Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for working with us on this, as well as many staff and members from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine for a minute if you had a medical emergency at your house and you had to mail a form to the ambulance service to have them come address the heart attack victim or other type of medical emergency that is occurring at your house? How irrational is that? Obviously, it doesn't make sense to do something like that, to mail for something that may be an emergency.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine, even in today's time, with the strict demands we have for customer service, if we actually had to truly mail order forms to different online companies to have them deliver something, to retail outlets to have them deliver something, a product to our house? There would be no tolerance for that.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government right now, the government today, our own United States Government which is here to serve our own Americans, only has a customer service rating of about 70 percent. In fact, it is less than 70 percent.

Well, that might have been a high watermark for my grades in school-- maybe--Mr. Speaker, but that is absolutely an unacceptable level. This is our government. These are our taxpayers.

Why is it that private industry has been able to use technology to provide better customer service, to provide faster services? It is because they care about their customers and they care about their business and there is an incentive for them to do so. They don't have a monopoly, like the Federal Government does, for many of the services that it offers, but that does not excuse the Federal Government from providing better services.

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to work very closely with Congressman Joe Kennedy to help develop this legislation, and this is a solution to help bring the United States Government into the 21st century, or perhaps the 20th century. It simply does the same thing that private companies have figured out how to do for decades now, where we can access our banks online, we can access our insurance online, where we can go online to buy groceries and virtually any other good or service that we need. We can even file our own taxes with the Federal Government.

Yet the Privacy Act of 1974, as it is implemented today, requires, in order for us to provide services to our constituents, which may be an emergency situation, that they have to print out a form and mail it in, and that we then have to take and mail it to an agency. That is ridiculous in 2018, and it is unacceptable.

This bipartisan legislation addresses that. It allows for people to access their own government, access government services to address important things like, perhaps, accessing their VA benefits; like, perhaps, fixing a wrong the IRS has caused; like, perhaps, dislodging a permit or some other type of service the government is supposed to provide and has been sitting on, in some cases as we have dealt with, for years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you a quick story.

In 2016, in August of that year, in my hometown of Baton Rouge in south Louisiana, we experienced a 1,000-year flood. People were calling us by the hundreds per day, calling and saying: I need help. I need help with FEMA, SBA, and other government services.

We said: Yes, you bet. All you need to do is go to our website, print out this form, and then mail it to us.

Mr. Speaker, I can't say on the House floor some of the responses our office received whenever they were telling us about the 4 feet of water that their computers and printers and other equipment were under. It was a real aha moment.

How ridiculous is it that we sit here and act like we are 80 years ago as a government? We can do better.

This simply brings us to current technology, to allow constituents to reach out to our offices when we are addressing urgent issues, like passport issues for folks stuck in other countries, like Department of Defense issues where our own military men and women may be having problems in other countries, where our own citizens aren't getting the benefits that they paid for or they earned. It gives us the ability to quickly step in and address their issues, to intervene on their behalf and get these issues resolved.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, especially, my friend Joe Kennedy for working with us so closely on this bipartisan legislation, Congresswoman Mimi Walters, Congressman Gene Green, Congressmen Will Hurd and Kevin McCarthy through the Innovation Initiative, Congressman Mark Meadows, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock, and many others who provided input to us, helped us perfect this legislation and get it here today. I want to thank the bipartisan cosponsors and folks who helped us on this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3906) to establish centers of excellence for innovative stormwater control infrastructure, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous on H.R. 3906, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster; the ranking member, Congressman DeFazio; and my good friend the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs. Napolitano, for their work in progressing this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, with the additional development that is occurring in this country, with the additional water and stormwater systems that are being built, heavy rains end up transiting or transferring pollutants, heavy metals, trash, bacteria, and many other things into our water system.

Mr. Speaker, I represent south Louisiana. The watershed that I represent drains from Montana to two Canadian provinces to New York. It is one of the largest watersheds in the world. Of course, all of that stormwater runoff ends up coming down right through my home State and contributes to one of the largest dead zones in the Nation--in fact, the largest dead zone in the Nation--which is not very compatible with us having some of the top commercial and recreational fishing and one of the largest or most productive estuaries in the United States.

So I want to thank Mr. Heck for introducing this legislation, for working with Congressman Katko in putting this together in a bipartisan manner.

What this legislation does is it recognizes that stormwater runoff does actually transfer, or does contribute to pollutants, in our waterways, and it recognizes that this is a problem. But it also recognizes that it is a problem that needs to be solved by local, by State, and by Federal agencies, by Federal officials.

So this legislation creates a new task force to look at innovative financing, to look at new funding streams, to look at how we can do a better job integrating the various funding streams to actually achieve this objective that we all share on a bipartisan basis to help reduce the amount of pollutants and trash and other things that get into our waterways. This is an important step forward.

Mr. Speaker, in a previous life, I managed a large infrastructure program where we built tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure. One of the first things I realized is how important it was for us to look at all the funding streams that are available, and the possible funding streams that are available, pulling those together to make sure that they are being used in a complementary manner, not managed in silos, and certainly not managed in a contradictory or in a conflicting manner.

