787 will strengthen and update this system and allow its success to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), who introduced the bill.

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

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill

(H.R. 5636) to designate additions to the Flatside Wilderness on the Ouachita National Forest, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5636 adds approximately 640 acres to the 9,500-acre Flatside Wilderness in the Ouachita National Forest.

This land has been studied and recommended as an addition to the wilderness by the U.S. Forest Service.

The bill also names the addition after Congressman Ed Bethune, who served the people of Arkansas from 1979 to 1985.

This relatively minor change will establish more manageable wilderness boundaries, allowing the Forest Service to take better care of the land. Most importantly, this new wilderness designation has local support and support from the Arkansas delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, Congressman French Hill, for introducing this legislation to benefit his district. I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who introduced the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6064) to rename the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge as the Congressman Lester Wolff National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6064 would rename the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge as the Lester Wolff National Wildlife Refuge in honor of the former Long Island North Shore Congressman.

Elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1965, Congressman Wolff served eight terms representing the people of New York. During that time, he successfully pushed to create the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge on the north shore of Long Island. It is both the largest refuge in the Long Island refuge complex and the most popular with visitors.

Congressman Wolff has the distinction of being the oldest living former Member of Congress. To this day, he continues to host a weekly PBS show called ``Ask Congress,'' where he works to connect the American people with U.S. legislators.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 440) to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain Federal property around the Dickinson Reservoir in the State of North Dakota, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

I rise in support of S. 440, sponsored by Senator Hoeven of North Dakota. This legislation is nearly identical to legislation sponsored by our colleague who will soon be departing us, Congressman Kevin Cramer, which was favorably reported by the Natural Resources Committee in August.

This legislation would transfer small parcels of Federal land immediately surrounding Dickinson Reservoir in North Dakota. This will allow members of the local community to purchase the land under their own homes, providing them with financial security and the community with increased tax revenue that will be reinvested toward the upkeep of the reservoir.

Other land will remain in use for recreation, public access, fish and wildlife habitat, a fish and game headquarters, or preserved in its natural character. If the land is not used for these purposes, it will revert to the Federal Government.

Federal ownership of the land has led to financial uncertainty for private citizens and the State, and I applaud the dedication of former Natural Resources Committee member and future Senator Cramer and Senator Hoeven to alleviating these bureaucratic challenges and supporting their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who will speak on this and the following bill, because they are very similar.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2074) to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain Federal property around the Jamestown Reservoir in the State of North Dakota, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2074 sponsored by Senator Hoeven of North Dakota. This legislation is nearly identical to legislation sponsored by our colleague, Congressman Kevin Cramer, which was favorably reported by the Natural Resources Committee in August.

This is another bill similar to the one that was discussed a few minutes ago that looks to transfer small parcels of Federal land to State and local government, this time surrounding the Jamestown Reservoir in North Dakota. The land will continue to be used for recreation and public purposes, public access, fish and wildlife habitat, a fish and game headquarters, and for cabins. If any of the land is sold, the proceeds will be given to the Federal Government or the land will revert to the United States.

Like S. 440, which the House just considered, this legislation aims to alleviate financial uncertainty for private citizens residing around the reservoir and will help support the local community through tax revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with a body approximately 3 inches long, a 4-to 6-inch long tail, and large hind feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives primarily in streamside ecosystems in Wyoming and Colorado.

To evade predators, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse can jump up to 18 inches high, like a miniature kangaroo. But this little acrobat's most famous feat was its leap onto the endangered species list back in May 1998, a move that has since hindered development on the front range of Colorado, from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to the Wyoming border.

Among projects that have been affected are the Jeffco Parkway southeast of Rocky Flats, an expansion of the Chatfield Reservoir, and housing developments in El Paso County along tributaries of Monument Creek. Builders, landowners, and local governments in affected areas have incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of this mouse. Protecting the Preble's mouse has even been placed ahead of protecting human life.

On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event that damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and public works projects. As a result of the Preble's mouse's listing as an endangered species, many restoration projects were delayed as Colorado sought a waiver.

Moreover, the scientific evidence simply does not justify these delays or the millions of taxpayer dollars that go toward protecting a rodent that is actually part of a larger group that roams throughout half of the North American Continent.

