Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, finally, Scott Pruitt is gone.

After months of scandal, 19 separate investigations, countless ethical failures, abuses of his official office at taxpayer expense, finally, this corrupt, swamp creature who has been heading our Environmental Protection Agency announced his resignation last week.

As welcome as this news is for many of us, let's be clear: Scott Pruitt was far from the only creature in the toxic Trump swamp.

Another great example is our Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, who profited from short sales in a Russian-linked navigation company. He made those short sales only after learning that journalists with The New York Times were about to expose his conflicts of interest. And apparently, while serving as our Commerce Secretary, Ross was also partial owner of a Chinese company and a Cypriot bank that is a part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

These are scandals that, in any other previous time, would bring down a Cabinet Secretary, but in this swamp climate of the Trump administration, it is just another news cycle and is soon supplanted by the next outrage and the next scandal.

Let's also not forget our Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, who faces many of his own scandals. Our Secretary of the Interior, of course, oversees oil and gas development on public lands. In this case, the Secretary stands to personally benefit from a land deal with the chairman of Halliburton, a company that has literally billions of dollars of business on the line when Secretary Zinke makes decisions about where, and how, oil drilling will be permitted in this country.

That is just the tip of the iceberg with this administration. It is time for this Republican Congress to wake up and take these issues seriously. Conduct some real oversight and put a stop to this culture of corruption in the Trump administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today is an attempt by my Republican colleagues to approve one part of President Trump's so- called infrastructure plan.

H.R. 3281 would enact a proposal from the Trump infrastructure plan that approves the de facto privatization of some of the public's most important water infrastructure, without safeguards to protect the American taxpayer or our natural heritage.

Now, you may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Trump infrastructure plan that was transmitted to Congress in February focuses much of its attention on giving away the public's infrastructure to private interests.

For example, the Trump plan calls for privatizing Western electricity infrastructure, the Dulles International Airport, the Washington Aqueduct, the George Washington and Baltimore Washington Parkways, and much of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

This Trump yard sale of critical public infrastructure would raise consumer costs and would enrich private interests, all while providing no meaningful funding for much-needed public infrastructure development.

Now, when it comes to the management of our public infrastructure, it is clear that this administration and this Republican Congress would simply rather sell it off than fix it. So today, we have before us the proposal to dole out much of the public water infrastructure owned by the United States, with virtually no strings attached.

Mr. Speaker, this may be how Mr. Trump liquidates real estate during one of his infamous bankruptcies, but it is no way to manage public infrastructure.

Now, the Bureau of Reclamation owns some of the most important public water infrastructure in America, including hundreds of dams, canals, and other associated infrastructure. Reclamation's infrastructure helps deliver water to tens of millions of people, and it serves numerous stakeholders, including municipal and industrial water users, farmers, Tribes, fishermen, and environmental and recreational interests.

H.R. 3281 irresponsibly gives the Secretary of the Interior new authority to transfer title, which is another term for relinquishing ownership, to a broad range of reclamation water projects.

Now, this bill's proponents have claimed that it only expedites the relinquishment of small and easy projects that the Federal Government should no longer own. I wish that were the case.

Mr. Speaker, if that were actually the case, we would have a bipartisan bill, and I would be standing here in support of it, because I have supported title transfers for select, noncontroversial projects when it made sense for taxpayers and the public. In cases of canals and waterworks that don't affect water operations and diversions, and where there is no significant opposition from Tribes or downstream users, it does make sense, to me, for Congress to give the executive branch some leeway to dispose of these facilities, as long as appropriate safeguards are in place.

Unfortunately, the bill before us allows this administration to unilaterally relinquish ownership of a very broad range of public water projects without appropriate safeguards that should be there to make sure taxpayers and other stakeholders are protected.

In fact, this bill is written so broadly that it would allow the Secretary of the Interior to hand over multipurpose water projects that have no business being owned by one water user.

Now, the fact is, many of Reclamation's water projects need to be operated in a manner that balances difficult, conflicting interests. Giving up ownership and control of that project, handing it over to a single water user will, in some cases, result in significant harm to the many other interests who have a stake in the operation of Federal water projects.

I am also sorry to say that this bill is a bad deal for taxpayers. It allows the Secretary of the Interior to hand over publicly owned infrastructure and other Federal assets to private interests without appropriate taxpayer compensation.

For example, it fails to require that taxpayers be compensated for the loss of publicly owned lands and mineral interests. And whenever the Federal Government gives away Federal assets, we should ensure that taxpayers who paid for these assets are properly compensated. This bill utterly fails on that score.