The gentleman's legislation helps to address that. It helps look at the revenue streams that are available today, whether they are Federal, whether they are State, whether they are local funds, or perhaps even private or not-for-profit, looking at the different regulatory structures that are out there, looking at opportunities for us to achieve this bipartisan goal of reducing pollutants, of helping reduce trash, of helping reduce the dead zone and other adverse outcomes as a result of stormwater runoff from heavy rains.

Again, I want to point out that this is bipartisan legislation, that this passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously, that my good friend from California Mrs. Napolitano worked with us on changes in the committee. I thank, again, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) and Mr. Katko for working together on something that is an important issue, for coming up with a bipartisan solution, and looking forward to ensuring that this passes the House and passes the Senate as well to where we can get it to the President's desk.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Heck recently brought up the shellfish industry. Just this week, the Louisiana Oyster Task Force is coming to town. We are going to be meeting with them, talking to them about this and a number of other priority issues because their industry has been impacted by water quality and many other challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this legislation helps to make sure that all of the various levels of government, together with our nongovernment partners in the private sector and the not-for-profit organizations that are out

there, that we are all working together; that we are ensuring that the regulatory structure that is out there is actually complementary to this effort to help ensure clean water not just now, but for generations to come; that we are using better technology; that we are using better mechanisms, such as vegetative plantings and buffers and other things, to ensure that we are not polluting our waters but that we are cleaning them; that we have safe drinking water; that we have safe, productive ecosystems for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank Congressman Heck, Congressman Katko, my friend Congresswoman Napolitano, and many others who were involved in this legislation. This is going to help us to ensure that the various funding streams that are out there, that we are using them in a complementary manner, not in a stovepipe manner.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3906, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 314, and YEA on Roll Call No. 315.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the dean of the House, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman emeritus, I think, for most committees in the Congress and many other great accomplishments for yielding time and for all the work on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I find this whole debate interesting in that I have heard speaker after speaker come up on the other side of the aisle talking about the importance of their fisheries, talking about how this bill is going to ruin

resource management and sustainability of fisheries.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to take a look at this poster right here, and I will also spout out just a few statistics.

Between my home State of Louisiana and the dean's home State of Alaska, I believe we have more than half of the commercial fisheries landings in the United States, and as demonstrated here, we have more than half of the recreational fishing in the United States.

I appreciate the concerns that are being raised, but I am not sure whom they are representing. We represent the recreational fishers. We have the largest commercial fishing industries in the United States.

What this bill does is this bill simply updates the science. It allows for updated science. It allows to build upon successful practices that have been carried out by States for coastal fisheries, for inland fisheries, allowing for better techniques, allowing for better science to ensure the sustainability of the fisheries.

Mr. Chairman, how rational is it that someone who represents Louisiana--and I also want to point to the comments that my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) made a few minutes ago. We both represent the coast of Louisiana. How rational is it that the two of us and the gentleman who represents the entire State of Alaska would come out and advocate for policies that would undermine the sustainability of fisheries in two incredibly important industries in our State? That is completely nonsensical.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, this bill is bipartisan. It is why we have bipartisan support for this legislation by those who have cosponsored it. It is why the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; the National Coalition for Fishing Communities; the National Marine Manufacturers Association; the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; the Coastal Conservation Association, or CCA; Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation; Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission; Center for Sport Fishing Policy; Freezer Longline Coalition; Mississippi State Legislature; Johnny Morris, who is the CEO of Bass Pro Shops; American Scallop Association; Garden State Seafood Association; West Coast Seafood Processors Association; Lund's Seafood; North Carolina Fisheries Association; Florida Keys Commercial Fishing Association; Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance; Southeastern Fisheries Association; and many, many others that have a genuine stake in the sustainability of our fisheries, some of the leaders in conservation in our fisheries, are supportive of this legislation.

So let me say it again, Mr. Chairman, this bill improves science. It uses updated science.

I am not going to point to the decades-long tenure of my friend, but I think the original legislation perhaps could use some updating, and so this updates the science, and it provides for more transparency in the science and allows for public participation. These are all good things that we need to be supporting.

I do appreciate the input by my friend from California on this legislation, and I do hope that we can work together to get this to a posture to where everyone is supportive; but I do think it is important to refocus the fact that we are the ones who represent the majority of this economic driver, the majority of these jobs around the country, and they are the ones that represent these families that, for generations, have fished recreationally and that we want to ensure can fish for generations to come.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from Alaska for including our Modern Fish Act, which I think helps to update some practices where there is increased demand for recreational and commercial fisheries and providing a little bit better balance there.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this important bill. It moves our science and transparency and public participation in the right direction. It is going to improve the sustainability of our fisheries, the jobs associated with recreational and commercial fisheries, and the economic activity that these sustainable fisheries support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a modified amendment at the desk be considered.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply authorizes a GAO study, a Government Accountability Office study, for the purposes of evaluating how we currently manage the red snapper species in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic.