Several scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's mouse does not warrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all and is actually related to one of the largest and most widespread genetic lineages of North American jumping mice. Even the scientist that originally classified this mouse as a subspecies has since recanted his work.

Moreover, the Preble's mouse has a low conservation priority score, meaning that the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on protection efforts could have been better spent on other, more fragile species.

My amendment would correct the injustice that has been caused by the inaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and would refocus the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that have been thoroughly scientifically vetted and that should be managed by the Endangered Species Act.

This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste and has previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate occasions, all by bipartisan votes. So I encourage my colleagues to, once again, support this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

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

I will just conclude by saying, if the Fish and Wildlife Service worked together with developers, local communities, and other groups, that would be one thing. But when they come in with a hammer and say, you have to do it this way, that is really not working together. That has, unfortunately, been the experience of many parties on the front range of Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge that, once again, we support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following current law, specifically section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, by conducting their review of all threatened and endangered plants and wildlife at least once every 5 years.

Time after time, the Federal Government refuses to follow the will of Congress when it enacted the Endangered Species Act. The government designates land as ``critical habitat'' despite not meeting the ESA definition, and the government consistently refuses to remove plants and animals from threatened or endangered status even when those species are flourishing and no longer in need of ESA protections.

But you may ask yourself: How does the government know when a species should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? How does the government know if a species is recovering? The answer could be found in the ESA, and it is a requirement that the Federal Government review all plants or species that are currently listed as endangered or threatened every 5 years.

Under the Endangered Species Act, the purpose of a 5-year review is to ensure that threatened and endangered species have the appropriate level of protection. And because the ESA grants extensive protection to a species, including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, it makes sense to regularly verify if a plant or animal is being properly classified or if it should be delisted.

Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged earlier this year that it has neglected its responsibility to conduct the required reviews for nearly 1,000 species.

By enforcing the 5-year review, my amendment will ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best available scientific information in implementing its responsibilities under the ESA, including incorporating new information through public comment and assessing ongoing conservation efforts.

This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Mining Association, and the American Farm Bureau, and it has previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate occasions, all by bipartisan votes.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service follows the law, the letter of the law, in the Endangered Species Act and that we do not allow the agency to spend money that would violate current law.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to once again support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Two quick responses, then I am going to yield some time.

When it comes to funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service, they are just going to have to basically do what every other private or governmental entity, family, and individual has to do, which is prioritize their spending. They have to live within their means. We all have to live within our means. They have to have the priorities where they can do the job with the money that they are given.

Number two, I think that maybe my colleague would agree with me that outside environmental groups are largely to blame for bringing massive lawsuits that tie up a lot of the resources of the Fish and Wildlife Service so they can't be doing their business of protecting the species that they are already supposed to be caring for. So I think they really get a lot of the blame here as well.

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment, which we have done in the past three different times on a bipartisan basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 985, I call up

the bill (H.R. 3281) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the transfer to non-Federal ownership of appropriate reclamation projects or facilities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3281.

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

Today, the House is considering my bipartisan legislation, H.R. 3281, which aims to streamline the process for the transfer of some of the Bureau of Reclamation's projects to local beneficiaries who have or will repay the Federal investment, and already operate and maintain these projects. Transferring these simple projects, or parts of them, will allow water districts and other local beneficiaries to leverage non-Federal financing through ownership equity while, simultaneously, decreasing Federal liability.

During committee consideration of this bill, we heard that the current process is time-consuming, cumbersome, expensive, and uncertain. This has proven to be a disincentive to many water users who are now rightly asking for and deserving change.

However, it wouldn't be fair to heap all the blame on the agency. Congress has done its fair share, slowing down some of these simple title transfers.

Under current practice, every single transfer, regardless of the size or scope, requires congressional authorization. I want to be clear to my colleagues that this legislation does not remove congressional oversight. In fact, this legislation includes a provision offered by Ranking Member Huffman, of the subcommittee, that allows for congressional review of any transfer authorized under this process.

Since my bill was introduced, we have seen the administration and the Senate put similar proposals together to achieve the same goals as this legislation that we are considering here today.

At the end of the day, my bill provides an optional process that could be used to expedite simple title transfers. Any title transfer can still use the existing process, if the participants prefer.

Now, despite what someone might say, this bill does not exempt any action from NEPA, National Environmental Protection Act, or any other environmental mandates.