I must also point out that H.R. 3281 unwisely removes longstanding and necessary congressional oversight for an overly broad range of projects. Under existing law, Congress has responsibility to oversee and approve the transfer of Federal water projects to ensure that transfers are in the public interest.

This bill eliminates Congress' current oversight and approval authority for a host of projects that deserve scrutiny before they are given away--not after, but before they are given away. Congress should think twice before it surrenders power and lets this administration irresponsibly give away the public's infrastructure.

Before closing, I should also note that this bill is rightfully opposed by numerous conservation organizations, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and many others.

Conservation-minded Americans oppose this bill because transferring ownership of Federal water projects to non-Federal operators will frequently mean less protection for the environment. That is because non-Federal water projects often don't have to be operated with the same environmental protections that apply to water projects operated, owned by Federal agencies.

For example, projects operated by Federal agencies must comply with certain provisions in section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Those same requirements would no longer apply if a water project was operated by a non-Federal entity.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I request a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been brought up that Vice President Al Gore proposed, in certain instances, that title transfer might make sense. That is correct.

But I have also acknowledged that I, myself, have proposed that, in appropriate circumstances, title transfers can make sense. They can be good for water users, for the taxpayers, and for other users as long as the right safeguards are in place.

What we are really talking about here, though, is a bill that fails to work in that narrowly tailored space that Al Gore and myself and others have been willing to work. This bill does not include those safeguards. This bill would not be limited to small, noncontroversial projects. It could apply to very large multiuse projects, and it could apply to those projects in ways that do not include safeguards to protect other stakeholders and other interests. That is why we disagree on this point.

Now, it has also been argued that because water districts have repaid the Federal Government through water rates, somehow, that effectively means they should have an entitlement to transfer of these facilities.

A couple points need to be emphasized here.

First, under reclamation law, water districts generally only pay a fraction of the total cost to construct reclamation water projects. The rest of these costs have been borne by taxpayers because the projects were deemed to have public benefits, such as fish and wildlife enhancement and recreation.

Given the billions spent by taxpayers on reclamation projects, it is appropriate for the public to maintain ownership of projects, especially in cases where title transfer could result in operational changes that jeopardize those public benefits for which the public has borne the cost.

Now, project construction costs that are borne by water districts are further reduced by various taxpayer subsidies that should be part of the equation, including federally subsidized, zero-interest financing, power subsidies, and write-offs of debt owed to taxpayers that are deemed beyond a water district's ``ability to pay'' under reclamation law.

And then, finally, it is important to note that even water districts who pay for this water over time, they still don't pay for any land that might be appurtenant to these facilities. That land, under this bill, would go along with the title transfer, and so would the mineral rights underneath that land. These would be essentially bonus subsidies, potentially, to these water districts without proper compensation to the U.S. taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, we need to insist on the safeguards that I and others, when we worked on this issue, have proposed and that are so lacking, unfortunately, in this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on my friend's point about privatization, let me just clarify that, in many cases, water districts, certainly many of those in California and many of those that serve agricultural interests in the Central Valley, are comprised and governed by private agribusiness owners and private landowners. They elect the board. They set the agenda.

Further, by the terms of this bill, it allows transfer to joint power entities which, under California law, at least--I would suspect, the laws of other States as well--can include nonpublic agency entities.

So I believe the concern about privatization is certainly valid in this case.

Now, the gentleman from California has mentioned the fact that one of the safeguards in legislation that I have proposed has been included in this bill. I am grateful for that. But the back end protection of the possibility of a joint resolution coming out of Congress within a certain period of time, while not insignificant, is pretty hard to actually achieve in a slow-moving Congress.

Far more important are the other safeguards that were in my legislation on the front end of the process, including safeguards that were intended to ensure that bigger multiuse, more controversial, more public benefit-oriented

projects would not be subject to this type of authority by the executive branch.

Those front-end protections are important, and the most important of them, of course, is that for those type of projects, Congress would retain project-by-project approval authority, and not cede it to the executive branch.

In effect, my bill included a belt and two suspenders. At best, the bill from my friend from Colorado includes one suspender and nothing else. So we disagree on the adequacy of these safeguards.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Colorado.

So let's talk about this Huffman safeguard that has been discussed most recently. It is a perfectly good piece of a safeguard framework, if it is accompanied by all of the other pieces that went with it and that are designed to go with it. And that included all of the front-end protections that were part of the legislation I had proposed, but which my Republican colleagues did not include in their bill, to make sure that only the right kind of projects--not the controversial ones--were subject to this new grant of authority to the executive branch. That is what this is all about.

Simply tacking on one safeguard, which, frankly, was the flimsiest of them all to begin with, doesn't come anywhere close to addressing the problem. As I have said, instead of a belt and suspenders, it is a single suspender--a perfectly good suspender, but try walking around with one suspender all day long and you will find it not very adequate.