I want to be very clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment does not affect any other region of the Nation. It doesn't affect any other species. It is a unique scenario that we are facing in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic pertaining to the red snapper.

This is a species where the increased demand from both recreational and commercial fishers has resulted in contentious debate and challenging situations for resource managers across the Gulf Coast and the South Atlantic.

This amendment is designed to have the GAO perform a study that would provide information to resource managers. We have been able to work through EFPs for the past 2 years, but in the future we are not guaranteed any type of solution.

When I was a child, we could fish for red snapper year-round. We are no longer allowed to do that. We were limited by as many as 3 days-- proposed--by the Federal Government in recent years. This is designed to provide better information, better tools for how we manage these species moving forward in a sustainable manner.

Mr. Chairman, the modifications that I made to this amendment were a result of discussions with Members near me right now.

As a matter of fact, someone sitting near me may or may not have threatened to fillet me with a butter knife if I didn't change some text in the amendment, so some of the text has been changed to reflect the very narrow scope of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the concerns raised by the gentleman from Alaska. I am committed to working with the gentleman and to working with my friend from California in trying to get this amendment in a better posture. I do want to work together with both the gentlemen to make sure that we get this done in a way that does not cause injury to other places.

In response to my friend from California, I do want to be clear that this is information. All this is is information that our committee, that this Congress, would then have the option to act upon.

I don't think information in this case, on such a contentious issue, that does have a very unclear future--we have dealt with contentious issues and bought ourselves 2 years. Beyond that, we are going to be right back in the same situation.

We are trying to get additional information. I want to say, in regard to the conflict issues, in regard to the balance of commercial and recreational, that is good feedback, and I am happy to adopt those changes to the amendment, to include those as we work through the process.

I will say it again. I am committed to working with the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I sent the gentleman the text of the amendment--the first person I sent it to--to ensure that I had input from both sides. We did make some modifications as a result, the changes requested by Mr. Young, but I am committed to working together with the dean and with the gentleman from California to perfect this as we move forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I don't intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing this issue up.

The lionfish has certainly, according to many reports, been a species that is causing an adverse impact to red snapper. The solution that he proposes here is a solution whereby States could submit a modified or a new exempted fisheries permit, where they could provide for additional access, on top of their existing allocation, to red snapper in exchange for harvesting a certain number of lionfish species, which are predators to the red snapper.

As folks will see, there is a lot of handwriting on this amendment. We did sit back and make some changes to this, so there is an excellent chance that there are some imperfections here.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working with us on this. I thank my friends from Florida and California for working with us on this as well. It is likely that we are going to need some additional work on this as we move forward. There are some enforcement issues; there are science issues; and there is introduction of a new mechanism that causes some significant concern in the form of tags, in some cases.

But I, again, thank the gentleman from Florida for raising this issue, for working to ensure that we continue to have access to red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. I look forward to working with my friend from Florida, as well as the folks across the aisle, in perfecting this as we move through the conference committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I am proud that the House is taking urgent action to help people affected by opioid abuse, and I'm confident that many of the solutions put forth in this legislation will result in more people finding recovery. For treatment centers and providers, the IMD exclusion creates an obstacle to their ability to deliver substance abuse patients the level of treatment needed for full recovery. However, through state waivers in managed-care systems like we have in Louisiana, patients in many cases are still able to obtain better care than the IMD exclusion otherwise allows. I'm concerned that H.R. 5797's limited scope and its 30-day cap could mean less flexibility for providers and may actually result in inferior patient care compared to what is currently possible through waivers. In reality, recovery often takes more than 30 days. Limiting costs and rewarding outcomes would offer more flexibility for providers than a one-size-fits-all, 30-day cap. As the House considers broader proposals to affordably address the IMD exclusion, we should work to identify solutions that give more autonomy to frontline providers and that foster evidence-based care at the regional, state and local levels.

Mr. Speaker, in service to my constituents in Louisiana, I was meeting with Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson during the vote series on June 13th. This meeting centered on HUD's administration of the $1.2 Billion appropriation for flood projects in Louisiana, as well as RESTORE programs and general flood recovery in the state. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes on both Roll Call 263 and Roll Call 264.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for all of his leadership on this important legislation. I want to thank my friend from Oregon and my friend from California for working with us on this, as there is a bipartisan agreement to move this bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, why are we doing this bill? People at home who are watching this, people who are living in their communities, why are we doing this bill?

We are doing this bill because we need to ensure that people live in places that are safe--safe from flooding and safe from hurricanes. We just saw last year the 2017 hurricanes, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Nate, where we spent well over $150 billion so far--I believe we are near $180 billion--responding to those disasters. People need to live in safe, resilient communities.

We need to ensure that we can build navigation channels that stay compatible with trends in shipping. We built the Panama Canal. The United States built the Canal, yet the Panamanians have stepped in and deepened and widened the canal and the lock system in a shorter period of time than we have been able to even deepen ports here in the United States.