To be crystal clear, I want to reiterate that this bipartisan legislation requires that eligible projects comply with and satisfy the NEPA process; any remaining Federal obligation be repaid by the recipient; and that Congress be given a 90-day period to review and, if opposed, to pass a resolution of disapproval.

The Bureau of Reclamation currently has the authority to transfer any water project that would be authorized under this legislation. My bill simply allows operators of these water projects throughout the West to receive title to the projects they have paid for and are currently maintaining, without subjecting them to having to get an act of Congress.

Again, this legislation authorizes an optional process for an expedited process for specific types of transfers.

My bill supports local infrastructure and gives local communities the ability to seek private financing, through equity, to improve their vital water infrastructure.

This bipartisan legislation is supported by the Family Farm Alliance, Friant Water Authority of California, and the Kennewick Irrigation District of Washington State.

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Costa, for sponsoring this bill with me, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

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

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

I think I may have heard, and I think it could be a misstatement to say, that this could have been a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan bill. Now, it may not be unanimous, but it is a bipartisan bill. And for that, I am glad.

I also thought I heard an emotional criticism of President Donald Trump. This was an idea first proposed by Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton administration in the 1990s, so it is not a new idea, by any means. This is an idea that has been around for a while; Congress just hasn't acted on it. We are using the same old, case-by-case basis of doing transfers, which is cumbersome and works a hardship on the local people and communities out in the West.

Now, for the allegation that this in some way shortchanges the taxpayer, that is simply not true. I don't call it a giveaway when someone gets title to something they have already paid for.

When my colleague goes to the car lot and buys a car and they give him a

car, that is not a giveaway; he has paid for that. He should receive title. He should receive ownership.

Facilities eligible for transfer under this process would be subject to an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation that would require these projects to be fully paid off, based on the fair market value of any outstanding obligation to the taxpayers. That is in the language of the bill.

The bill specifically requires a qualifying entity to repay any outstanding obligation to the Federal Government and compensate the U.S. for any other income stream derived from the transferred facilities.

Furthermore, Congress routinely authorized title transfers that have already met many of the standards and financial safeguards established by this legislation.

There is nothing new here. All the bill does is gets Congress out of the way, and it removes a layer of bureaucracy.

In reality, any title transfers conducted under the authorities of this act would relieve the American taxpayer of associated liability, so it is a service to the taxpayers when they don't have to have liability for an already paid-off project that the local community takes over and assumes responsibility for.

In short, title transfers are already designed to recoup taxpayer investment, and this bill would further protect the long-term financial interests of the public.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree that we have not put in safeguards. We put in a safeguard that my colleague who just spoke offered in committee.

He offered an amendment, and we adopted it in the spirit of fair play and bipartisanship, that Congress be given a 90-day notice if there ever were to be a transfer that we objected to, and we could do a resolution of disapproval, stopping that transfer. If something was wrong in the transaction, it was too big, multiuse, or whatever, we have a way to stop that. That was the amendment that my colleague offered, and we adopted that. So we have built-in safeguards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who is an expert on many water issues in the West.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response, I would just point out that the amendment that we adopted in committee giving Congress the ability to, within 90 days, do a resolution of disapproval on any one of these transfers that we have a problem with, was offered by my colleague. It was his language. So it is something that I think he should approve of.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, disagree with the characterization of the safeguard that Mr. Huffman put into the bill as being flimsy and phony. I think what Mr. Huffman proposed was legitimate.

This legislation also includes other multiple provisions to ensure that stakeholders are consulted and protected throughout the title transfer process. The bill requires that operations in use must remain consistent after transfer of title. An entity seeking title transfer must sign a written agreement with the Secretary in full consultation with any existing water or power customer affected by the transfer.

Transfers must be consistent with the Secretary's responsibility to protect land and water resources held in trust for a federally recognized Tribe, and no conveyance under the act may adversely impact power rates or repayment obligations.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that my bill was introduced way before any Trump infrastructure plan bill was introduced.

And, secondly, the idea in this bill comes from the Clinton administration from 20-25 years ago. It was part of Al Gore's reinventing government initiative. So it has a bipartisan history that goes back decades. Emotional diatribes against the President, I think, are not germane to what this bill is really all about.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by pointing out that this also has strong environmental protections. In no way is any environmental law eroded, and it does not allow those who wish to pursue title transfer to do so unless they adhere to Federal environmental statutes. Section 5 of the bill simply states that the Secretary develop a categorical exclusion process consistent with NEPA.

