Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I associate the remarks of my ranking member, the chairman of the committee, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Graves. I rise in strong support of the bipartisan bill, H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018.

I very strongly thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and Chairman Graves for their work on this legislation. It is encouraging to see that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee continue in a bipartisan fashion on this legislation every 2 years.

This bill authorizes Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility studies, Chief's Reports, and section 7001 water resource projects across the country for a diverse array of purposes, including flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction, water supply--very important to me--and navigation.

It also includes an important water recycling project for Los Angeles County in California, with the West Basin Municipal Water District's Harbor/South Bay project. This project provides a $35 million increase for an existing, successful authorization to improve microfiltration of wastewater and delivery to residents and businesses. This will create long-term water supply reliability in our drought-prone region.

I want to thank my good friends, Directors Carol Kwan and Gloria Gray, for their commitment to this cost-effective and innovative water supply option for all their constituents.

I also am pleased to see the inclusion of several provisions that will continue the work we have done in recent WRDAs to assist communities experiencing drought with additional water supply options.

These provisions include section 109 that will require the Corps to work with local governments on integrated water resources planning to incorporate in Corps projects locally developed plans for stormwater management, water quality improvements, and--my baby--water recycling.

Section 107 provides for forecast-informed reservoir operations in water control manuals to ensure that dams are being used effectively to maximize local water supply.

Section 115 provides a comprehensive report on the operation and maintenance backlog of Corps projects so that

Congress has a full accounting of the unmet needs of authorized water resource projects.

We have such a backlog, and there is that fund that goes nowhere, the billions of dollars that should be going to the ports that do not benefit, and we have a tremendous backlog.

I am concerned that the bill does not include a bipartisan provision supported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that would fully fund the harbor maintenance trust fund. Congress needs to remedy this inequity in the harbor maintenance trust fund once and for all, so that the taxes paid into the system are benefiting the projects they were intended for. I support the efforts of port stakeholders, including the American Association of Port Authorities, which includes all ports in the United States which recently approved, for the first time, a national agreement with all ports to create fairness in the harbor maintenance trust fund. It is very unfortunate that the House leadership is using procedural tactics to prevent the House from addressing this critical issue.

I am confident that this bill, when and if enacted, will provide drought-prone regions like mine and other very necessary areas with the tools necessary to increase water supply and water conservation measures and be prepared for future storm events to capture and reuse the water that would have otherwise been lost.

I want to thank my constituent water agencies for their input throughout this process, including the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the San Gabriel WaterMaster, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, and my local Corps leadership, General Helmlinger, Colonel Gibbs, and David Van Dorpe.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this bill, and I ask Members to support H.R. 8.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), my colleague on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment, while potentially well intended, could have the unintended consequences of weakening the Nation's safety standards for levees.

I understand the gentleman plans to withdraw the amendment, and I commit to continue working with the gentleman on the issue.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to take this time, since this is the last amendment, to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Graves for their support, but most of all, I want to thank our staff: Ryan Seiger, Mike Brain, Joe Sheehy, my own personal staff; but mostly, the legislative counsel, Kakuti Lin--it is a hard name--they worked tirelessly; and, of course, your staff, the Republican staff that worked with our staffs so well.

And I thank Mr. Shuster. This is an example of bipartisan work on this WRDA bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 801, which establishes Route 66 as the 20th national historic trail as part of the National Trails System.

I want to thank my colleague, Representative LaHood, for introducing the legislation and letting me be a cosponsor. I want to thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for their support in moving this bill through the committee.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. LaHood stated, it is an economic boon for the cities that have Route 66. It runs east and west through my district, known as Foothill Boulevard and Huntington Drive, in the cities of La Verne, San Dimas, Azusa, Duarte, and Monrovia. In fact, one of my cities is already highlighting and doing celebrations of Route 66. At swap meets, they are already selling Route 66 T-shirts and paraphernalia.

Our local restaurants, our shops, our businesses, like so many others dotting the highway from the heartland to the West Coast, provide rest breaks for travelers, allowing them to sample the local flavors of communities that are proud to be connected by the iconic road.

H.R. 801 is needed because the current preservation under the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program is expiring in 2019. So we need to, under H.R. 801, continue to recognize and promote Route 66 through the national historic trail designation, which will bring Federal resources for the rehabilitation and improvement of this Mother Road. It runs from Chicago all the way to Santa Monica in the State of California.

We have cities that are very excited about being able to celebrate it in the 100th year. This Federal assistance will be used in coordination with cities and stakeholders for the preservation of property, artifacts, memorabilia, and other historical items.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 801, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. Not only that, but I remember the song that included Route 66. He will remember that, if he is young enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3997 waives the special use permit application fees for veterans' demonstrations and special events at national war memorials.

I agree with my colleague. It is time that we recognize that our veterans deserve to be able to use this holy land for special events at national war memorials. This is a commonsense bill that will make it easier for veterans' groups to organize events at national memorials and other public lands.