This bill recklessly authorizes the de facto privatization of public infrastructure. It fails to protect interests of numerous stakeholders, including American taxpayers, Tribes, fishing groups, environmental and recreational interests, and, finally, it comes from the bankrupt Trump infrastructure plan that reflects this administration's failed privatization philosophy.

The public deserves a real infrastructure plan, not a shell game that simply gives away and privatizes existing public infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the part where I give the usual stipulation that this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

This amendment is simple. The underlying bill allows the Department of the Interior to dole out publicly owned infrastructure and other public assets to water districts.

My amendment simply says, the Department of the Interior can't give away public assets to a water district if that district has employed the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Interior as a lobbyist in the previous 3 years.

Put another way, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary can't give away public infrastructure to those who recently signed their lobbying paychecks. It should go without saying that this basic ethics requirement is needed, particularly in this administration, where conflicts of interest and corruption run so rampant.

The Department of the Interior has been mired in scandals. The Interior Secretary's actions have triggered at least 10 government investigations. It was also recently revealed that the Secretary and/or his family, are currently in a business partnership to develop a former industrial site with the chairman of the energy company, Halliburton. Halliburton, of course, has a lot of business pending before the Department of the Interior. This is an outrageous conflict of interest, and demonstrates how hollow the President's pledge to drain the swamp has been.

Further, Mr. Speaker, Interior Deputy Secretary Bernhardt, the number two official at the agency, was most recently employed as a Federal lobbyist and had a long list of clients with business before the Department, including clients who stand to gain with the passage of this bill by taking ownership of public infrastructure. We must not allow such blatant conflicts to stand.

It is time for Congress to exercise some oversight over this administration and install some basic rules of accountability and ethics.

If my Republican colleagues are serious about exercising their oversight responsibilities, they will support my amendment. It simply makes sure that the public's assets cannot be given away to big business and narrow special interests if those same interests employed agency leadership in the past 3 years.

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is our country's most important fisheries law. Magnuson is the framework for governing fishing in Federal waters, which is big business in this country: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that commercial and recreational fishing generates roughly $200 billion in economic value and supports 1.7 million jobs.

This significant economic impact depends on sustainable management of fish stocks and protecting the ocean ecosystems on which they depend. Now, the 1996 and 2006 reauthorizations of Magnuson moved us in that direction after decades of overfishing had led to the collapse of fisheries and devastation for fishing communities in many parts of the country.

Instead of building on that success, I am sad to say that H.R. 200, which many have called the empty oceans act, would roll back the important conservation and management standards that have helped us get to this point, that have helped end overfishing, and that have helped rebuild a record number of fish stocks. This attempt to return us to the bad old days of failed fishery management policy and overfishing that inevitably follows from loose standards should be seen as unacceptable to everyone who cares about sustainable fisheries.

Now, Magnuson, as has been said, has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. I have tried to work with Mr. Young in good faith to find a path towards a bipartisan compromise, and I thank him for his efforts to get there. We came close. I am disappointed that we fell short.

But we need to be very clear that Democrats are opposing H.R. 200 not for partisan reasons, but for important policy grounds that, in the past, have never been partisan and should not be partisan today.

That is also why many fishery stakeholders oppose this bill in its current form. They don't want to see Magnuson's core conservation provisions undermined. That is why letters have been pouring in in opposition to this bill, because it does undermine the very heart of our country's flagship fisheries law.

We have heard, for example, from the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, Fishing Communities Coalition, Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance, Seafood Harvesters of America, Maine Coast Fishermen's Association, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Northwest Guides and Anglers Association, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Gulf Restoration Network, American Fly Fishing Tackle Association, and on and on, including hundreds of chefs, scientists, and recreational anglers, among others. In fact, the stack of letters that we have received is quite voluminous, as I have them right here.

The changes my Republican colleagues are proposing to Magnuson are irresponsible. I am disappointed that they are ignoring the concerns that have been expressed from so many stakeholders who are telling them to be more careful as we reauthorize this important bill. There is an old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The bottom line with this Magnuson reauthorization is this: the law is working as intended. Reauthorization is important, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the law's core provisions that have made it so successful.

Mr. Chairman, I have offered an alternate amendment to reauthorize Magnuson. It contains constructive, bipartisan ideas on how to best manage our fisheries by allowing for flexibility and modernizing aspects of fisheries management, but doing so without undermining the core provisions of the law.