This section is in no way a NEPA waiver, nor is it a congressionally mandated categorical exclusion. This provision simply requires the Secretary to develop a checklist so that the agency can quickly identify any possible conflicts with the Endangered Species Act or any other environmental factors that need to be addressed in the NEPA process.

Section 8 of the bill specifically states that after conveyance into this act, the receiving entity must still comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

Finally, I think it is worth noting two additional criteria set forth in this legislation. The transfer must not have an unmitigated, significant effect on the environment, and the receiving entity must operate the property consistent with current operations under the Bureau of Reclamation.

So any thought that there is an evasion of environmental protections is simply false. At this point, I would urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. There are plenty of good safeguards that are put into place on a bipartisan level. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation with decades of support from both parties. I would urge my colleagues to adopt H.R. 3281, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

This motion, Mr. Speaker, is just a procedural gimmick to delay passage of this important bipartisan legislation.

If the amendment made by this motion was of critical importance to the minority, they could have offered this as an amendment when the Natural Resources Committee marked up the bill or filed this amendment with the Rules Committee. They did not in either case.

This bill is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that supports local infrastructure and gives local communities the ability to seek private financing through equity to improve local, vital water infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the people of Iran, who are sick and tired of living under the mullahs' rule and have courageously taken to the streets across their country to demand freedom and sound governance.

The Ayatollah's regime duped the Obama administration into a nuclear deal in which they received a tremendous payout. The people of Iran expected to benefit financially from the deal, but the regime squandered everything on foreign wars at the expense of their citizens.

The Islamic regime funds the ongoing deadly tactics of Hamas and the Palestinians, supports Bashar al-Assad of Syria, finances the ongoing war in Yemen, builds rocket factories in Lebanon and Syria, and I could go on and on.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are ideals that America champions, the same ideals that the Iranian protestors are risking their lives to achieve.

To this end, I support the Iranian people, as do the Trump administration and the free world.

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

Mr. Chair, as noted by Secretary of Defense Mattis:

Space is a contested domain by our strategic competitors

just like air, land, and sea.

This dangerous amendment would place our country at a disadvantage with our strategic competitors by limiting the work that can be done to continue our efforts in protecting our dominance in space, and, further, from protecting our homeland from intercontinental ballistic missiles.

With the significant advances being made today by our adversaries in key areas, such as hypersonic weapons and expanding nuclear weapon proliferation, we must not restrict the Defense Department from pursuing options to deploy directed energy in space or any other capability that would result in the possibility of boost-phase capability that could be deployed from space.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is against even the possibility of investigating and going down this road. House authorizers and appropriators understand the importance of employing a layered missile defense capability, and this dangerous amendment would significantly constrain options for developing critical defensive capabilities in a gap of our current ballistic missile defense system.

A proponent of boost-phase missile defense, General Hyten, the commander of Strategic Command testified this year that:

The day you can actually shoot a missile down over

somebody's head and have that thing drop back down on their

heads, that will be a good day. Because as soon as you drop

it back on their heads, that is the last one they are going

to launch, especially if there is something nasty on top of

it. I think directed energy brings that to bear, although

such weapons do not yet exist in the U.S. arsenal.

Finally, I would also point out that the issue of space-based intercept was debated at length last year, passed with bipartisan support in the House Armed Services Committee, and that the National Defense Authorization Act last year passed with broad bipartisan support on the House floor.

This year, the Senate Armed Services Committee has also provided broad bipartisan support on this critical, technological development area. Now, is not the time to curtail this emerging potential capability.

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

Mr. Chairman, well, let me just conclude by saying in opposition, if it hasn't been developed yet, you don't know that it doesn't work. We have hundreds or even thousands of bright minds. I appreciate my colleague's credentials, but we have hundreds of scientists and engineers working in the Missile Defense Agency and at the government-sponsored laboratories and in other parts of the defense community in the private sector, and at the Department of Defense in the government sector, and there are possibilities here that are being pursued that have great promise, have great potential.

I think it would just be the height of foolishness to cut it off all right now when there is not even any money being appropriated for this. It is just even the possibility that the gentleman is trying to cut off, when we have potential for something that would be helpful to saving our homeland, and making those who want to rain missiles on us have to suffer the consequences of those missiles coming back down on themselves. So we shouldn't foreclose the possibility and shut the door.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2083.