I thank Mr. Bishop from the majority for helping us work to ensure that the bill covers Gold Star families. I thank him very much for that.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers, but may I add that I agree with what Ms. Gabbard said. It is unnecessary to bill any kind of fee to our veterans or the organizations that honor them.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Congress has a long history in supporting the Clean Water Act. In 1972, Congress overrode President Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act, demonstrating bipartisan support for the Federal regulation of our Nation's water. The measure was very clear: human health would no longer take a backseat to big business.

Now, more than 45 years later, we are again voting to overturn the Clean Water Protection rule, a rule that, for the first time in over a decade, provides clarity for regulated parties and protection for our Nation's rivers and waters.

What message are we sending today? Clearly, we are telling the American people that what water they have left isn't worth protecting.

Mr. Chairman, when developing the Clean Water Protection rule, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers went to unprecedented lengths to engage with stakeholders, including ranchers, farmers, and municipalities. They held over 400 stakeholder meetings on the rule and reviewed approximately 1 million public comments to the rule.

It is evident that EPA and the Corps wholeheartedly considered these comments and concerns because many of the Clean Water rule's reforms benefit industry, agriculture, and municipalities. These reforms include limiting permits for ditches and municipal storm water sewers, and codified exemptions for certain agricultural, construction, and mining activities.

Let us not forget that the farmers and developers, alike, call the Clean Water Act's current regulatory process ``ad hoc,'' ``inconsistent,'' and ``costly.''

The rule we are attempting to overturn would keep the old, confusing regulations in place permanently. The same groups that asked for this rule and actually benefited from the rule are now asking us to do away with the rule.

The only thing I can surmise is that those who oppose the rule would oppose any rulemaking that did not drastically limit the application of the Clean Water Act; or, said in another way, these groups are simply opposed to the Clean Water Act entirely.

In my State of California, 99.2 percent of the population gets its water from the drinking water systems that rely on water bodies protected by this rule. With numbers like that on the line, intervening now is simply reckless.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I just think that, again, we are saying anything Obama did is wrong. I want to continue protecting the waters of the United States for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 181 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 182.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the long career of public service provided by an outstanding leader in my district, Councilmember Margaret Finlay, who is ending her term as President of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Councilmember Finlay has ably led the nation's largest metropolitan planning organization, representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 18 million residents. Under her guidance, SCAG has undertaken important work in a variety of planning and policy initiatives that will improve Southern California now and in the future.

Councilmember Finlay has been an invaluable resource to me and my staff as a councilmember and six-term Mayor of the city of Duarte having served our region for over 28 years. She has served in many capacities as she has been elected by her peers in other cities to serve on regional, state, and national boards such as the National League of Cities, League of California Cities, Liability Trust Fund Oversight Committee, California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, Personnel Committee of the Sanitation Districts, LAFCO Representative for Los Angeles County, and the California Contract Cities Association.

I have been privileged to work directly with Councilmember Finlay on many issues affecting our community such as increasing transportation options for our residents, creating more access to our beautiful San Gabriel Mountains, and improving emergency preparedness and response. She is a leader on

advocating for additional transit, bicycle and pedestrian options to improve the daily commute of our residents. She has done exceptional work to preserve our natural resources for future generations by fighting to preserve 330 acres in the foothills. Councilmember Finlay and I recently held a first responder event together to improve wildfire and mudslide prevention and response activities in Duarte and our surrounding community.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Duarte and the many people she has impacted in the Southern California Region, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Councilmember Margaret Finlay for her service as President of the Southern California Association of Governments. I look forward to continuing to work with Councilmember Finlay to improve the lives of residents in Duarte and the San Gabriel Valley.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Denham amendment, which would overturn a Federal court decision that determined that California meal and rest break laws apply to truckers.

On July 4, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that trucking operators in California must allow for 30-minute meal breaks after 5 hours of work and a 10-minute rest break after 4 hours worked. This meal and rest break is very reasonable, when you consider that truck drivers can be subject to 14 hours of on-duty time.

This amendment would not only preempt California's law, but would also preempt laws in 21 other States and territories that guarantee meal and rest breaks.

This amendment is further harmful as it includes broad preemption language, as Mr. DeFazio stated, that would prohibit State and local governments from enacting laws that ``impose any additional obligation on motor carriers.'' This preemption would attack State minimum wage laws, sick leave laws, family leave laws, and other laws that protect truck drivers' pay and benefits.

Mr. Chairman, States should be allowed to set these important standards for truck driver working conditions as they see fit for the health and safety of their workers and for our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the Denham amendment, and I include in the Record letters of opposition from the Teamsters, American Association for Justice, Truck Safety Coalition and others, and the National Employment Law Project.

Teamsters Letter Opposing Denham Amendment Regarding Truck Driver Wage

and Benefit Laws

This week, the US House of Representatives will consider

legislation to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA).