Then, of course, there are environmental issues, the environmental consequences of many of these projects, including in my home State of Louisiana, where we have lost 2,000 square miles of our coast, and the Corps of Engineers has not stepped in and done a single thing to actually restore the environmental consequences of their actions--2,000 square miles of coastal wetlands. If you or I did that, we would be in jail today.

So the reason we are doing this bill is because as the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, mentioned a few minutes ago, we have a nearly $100 billion backlog in projects. We are putting forward somewhere around $2 billion a year in construction funds. You can do the math. I am a math whiz, and I can tell you that you will finish those projects approximately never, because $2 billion a year on $100 billion, you can't even keep up with inflation. We must reform the process, and this bill moves in that direction.

There are important reforms in this bill like allowing the non- Federal sponsors, the States, the parishes, the counties, the water boards, and the ports, to grab components of these projects and move them forward on their own working in collaboration with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that we are moving these projects forward efficiently.

We need to make sure that we are moving redundancies in the process and allowing these non-Federal entities to use the same permitting process that the Corps of Engineers just went through and spent millions of dollars complying with. We are still being respectful to the environment, but we are not forcing them to carry out redundant measures, paying twice for the same actions because that doesn't make sense.

Let me go back and talk about, again, what these outcomes actually yield. We are talking about projects to prevent communities from flooding, to prevent hurricane damages, to restore the environment, and to ensure that our ports and waterways can facilitate the ships that are growing in width and in depth across the globe to where we can have more cost-effective shipping in the United States and our port systems and we can facilitate the trade that comes around the globe and into our country.

Mr. Chairman, they have projects that have been in the study phase, not for months or years, but for decades. We have projects that have been waiting on full implementation of construction for decades. Once again, in my home State of Louisiana, we have the Comite project that has been around for 32 years, $100 million nearly has been spent, and nothing has been done to actually provide flood relief--$100 million.

We have another project in southeast Louisiana in Terrebone and Lafourche Parishes, where the Corps of Engineers has spent nearly $80 million and hasn't put a shovel in the ground yet.

How do you do that when you look at the fact that we have a $20 trillion deficit and we are spending those sorts of dollars on actions that aren't benefiting taxpayers? Who is that representing? Because it is not the people who sent us here.

So I will say it again: this bill moves forward in transparency, it moves forward in efficiency while respecting the environment, it allows projects to be expedited, and it gives more flexibility for the Corps and their non-Federal partners to work together to deliver these projects.

One thing that is in here that I know the chairman is a big fan of and we pushed as well with our friends across the aisle, is taking a look to study whether or not the Corps of Engineers should remain within the Department of Defense.

Is this a mission that is truly compatible with our Department of Defense? I want Secretary Mattis focused on Syria and focused on Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and other threats to our country. I don't want him or her also worried about what is happening with a coastal wetlands permit. I want him focused on the national defense of our country, so looking at where this mission perhaps could be better housed, better compatibility, and ultimately to deliver better outcomes to taxpayers across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important amendment in that it tries to ensure that mitigation banks and other types of mitigation mechanisms are viable options to be able to build projects.

In some cases, you have unavoidable impacts. We need to be able to have options to mitigate for those impacts so we can truly build projects.

I commend the gentleman from Ohio for raising this issue, for bringing this up. I do think that we need to continue working on refining the text a little bit and working together in a bipartisan manner with our friends on the other side of the aisle to get this to a place where everyone can agree.

Again, I think it is an important issue for us to address to ensure that mitigation credits are actually accessible, and I want to see if the gentleman will be willing to withdraw the amendment with the understanding that we are going to work with him to ensure that we can address this issue moving forward through the legislative process.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to provide better information to the Congress, to Federal agencies, and to public entities all over the United States to ensure that we understand the value of investments that we are making, to ensure that we understand the return on investment that we are making with public funds at the State and Federal levels.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut and I commend the gentleman from Texas for bringing this issue up. I think that there is much we can do to perfect the cost of benefit ratio process and information provided to the Congress to where we can make informed decisions to ensure that we are appropriately using the limited taxpayer resources that we have.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment assures the Corps of Engineers can help mitigate any detrimental impacts to the water supply as a result of a Corps of Engineers project. I appreciate my colleague's work on this, and I do accept this amendment and urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment that requires a study for the use of noise abatement technologies at ports. I think this is a good amendment, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I want to thank my friend from Louisiana, a colleague, for offering this amendment.

As the gentleman stated, what is happening right now, the Corps of Engineers is requiring non-Federal entities, like the State of Louisiana and other States around the country and other private partners and local governments to acquire land in fee title, and then that is then absorbed as part of the overall cost of a project.

In many cases in our home State, 82 percent of coastal Louisiana is owned by private landowners. These landowners are willing to donate the project, servitude or easement to ensure these projects can be built. And these are environmental projects for coastal restoration and other wetland construction-type projects. It reduces overall project cost. It incentivizes cooperation between landowners and government entities trying to restore the coast. This is in the best interest of taxpayers. It is in the best interest of the Corps of Engineers. It is absolutely good policy, and I want to thank the gentleman for the amendment. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment intends to cut through the bureaucracy to expedite decisions that are being made. In the case of this amendment, it is designed to address an issue in Texas where you have high-volume port projects and there are safety and navigational improvements that are needed.