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

H.R. 2083, a bipartisan effort by Ms. Herrera Beutler and Mr. Schrader, aims to cut red tape by updating Federal law to provide a temporary, expedited process to give States and Tribes the ability to address California sea lion predation of endangered salmon and other species on a limited basis.

Right now, ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year to help recovering salmon populations, only to have them end up in the stomachs of sea lions. Federal law provides conflicting mandates to protect each species but does not provide the flexibility to account for broader ecological interactions.

California sea lion populations on the West Coast have exploded, yet salmon runs continue to decline. According to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the sea lion population has grown to a level of roughly 300,000 individuals, and marine biologists conclude that their population is currently at carrying capacity.

Historically, California sea lions have foraged at the mouth of the Columbia River, but they have recently continued to move inland. As the sea lions move further upstream to feed, their diet exists increasingly more of endangered salmon.

H.R. 2083 will authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide to State and local Tribes the tools necessary to humanely manage sea lions that have migrated outside their historic range and pose an imminent threat to fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Federal permits authorized under H.R. 2083 would be limited to State and Tribal fishery managers who have a direct stake in a healthy regional ecosystem. It is absolutely imperative that we give local stakeholders the tools they need for a balanced ecosystem where both fish and sea lions can thrive.

This bipartisan bill has broad support from States, Tribes, public utility districts, advocacy groups, and hundreds of local businesses across the Pacific Northwest. It is a win for not only the endangered fish of the Pacific Northwest, but the ratepayers who are heavily invested in keeping these fish stocks flourishing and healthy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense bill.

And that is just the way it is.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would only say that, when there is a population of 300,000 sea lions, I would not call that endangered. They are protected under a Federal law, but they are not found to be endangered or threatened, as far as I know.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), who is also a bipartisan cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chair, I include the Record letters of support for this legislation from Trout Unlimited, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and an additional list of supporters.

Trout Unlimited,

June 26, 2018.

Re Trout Unlimited Support for H.R. 2083, Endangered Salmon

and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: We, the undersigned represent the

nearly 10,000 members of Trout Unlimited in the states of

Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Trout Unlimited is the

country's largest and oldest, coldwater conservation

organization with over 300,000 members and supporters

nationwide.

TU has been deeply engaged in wild salmon and steelhead

recovery efforts in the Columbia Basin for several decades,

and it is our goal to restore healthy, fishable, naturally

reproducing salmon and steelhead populations.

Many issues impact salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in

the Columbia Basin.

Habitat degradation, hydropower operations, harvest and

hatchery management issues are all significant factors. This

legislation will help to provide resource managers with the

necessary tools to help reduce predation by pinnipeds, a

problem which has become increasingly significant over the

last decade, and is particularly impactful at key locations,

such as Willamette Falls.

Pinniped predation rates in the basin are significant. NMFS

marine mammal biologists believe that sea lion predation

accounts for 20% of Spring Chinook Salmon losses in the

Columbia. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has

completed a risk analysis that place the likelihood of

extinction for wild winter steelhead in the Willamette river

at 90% due in part to pinniped predation at the falls in

Oregon City.

H.R. 2083 would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to

allow NOAA to issue permits allowing state agency

representatives in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, as well as

several area tribes to use lethal take of sea lions in a

portion of the Columbia river or certain tributaries in order

to protect fish from sea lion predation.

While we support a targeted approach to culling individual

sea lions in specific areas to help reduce the impact to wild

salmon and steelhead populations, we recognize that this

action is necessary, but not at all sufficient, to help

recover salmon and steelhead populations. To rebuild wild

salmon and steelhead we need to take a comprehensive,

science-based approach that addresses other major factors in

their decline. Restoring their habitat, improving hatchery

operations and fine-tuning angling regulations must be part

of the long-term solution. Many of these actions are

underway, and we need to redouble these efforts.

We urge you to vote yes on H.R. 2083.

Sincerely,

Terry Turner,

Oregon Council Chair.

Ed Northern,

Idaho Council Chair.

Brad Throssel,

Washington Council Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), who will talk, among other things, about the mitigation efforts that the ratepayers have been funding for the salmon.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of debate. This has been a good debate. I have been struck by the fact that every single speaker from the Northwest, on both sides of the aisle, has spoken in favor of this piece of legislation.