The trucking industry is trying to hijack that bill. They

want to insert language which takes away almost any

protection truck drivers are granted under state law. This

includes destroying the right to paid sick leave, paid

vacations, FMLA, state guarantees of a lunch or rest break

during a shift, and worse.

The language states the following:

``A State, political sub-division of a State or political

authority of 2 or more States

may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other

provision having the force and effect of law prohibiting-

employees whose hours of service are subject to regulation by

the Secretary under section 31502 from working to the full

extent permitted or at such times as permitted under such

section, or imposing any additional obligations on motor

carriers if such employees work to the full extent or at such

times as permitted under such section, including any related

activities regulated, under part 395 of title 49, Code of

Federal Regulations.''

Say you're a trucking company who doesn't want a driver

taking a few hours off for a doctor's appointment this week.

Now you're in luck! Under this provision, the driver isn't

working to the ``full extent permitted'' under the minimal

federal rules, so they lose any state protections

guaranteeing them the right to go to the doctor!

What happens if that driver needs to take extended state-

protected FMLA? Taking time off under state FMLA laws would

mean that driver is not working to the ``full extent'' they

otherwise could be under the federal rules, so it's not

allowed!

What if a state decides that a truck driver should get paid

while they wait in line for hours on end to drop off their

load? Well, that's an additional obligation being put on the

employer, and that won't be allowed either!

The House must not include this anti-safety, anti-worker

provision in the FAA bill. This provision would overturn any

state's law that goes above the bare minimum federal rules

for truck drivers. No state could demand that drivers need to

get paid for non-driving time or take action against

companies who misclassify their drivers as independent

contractors. Any state laws that raise wages or protect the

working conditions of drivers would immediately be

overturned. It refers to these state laws as ``additional

burdens'' being placed on motor carriers and says that they

need to be done away with. States couldn't even give drivers

time off to go vote! What's worse, all these changes are made

retroactive to 1994. All of the progress states have made

over the past two decades would evaporate overnight.

Truck crashes are up 45% from 2009. Injuries are up 57%,

and deaths from those crashes are also up 28%. Now is not the

time to push drivers even further by taking away protections

that make sure they are well-rested and alert.

We urge you to OPPOSE the Denham amendment (amendment #140

as filed with the rules committee) if it comes up on the

floor during consideration of the FAA bill H.R. 4.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact

me.

Sincerely,

Samuel P. Loesche,

Legislative Representative,

International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Mr. Speaker, DREAMers embody our American ideals, our values, and everything we hold dear. They are proud servicemembers, students, teachers, healthcare workers, first responders, and entrepreneurs.

The DACA program has allowed many of them to build a life here and make positive, significant contributions to the U.S. economy and their communities. DACA recipients, in fact, earn higher wages and will contribute an estimated $460 billion to the U.S. GDP over the next decade. It is no wonder employers and corporate America are demanding a solution.

The economic case for passing the Dream Act is strong. It is not just the right thing to do for our economy, though; it is the right thing to do, period.

H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, builds on these great successes and honors our history and our heritage, as we are a proud nation of immigrants from all over the world.

Poll after poll reflects overwhelming support for allowing the DREAMers to remain permanently in the United States. Nearly 8 out of 10 voters, including almost three-quarters of Trump voters, agree on this. Only 14 percent believe they should be forced to leave.

The faith community is also imploring Congress to do what is the right, compassionate, and just thing. Just this morning, I met with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, who said this is about human dignity and how we treat people. They understand the weight of our inaction and indecisiveness. Anxiety and hopelessness continue to grow as the President dithers.

We are now less than 1 month away from the end of the 6-month period set by President Trump to fix the mess he created. No more delaying. No more inaction. DREAMers kept their promise to the only Nation they know and love. Our government must honor its commitment to protect them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 20th time we have asked for a vote on the clean Dream Act. All we are asking for is a vote. Give us a vote so we can give young immigrants, their families, their employers, their teachers, their coworkers, and friends some certainty and peace of mind.

I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can immediately bring DREAMers and the Dream Act to the floor and finally do what is right for our young people and for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 701 through 710 due to a death in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on the motion to recommit H.R. 4015, ``Nay'' on passage of H.R. 4015, ``Nay'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 670. ``Nay'' on agreeing to H. Res. 670, ``Yea'' on passage of S. 1393, ``Nay'' on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment to H.R. 1370, ``Nay'' on Passage of H.R. 4667, and ``Yea'' on passage of S. 1532.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 699 due to the death of my spouse. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on the Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 697, 698, and 700 due to a death in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 668, ``Nay'' on agreeing to H. Res. 668 and ``Yea'' on H.R. 1159, United States and Israel Space Cooperation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 685 through 687 due to a death in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on the motion to fix the convening time, ``Yea'' on H.R. 4375, STEM Research and Education Effectiveness and Transparency Act, and ``Yes'' on H.R. 3979, Keep Americas Refuges Operational Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 694 through 695 due to a death in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on H.R. 3312, Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2017, and ``Yea'' on S. 1536, Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act.