We support the intent of the gentleman's amendment to cut through the bureaucracy to ensure that decisions are expedited and cost savings result, and urge support of the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment is designed to largely address, I think, a flaw that this underlying bill addresses in the cost-to-benefit ratio calculations used by the Corps of Engineers, by OMB, and others.

This particular amendment is focused on emergency repairs. What this does is it allows the non-Federal entities to pay a higher non-Federal cost share for repairs to levees.

There are many issues with how OMB and the Corps calculate cost-to- benefit ratios. This is a fix for emergency repairs while we work on the underlying bill for the larger fixes.

Madam Chair, I want to thank Mr. Bost for offering this amendment. We are prepared to accept it. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study and report on the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to comply with Federal stormwater requirements. This is an issue that affects districts across the United States.

I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for bringing this amendment up, for raising this issue, and we are prepared to accept it.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment expresses the sense of Congress that projects in Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria be expedited, that these be considered a priority, and that the Corps of Engineers advance these projects as quickly as possible.

My friend from Puerto Rico hosted myself, Mr. DeFazio, Chairman Shuster, and others in Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the storms, and certainly the devastation there was extraordinary.

It is important to advance projects like this because as folks are looking at whether they are going to reinvest back in their communities, whether they are going to stay in their communities, whether they are going to rebuild their homes and businesses, knowing that things aren't going to be back in the same degree of vulnerability is very important.

We have got to send a message to these victims of hurricanes in 2017 and other disasters that these communities are going to be built back smarter, they are going to be safer, and the investments they are putting back in their homes and businesses are wise investments.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. I want to thank her for her tireless work in the recovery of Puerto Rico. We are prepared to accept, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for offering this amendment.

DMMP's dredged material management plans are plans to manage the sediment that results from dredging activities. It can hold up the navigation of channels for ships and vessels. It can obstruct activity at ports.

This is what the rest of the world would call common sense. It ensures that we are not collecting redundant information, we are building upon information that exists, and that we have a limit or goal of 2 years in completing this.

This makes sense. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forth, which we are prepared to accept.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I do want to thank the gentleman from Texas for raising this issue. I actually agree with him that there are fundamental problems in the levee safety program right now: number one, the fact that the Corps produces these worst-case scenario outcomes that they apply to levees without publicly making the data available on how they came to those conclusions; number two, the fact that they fail to provide alternative improvements with associated cost estimates on how these systems could be improved and ensure the resiliency and performance of these systems.

There are many, many other concerns. I think the amendment does attempt to address some of those, but I think the gentleman also understands that there are some concerns that have been raised that I think are legitimate.

Mr. Chair, I do want to ask the gentleman if he would be willing to withdraw the amendment. I would certainly be willing to work with the gentleman through that process to see if we can find something that everyone can agree to that makes sense without threatening the safety of our communities, which I know no one here wants to do.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) for offering this amendment.

There was something that the gentleman noted in the end that I wanted to make sure legislative intent is preserved here, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Missouri stated that the amendment is intended to restore floodways after they are opened up, such as Bird Point-New Madrid, as opposed to perhaps in south Louisiana where a crevasse could open up that would provide fresh water and sort of mimic that natural process that created coastal Louisiana and would currently restore coastal Louisiana wetlands.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ensure the intent of the amendment and that we have in legislative history here memorialized that this is intended to address the restoration of floodways as opposed to crevasses that may open in the aftermath of a flood.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman from California for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I actually want to discuss some of the provisions that were included in the manager's amendment that I think are very, very important.

Number one, there is a provision in the manager's amendment that provides for the Corps of Engineers to take a fresh look at the old river control structure, a structure that diverts 70 percent of the water on the Mississippi River system down the Mississippi, and 30 percent down the Atchafalaya.

That is a rigid structure that dates back decades and decades. It has not been revisited. The science has not been updated. It does not reflect the fact that we have additional monitoring stations; and so the plan, a rigid 70/30 split, doesn't maximize benefits to the lower system.

We could be maximizing crawfish production, coastal restoration, navigation features, flood control, and others, and it is not happening. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to address that, to direct the Corps of Engineers to modernize this, to ensure that current best science is being applied; to ensure that the monitoring stations are being used and that we are having the best outcomes for ecological productivity, for coastal restoration, for navigation, and, importantly, for flood control, and then stop this rigid, antiquated system of an artificial 70/30 split.

Secondly, the amendment also provides for a pilot program for 5 years for an operations and maintenance contract, a 5-year operations and maintenance contract; instead of coming in and offering dredging contracts only when there is a shoal that has developed, instead, coming in and offering a longer term contract, over a 5-year period, and ensuring that navigation channels are certain that the navigability of these channels at the port facilities are accessible.

In many cases, vessels may actually start weeks in advance trying to get to the United States, and if these NAV channels aren't maintained, these boats don't have options but to divert to other ports that are lighter. It is expensive. We need to ensure the predictability and the certainty of our navigation channels, and the manager's amendment addresses that as well.