I find that very remarkable. Rarely do we have that kind of consensus, and yet we have that here with H.R. 2083.

Just to conclude, I would say that this is a commonsense piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the Federal Government sometimes has conflicting mandates. We have a law, on the one hand, that protects sea lions, but we have the endangered status of various salmon. These two are in conflict, unfortunately.

So let's take the side of the endangered species. We can do so on a limited and scientific basis, with the way that this bill has been crafted through a lot of compromise. In fact, before it even takes effect, there will be an environmental impact statement, which is a very lengthy process with lots of public comment, lots of judicial scrutiny, and so on.

So I find this to be a very commonsense piece of legislation with a lot of compromise built in, a lot of consensus. It makes so much sense that I hope that there would be no opposition or almost no opposition when this comes up for a vote. Let's all adopt H.R. 2083, a great piece of legislation for our environment.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment, as modified.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2083, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill including the changes I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gerald and Carol Clark, who have long been the driving force in Teller County, Colorado and champions for the cause of liberty. For many years, the Clarks have been devoted servants to countless civic leaders throughout Teller County and have always been highly regarded for their steadfast commitment and dependability. Teller County will never be the same without the Clarks.

The following testimonials speak to their personal character and the standard they set for generations to follow:

``Carol and Gerry have always been synonymous with the term

`American Patriots.' ''--Hon. Robert C. Balink

``It's difficult to describe Carol's love for this country

and how valuable her contributions have been over the years

to the cause of freedom. She is always striving to make

things better. We will miss her tireless efforts immensely.

Needless to say, Gerry has been her constant companion for

many, many years, supporting her at every step of the

way.''--Norma Thompson

``Carol has been an awesome leader . . . due in part

because she was always such a `doer'. We have all been

blessed because of you.''--Carolyn Fairchild

``Carol and Gerry were the backbone of Teller County and I,

along with many others from far and wide, are honored to call

them friends. I whole heartedly endorse and petition the

United States House of Representatives to recognize Carol and

Gerry Clark for their patriotism and unmitigated duty to the

citizens of Teller County Colorado and the Pikes Peak

Region.''--Pete LaBarre

``Gerry and Carol Clark of Woodland Park, Colorado, are

true patriots. Driven by true American Principals and a hard

work ethic, they have led many others to stand up for these

principals by actively working to advance public education on

important matters of policy on the local, state and national

levels. Gerry and Carol Clark were usually the first to

volunteer for the long hours of staffing information centers

and organizing volunteers. They tirelessly gave of their time

and treasure to ensure others had access to reliable

information and always communicating in civil and polite ways

with those whose views differed from their own. They have

both truly made a difference in the things that mattered.

Their honorable service to our community, state, and nation

deserves our heartfelt gratitude.''--Cheryl and Norm Steen,

Teller County Commissioner

``Words are inadequate to express our gratitude and

appreciation of the incomparable work and attitude you have

displayed. Saying goodbye is never easy especially to people

who have been such valued team members. We wish you all the

best for now and into the future. If you can learn that is

good. If you can teach that is life changing.''--Doloretta &

Robert Barber

It is my great privilege to honor these legendary citizens of Teller County, Colorado from the halls of the U.S. House of Representatives. I thank Gerry and Carol for their faithful service and for leaving an indelible mark on the people of Teller County.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Idaho, and I appreciate his remarks. I also thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee from Texas.

Let me point out that in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, Secretary James Mattis conducted a very clear-eyed assessment of nuclear threats. He said: ``We must look reality in the eye and see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.''

As has been pointed out, Russia has hundreds and hundreds--actually, thousands--of low-yield nuclear weapons, including nuclear artillery shells, nuclear land mines, nuclear torpedoes, and others that they have announced. Russia regularly trains with its ``escalate-to- deescalate'' doctrine, which they believe will force the U.S. to surrender early in a conflict.

Under James Mattis, the Nuclear Posture Review rightly says: ``Correcting this mistaken Russian perception is a strategic imperative.''

Also, dozens of current and former defense officials and military officers

have confirmed that this lower-yield weapon is necessary to enhance deterrence.

Here is President Obama's last Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter: ``My views are reflected in the latest NPR,'' Nuclear Posture Review, where he agrees with this doctrine.