As an angler myself, who represents many commercial and recreational fishing interests in northern California, I strongly believe that there

needs to be a bipartisan path forward. I would still very much like to have meaningful discussions with my colleagues across the aisle to develop legislation in the spirit of previous bipartisan Magnuson reauthorizations, while leaving the core conservation and management provisions intact.

We can also make progress and do more to support recreational fishing interests. We should do that together, without sacrificing the science- based framework that is so important to the long-term sustainability of fisheries management.

Unfortunately, H.R. 200 falls short in this regard, and I must request that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the bill in its current form.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Mr. Chairman, while I certainly appreciate the size of the Louisiana and Alaska fisheries--and to some extent, I am jealous of some of the fishing opportunities that exist in those places. I have fished, myself, in Alaska, but Mr. Graves has yet to invite me to Louisiana for some fishing, and we hope to fix that going forward.

I don't want to leave the impression that the fishing industry and fishing communities in other parts of the country are not just as important. I also don't want to leave the impression that there is universal support for H.R. 200 even in Alaska and Louisiana. So we are going to have a little bit of a battle of the posters, Mr. Chairman.

This is a partial listing of the groups that oppose H.R. 200 in its current form. They oppose it for the reasons that I have mentioned. They consider it irresponsible to undermine the science-based catch limits and rebuilding framework that have been so critical to the success of this bill going forward, and they don't want to see us backslide into the era of loose regulations and overfishing that will inevitably follow. They have seen this movie before, and they know what happens when we undermine core conservation provisions.

So among the many groups and organizations listed in opposition, we certainly have the Alaska Long Line Fishermen's Association, over here, the Gulf Fishermen's Association, and the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, among many, many others in opposition to H.R. 200.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to respectfully push back on the idea that you have to be a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus to have standing in this debate.

The fact is, and we have shared some of the groups opposing this legislation, the opposition includes many recreational fishing interests, and opposing legislators include many of us who actually do spend a lot of time on the water catching fish. So let's dispel that notion.

Now, there are some in the recreational fishing sector who will argue that Magnuson is broken, that it does not work for them, because, as they explain, it requires recreational fisheries, just like other fisheries, to abide by overall catch limits that are based on science. In other words, the law doesn't work because they don't want to have to stop fishing when their catch reaches unsustainable levels. That is a situation not of a law that is broken. It actually shows that we have a law that is playing a very, very important role.

Now, what would H.R. 200 do if it were enacted into law? It would enable recreational anglers to take more fish right now without regard for the future.

Proponents of the bill are advocating to increase recreational catch limits, reallocate catch away from commercial fishermen with mandated reallocation reviews, and water down the sustainable fishing mandates in current law.

That would mean taking more fish now, threatening fisheries with the risk of overfishing in the future, which we know, because we have seen this movie before, will lead to bans and closed fisheries in the future.

Managing fisheries sometimes requires tough choices. It shouldn't be about immediate gratification. And let's remember, the recreational fishermen are not disadvantaged under the current management system. In fact, in some regions, like the Gulf of Mexico, recreational fishers currently take home 70 percent of the Gulf's most popular fish. Recreational anglers land an overwhelming majority of species like amberjack, cobia, red drum, king mackerel, spotted sea trout, and triggerfish. And for the Gulf red snapper, the division of quota between the recreational and seafood sectors is a more balanced situation, roughly 50/50.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, of course I have great respect for my colleague from Alaska. In fact, in many ways, he deserves credit for helping craft the original Fishery Conservation and Management Act, for bringing to the Nation what could be considered the Alaska model of fisheries management through subsequent Magnuson Act reauthorizations. So I find myself, ironically, in the position of defending the framework that he essentially created against my colleagues' attempts to make changes that I believe are fundamentally threatening to that very framework.

It is this Alaska model that we support, complete with science-based catch limits, industry accountability for sustainable harvest, and the constant march towards sustainable practices. That is what has made U.S. fisheries, under the Magnuson Act, a model for the world, and that is what we are trying to continue.

Now, it has been suggested that rebuilding timeframes are too rigid and too restrictive. We will talk more about this when we get to some of the specific debate on amendments. But it is important to know that there is flexibility on rebuilding goals in the Magnuson Act and that flexibility is being used. It is also working. And a great example of that is what has happened with sea scallops under the Magnuson Act.

Fishery managers implemented a rebuilding plan for sea scallops in 1998. Within a couple of years, the fishery had been rebuilt, and now the scallop fishery is one of the country's most valuable fisheries.

In 1998, a little over 13 million pounds of scallop were landed. By 2016, that amount had tripled to 40 million pounds, resulting in more money in fishermen's pockets.