I want to thank the chairman again, Mr. Shuster, for including that. I want to thank Mr. DeFazio and Ranking Member Napolitano for their work with us on that manager's amendment and those important provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for putting this Special Order together. It is very important.

Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s, it was known for big hair, big bangs--I know my sister had bangs about to here. I made that up. Maybe it was here--parachute pants, mullets, and all sorts of other things that we now recognize were awful ideas.

We have updated our thoughts, but we were still living with a Tax Code from the 1980s, a Tax Code that was 32 years old, a Tax Code that simply made the United States uncompetitive in regard to other nations.

Mr. Speaker, if you think about it for just a minute, if we served hamburgers right here and, across the street, you had a place that served the exact same product and they sold it for half the price, how long would we be in business? How long would we still have a restaurant right here? It wouldn't exist. It would eventually go out of business because, across the street, they have the same product for half the price.

Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code of the United States was placing that burden, that penalty, or that uncompetitive nature on businesses in the United States. They were able to go out and invest in other countries and pay a fraction of the price that they were paying in the United States.

So we updated the Tax Code in December, as the gentleman, the previous speaker noted. Back in the 1980s, and--excuse me, the 1960s, just to give some metric for comparison--17 of the top global companies had headquarters right here in the United States. Yet, last year, it dropped down to just 6--just 6, because companies were going to other countries where they could get that lower rate.

And, as the gentleman noted, we have seen billions of dollars invested in companies invested in workers. We are seeing the lowest unemployment rate in years for women, for African Americans, for Hispanics--6.6 million jobs available today, one of the highest numbers we have seen in history in available jobs today. This is working.

Mr. Speaker, this is being complemented with regulatory relief. This is being complemented with removing or rescinding old regulations, updating and making it more efficient so we can compete on a global scale with countries around the world. The tax bill is working, and it is extraordinary the success that we are seeing.

For example, back in April, we saw the highest tax surplus in history for that month. I believe it was $213 billion in surplus revenues collected. It is extraordinary growth we are seeing, and as the previous speaker noted, America is back. We are taking the handcuffs off of American businesses, allowing American employment opportunities to be available, allowing for better wages, better jobs, and better competition here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, back in my home State of Louisiana, we have seen companies like Spillway Sportsman, where I have spoken to Scott, the owner, expanding facilities and offering more services to customers. We have seen LHC Group, a healthcare company, raising wages, providing more in retirement benefits to their employees, and we have seen Gulf South Bank raising their minimum wage and investing in bonuses in their employees to ensure that those employees are reaping the benefits from these changes in the Tax Code and the increased competitiveness in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will say this again. The tax bill is working. You can look at black and white metrics. You can look at the statistics. You can look at the fundamental change in economic growth that is happening. And, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, you can see the increased wages. You can see the better employment opportunities that are being offered to American workers as opposed to investments going overseas.

Mr. Chairman, when other militaries challenge the United States' military might, we invest more dollars, just like we did a few months ago in our military.

When the Panama Canal was widened and deepened, we invested more dollars in our ports so we would remain competitive. When other countries have lowered tax rates, we lower ours to

make sure that we remain competitive and we can defend our folks.

Mr. Chairman, I represent thousands of farmers from Louisiana who depend upon this crop. If we pass this amendment, the precedent that it sets rolling into other types of crops will devastate American farmers.

This amendment is a flawed amendment. It is going to undermine our agriculture industry across the United States. I urge opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of disasters, billions and billions of dollars in claims are often worked out between local governments, State governments, and FEMA.

In many cases, because disasters are inherently unpredictable, volatile, and folks are doing what they need to do to help their communities recover and address these urgent needs, in some cases, not every i is dotted, not every t is crossed. These minor issues often become obstacles to these communities being reimbursed and their ability to recover.

FEMA has an appeals process, Mr. Chairman. In that appeals process, you basically have FEMA reviewing FEMA. I don't think that that is the appropriate approach.

Section 618 of the underlying bill has an arbitration process, but that arbitration process has other Homeland Security officials reviewing the work of Homeland Security.

There was a better model that was used after the 2005 disasters whereby an outside board that exists, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, which is an independent body, was brought in to help review some of these appeals that local and State governments brought forth to the Corps of Engineers.

It was a better approach. It provided for more thorough evaluation and, again, the independence of having an outside entity review this. Our amendment simply improves upon the existing arbitration process in section 618 of the bill.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this legislation. I think it is very important, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

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

I just want to make note that I do appreciate my friend from Oregon's comments, and I appreciate his sensitivity to timelines. But that is what this amendment addresses: timelines. In many cases, our local government simply cannot continue to carry these debts and not get reimbursed.

In regard to the amount of money, perhaps $100,000 is not a lot of money to the city of Portland, but I am going to guess to the city of Coos Bay it may be important.