So that is the last two Secretaries of Defense from two different political parties and from two different administrations--very different administrations, I might add--and they are in full agreement that we need to do this for U.S. capability to stop Russian potential aggression.

The amendment should be rejected. The agenda behind the amendment is totally outside the bipartisan mainstream of serious national security leaders like Secretary James Mattis and Secretary Ashton Carter.

As has been said, I would remind my colleagues that this House has already debated this issue in the fiscal year 2019 NDAA we passed 2 weeks ago by a vote of 351-66--about a six-to-one ratio--and we rejected similar amendments at that time.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, for over twelve years, Jerry Forte has served the Colorado Springs area tirelessly and with great success as CEO for Colorado Springs Utilities. During his tenure, Mr. Forte oversaw production of electric, natural gas, and water services for over a half million customers in our area. In his work, he has streamlined large projects in order to save customers money and improve overall efficiency. He will retire this year, but not without leaving a lasting legacy--he has delivered reliable service and low rates to our communities.

He also operated the nearly $1 billion utility budget with a high degree of professionalism and incredible stewardship. Community leaders like Mr. Forte are the reason our region thrives and remains one of the best places to live in the nation. As a Colorado Springs native, he understands and appreciates that.

Mr. Forte returned to his hometown of Colorado Springs after serving the communities of Sterling, Colorado and Woodland Park, Colorado. He also worked in the private sector as a consulting engineer. He managed Johnson Control's five-service utility in support of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he received awards for excellence in customer satisfaction and leadership excellence. He also has several publications to his credit.

Mr. Forte is dedicated to delivering safe and reliable public water and power. I'm extremely thankful for his service and commitment. Our region has been in good hands. Mr. Forte, thank you for over twelve years as CEO of Colorado Springs Utilities and decades more of service to our state. I wish him well and I pray that God will bless him in whatever he decides to do next.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the great work he has done and for his leadership on this issue.

I do agree with my colleague from California, yes, we need to do modernization. If you will remember, President Obama pledged to modernize our nuclear forces in return for the Senate passing the New START Treaty.

The current national posture review, which has been endorsed by security officials from several administrations going back, both Democratic and Republican, says this:

Maintaining and operating our current aging nuclear forces now requires between 2 and 3 percent of the DOD budget. The replacement program to rebuild the triad for decades of service will peak for several years at only approximately 4 percent beyond the ongoing 2 to 3 percent needed for maintenance and operations.

This 6.4 percent, just slightly under the 7 percent that the chairman mentioned, of the current DOD budget required for the long-term replacement program represents less than 1 percent of the overall Federal budget. That is a bargain.

Nuclear warfare is, God forbid it should ever happen, an existential threat. One percent of our Federal budget devoted to preventing that is truly worth investing in. The modernization needs to take place. It is well within the moneys that are going to be available to the Department of Defense in the coming years.

I agree with the chairman that projecting 20 or 30 years out contains so many potential inaccuracies, it would be kind of an unnecessary and burdensome exercise, and not very useful. We do have and will have the money. It is a vital investment.

I agree with the chairman. Let's turn this amendment down.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the great work he is doing on this.

We all agree that we want a strong nuclear deterrent, and we all agree we want that deterrent to be as stabilizing as possible. We don't want destabilizing trends. We all agree with that.

General John Hyten, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, testified before the House and said:

We require a mix of yields and improved platforms to

credibly deter the threats of the near future. The National

Posture Review directs near-term fielding of a low-yield SLBM

capability and, in the longer term, pursuit of a modern,

nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile.

So the commander of U.S. Strategic Command says we do need this option.

And let me also quote James Miller, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy

under the Obama administration, the principal author of President Obama's Nuclear Posture Review: ``Secretary of Defense James Mattis' 2018 Nuclear Posture Review offers continuity with past U.S. policy and plans, including those in the 2010 NPR. It deserves broad bipartisan support. Its proposal for a low-yield SLBM weapon and a new nuclear- tipped, sea-launched cruise missile are sensible responses to changed security conditions, especially Russia and North Korea.''

Well, things have changed since 2010. That is what the 2018 NPR addresses. So, from both administrations, from both sides of the aisle, we have agreement that we do need this low-yield option. That is a stabilizing influence, to have more tools in the toolbox. When you have fewer tools, you have fewer options, and that is destabilizing.

Mr. Chair, I ask for a rejection of this amendment.