In regard to the details of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I am from Louisiana. If the gentleman from Oregon can help us make this even better, then I would be happy to work with him on that. But I think this is very, very important. Access to due process is important. The existing process does not allow supplemental material to be considered to respond to concerns that were raised by agency officials. This is a good model. It has proven effective in the past, and I urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, once again, is a bipartisan amendment. My good friends Congressman Cedric Richmond, Congressman Gene Green, Congressman Ralph Abraham, Congressman Clay Higgins, and Congressman Brian Babin are all supporters of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Following our August 2016 floods in south Louisiana, FEMA came in and provided housing solutions. The solutions included the utilization of trailers. Because FEMA needs an acronym for everything, they were called MHUs, mobile housing units. When you added up the cost to purchase, transport, store, and set up these things, FEMA was in the hole anywhere from $120,000 to $170,000 per pop.

Mr. Chairman, you could buy these same units right there in the vicinity of the flood from local trailer dealers for anywhere from $28,000 to I think the highest cost we saw was about $40,000, including setup. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, Mr. Chairman, to realize that you could get it faster and you are helping to revive the local economy by using local solutions, as opposed to the case when FEMA is doing this, when it took months and months and months to give people even a single housing option in some cases.

So what this amendment does is it simply says that, if a local entity, a local government entity, if a State entity, can provide a housing solution for 50 percent of the cost, or less, as compared to the alternative that FEMA provides, then they can be reimbursed. Mr. Chairman, this is faster. It saves taxpayer dollars. It stops this fleecing of American taxpayers that is occurring in the aftermath of disasters.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, in Livingston Parish, Sheriff Jason Ard: his deputies were flooded. Literally, families didn't have anywhere to go. They had looting in the parish. The sheriff stepped up, established mobile housing units, trailers, for his deputies to live in so they didn't have to worry about their families anymore, so they could get back to doing what they were supposed to be doing: enforcing law in these destroyed communities. And FEMA is rejecting them.

We have tried to work through the administrative process. I will say it again: the only way they are reimbursed is if the cost of their solution was 50 percent or less than that of the Federal Government alternative, in regard to the mobile housing units.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentlewoman from Texas would be supportive of this, representing many of the flood victims from Hurricane Harvey. It is important to keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that, in many cases, these flood victims don't have other options. So you may have a trailer from your local trailer dealership; you may have a tent. In many cases, that is very attractive compared to being homeless.

I would love to work with the gentleman from Oregon and see if we can work together to perfect this amendment to address any concerns that he may have. In regard to the Chinese formaldehyde, I agree with you. If we can get good old American formaldehyde in our trailers, let's do that. I am kidding.

But I urge adoption of the amendment. I think this is very important. We should be commending leaders like Sheriff Ard for stepping up and providing efficient solutions for disaster survivors.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to state, in response to the formaldehyde issue, let me be very clear, formaldehyde was a major issue after Hurricane Katrina in the trailers. We certainly learned from that, and we absolutely don't need anyone exposed to it.

So I absolutely agree with the gentleman on that. But I think there have been better standards, and certainly lessons learned, from what we experienced with Hurricane Katrina when folks were in these trailers for long periods of time, and they weren't designed for that purpose, so I do agree with the gentleman there.

But on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, this is, once again, a bipartisan amendment. We have the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), and other cosponsors, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), all supporting this amendment because it is common sense and it responds to true on-the- ground problems that were seen in the aftermath of disasters.

What happens is the current law in the Stafford Act says that any time you have a flood, if you have a facility like a school, that FEMA may deduct $500,000 from the recovery for rebuilding that school. Well, what FEMA has done is they have taken the law that Congress established where it said ``per facility,'' and they have taken it and they have abused it. They have now determined that a facility is an individual building.

So, Mr. Chairman, you may have a classroom building, you may have a cafeteria, you may have another classroom building, you may have a gymnasium, you may have a storage room, you may have a concession stand--in that case, FEMA is applying $500,000 to each individual building. Now, what adds insult to injury or makes this situation untenable is the fact that these schools generate the revenue oftentimes from property taxes in the destroyed community. So they are losing property taxes, FEMA is hitting them with bills, in some cases, in Ascension, Livingston, and East Baton Rouge Parishes, that are tens of millions of dollars each. What this does is it victimizes the survivors' children. So the kids

can't get back in schools because the schools can't afford to reestablish their facilities.

So, look, bottom line is, this is all about preserving congressional intent. Congress spoke on this. FEMA has trashed the interpretation, and this is all about preserving congressional intent and getting our kids back in schools to where they can have the education or opportunities that they need to have, and they should no longer be further victimized by FEMA's flawed interpretation of the law.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, I am more than happy to work with my friend from Oregon to address any concerns that he may have to ensure that we have the best solution on this moving forward.

I will tell you that Republicans and Democrats in Florida, in Texas, in Puerto Rico, in the Virgin Islands, all across these disaster areas that we have experienced in the last 2 years are running into this exact same problem.

And let me just reiterate, Mr. Chairman, what this interpretation, this flawed interpretation is doing. It is putting an unaffordable bill before a community that has been destroyed, and it is only victimizing children because they can't get back in their schools, they can't resume their education. It is disrupting the resumption of their normal lives and just further affecting them, and delaying restoration and recovery of these communities.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Donna Britt, a beloved community leader and longtime local television personality well known throughout my hometown of Baton Rouge, Louisiana and the surrounding area. Mrs. Britt will be recognized with the prestigious 12 Points Award at a Boy Scouts ceremony this month--a reward reserved for high caliber leaders whose lives embody the 12 traits that the program seeks to instill in its participants: trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courteousness, kindness, obedience, cheerfulness, thriftiness, bravery, cleanliness and reverence. You'd be hard pressed, Mr. Speaker, to find a more fitting recipient than Donna, who has been a shining example of these values through her professional and personal life. An accomplished woman in media, Donna is a Public Relations Association of Louisiana Communicator of the Year and a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters, the Award of Excellence from Women in Media and the Volunteer Activist Award from the Emerge Center. She is also a breast cancer survivor currently battling a recent ALS diagnosis. Despite these medical challenges, Donna's resilience and warmth are unwavering--a mentality perhaps best revealed through her own personal mantra: ``meet each new challenge and master it.'' Reflecting on her life and career in a recent interview, she remarked, ``I've been very blessed, and challenges remind us what is important in life.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of countless people across South Louisiana who have been blessed by Donna Britt, I'd like to point out that her example helps remind all of us about what is important in life. Congratulations, Donna, on this well-deserved award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. William Black, lovingly known to Louisianians as Buckskin Bill. He passed away on January 10, 2018, in the comfort of his home and surrounded by family. Mr. Black had an incredible life. He married Elma, his college sweetheart, and was the proud father of three children who survive his memory. Mr. Black was a patriot who honorably served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, and he was a performer at heart. He traveled the country emceeing and performing to audiences of troops in order to boost morale. Mr. Black was probably best known for hosting Storyland and the Buckskin Bill Show, shows enjoyed in every household and loved by children across South Louisiana--including me. As a kid, I woke up early every Monday morning for Buckskin Bill's Monday Morning March. I remember thinking I was getting pretty good at it, too. His shows ran for 35 years, and Mr. Black was twice awarded ``Best Children's Show in the United States'' by the National Association of Broadcasters. Outside of his television accomplishments, his life was marked by a dedication to improving the lives of those around him, from assisting in the foundation of the Baton Rouge Zoo, to promoting the Louisiana School for the Deaf. Mr. Black was truly a man dedicated to his community and endearing children to civic engagement. I am proud to have enjoyed his shows growing up, and I know he will be marching on among the angels in heaven. Buckskin Bill will be fondly remembered by myself, his family, and all the lives he touched through his performances.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained while meeting with Louisiana pastors after the National Prayer Breakfast. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 64 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 65.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Smith for his leadership in this effort for so many decades.

Mr. Speaker, we spend millions of dollars every year in this Nation-- in fact, in some cases, billions of dollars--providing healthcare for Americans, feeding Americans, providing housing for Americans, and educating Americans. We do that, Mr. Speaker, because we value life. We value these lives, and so we spend billions and billions of dollars ensuring that there are opportunities for these folks, ensuring that we are protecting these lives and we are doing everything we can to provide a pathway to prosperity, to make sure that these people are healed from their ailments, to make sure that they have shelter, and to make sure that they have food.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, if someone causes a fetus to die, that is a crime in this country. That is a crime. They can be charged for the murder of the mother, and they can be charged for the murder of the fetus.

But there is one exception in the law, and that is an abortion. I don't understand how in this country we can, on the one hand, say that these lives are so valuable and we are going to spend all these resources on healthcare and many other issues in people's lives because they have so much value to us as Americans. I don't understand how we can charge someone criminally if a fetus is killed through some type of crime, yet we provide an exemption or an exception for abortion. A life is a life, is a life, is a life, is a life. It either has value or it does not.

This month, as we have the 45th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it is amazing to think about 45 years. I think it is important that we reflect upon all of those constituents who we have all met; all of those Americans who are the product of a changed mind; the constituents I have met who have told me that their mother, their father changed their mind, and telling me about their lives and the contributions they have made to our community, the contributions they have made to this Nation. All lives have value.

In this Congress, we have passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. We passed the Conscience Protection Act. As other Members have noted, this week we are going to be voting on the Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which ensures that if a child survives an abortion--that awful situation--they would be given appropriate medical care to ensure that they have an opportunity at life, to ensure that they have a chance, because lives have value.

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, I want to continue working with folks on both sides of the aisle, as I often hear people standing here and saying they are a voice for the voiceless. They are a voice for those that are vulnerable populations. This is a vulnerable population. This is a voiceless life that we need to be representing and we need to be fighting for.

I am going to continue working with folks on both sides of the aisle to protect and promote life, the unborn and the born, because our Nation's most vital resource isn't found in our economy, in our environment, in our jobs. It is found in our people.

I think so many other policies that we pursue here in this Congress respect that and represent that. This is the one anomaly that we need to continue to fight to continue to fix, because a life has value. We need to continue fighting for the most vulnerable in our society so they have the opportunity to have the same experiences that other Americans have.