So there is a lot at stake with these issues, and we should bear in mind not only the numbers we talked about regarding the many jobs, the billions of dollars contributed to the economy from commercial and recreational fishing, but the potential to do even more and to do even better if we manage our fisheries carefully.

NOAA has estimated that rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks would generate an additional $31 billion in seafood sales, support an additional 500,000 jobs, and increase the revenue that fishermen receive at the dock by $2.2 billion. That is why we want to keep these critical provisions that have worked so well, because we can do even better if we stay the course.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, we certainly support recreational fishing. I do. I have a lot of it in my district, and that is one of the reasons why, as I worked with Mr. Young to try to achieve a bipartisan reauthorization bill, we were willing to accept many of the provisions regarding recreational fishing. But you don't help recreational anglers when you go too far in relaxing annual catch limits or when you go too far in rolling back the rebuilding framework. Because when these fisheries crash, as inevitably they will, it is not just commercial fishing boats that are going to be out of the water. Everyone suffers. These fisheries will be closed.

And that is why so many recreational fishing interest groups and individuals have weighed in in opposition to H.R. 200. They have concluded, as we have, that the short-term gratification for some is not worth the long-term damage to all.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, while we have some differences in the two sides, I don't believe that I have been injecting hyperpartisan rhetoric in this debate. Our differences, as I have emphasized multiple times, are about policy. This is not about which party we are on. In fact, it used to be very bipartisan, that this Congress would defend science-based catch limits and rigorous rebuilding timeframes because we all knew that those were very, very important provisions for sustainable fisheries, whether you were a Democrat or a Republican.

Now, if there is some group out there who has written a letter that refers to the wrong section, or includes inflammatory rhetoric because they feel like they were kept out of the loop as this bill developed, maybe that is an indication that they were kept out of the loop as this bill developed. And maybe that should have been considered along with the pile of letters that have come into my office and into other offices expressing fierce opposition to some of these irresponsible changes being proposed in this Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization.

Rather than disparage the stakeholders who are opposing this bill, I think we should listen to them.

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

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

Mr. Chair, we have some very critical differences of opinion on whether this bill is a good idea after years of success in rebuilding depleted fish stocks, after all of the economic value that we have created by allowing commercial and recreational fishing to resume in places all over this country, where at one time it was shut down because we failed to properly manage our fisheries.

We think, fundamentally, it is a bad idea at this point to declare mission accomplished and start rolling back the very bedrock provisions that have enabled us to achieve this success. It is with that in mind that I request Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in 1996, during floor debate passage of the bipartisan Sustainable Fisheries Act that amended and reauthorized Magnuson, the gentleman from Alaska said the following:

It is crucial that the management agencies within the

Federal Government be proactive in protecting fisheries

rather than attempting to address overfished stocks after

they are in a crisis situation.

I couldn't agree more, and it is true now, more than ever. Twenty-two years ago our fisheries were in shambles. Rampant overfishing had decimated stocks to the point of collapse and Congress needed to make some tough choices to ensure that there were fish left to catch in our oceans.

We made tough choices in 1996, and we made them in 2006, putting in place requirements to end overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, and setting science-based annual catch limits. And because we did that, because we made those tough choices, the number of overfished stocks is at an all-time low. The number of rebuilt stocks is at an all-time high, and most stocks are trending in a positive direction that is benefiting fishermen in coastal communities.

I cannot support legislation that would turn our backs on what has worked so well, but H.R. 200, unfortunately, would take us in the wrong direction, back to the bad old days of fisheries management and taxpayer bailouts because we loosen the rules that prevent overfishing.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his many years of service in this Chamber, and I would note that those of us who were not here in 1996 are not so-called johnny-come-latelies, but we are simply younger than the gentleman. In fact, just about everyone in this House is younger than the gentleman, and I say that with great respect.

I have worked on fisheries issues throughout my time in this Chamber and, before that, for 6 years in the California Assembly. In my personal life, I have been fishing as long as I can remember. I have even pulled in set nets on a commercial boat in Cook Inlet in the gentleman's district. So my years of interest in these issues is largely why I am so disappointed to be standing here debating a fisheries bill that is, unfortunately, too partisan.

My staff and I worked hard and in good faith to find a bipartisan compromise, and while the manager's amendment does remove some of the most egregious language that would undermine environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the American Antiquities Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, the fact is those provisions never should have been in a Magnuson reauthorization bill in the first place. They were always nonstarters, and removing them does not fix the serious threat to fisheries posed by H.R. 200's undermining of catch limits and rebuilding timeframes.

What is more, my staff and I did offer compromise language from Senator Wicker's Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act. Even that language that every single Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee had supported in markup was rejected, unfortunately, by my colleagues across the aisle and did not find its way into the manager's amendment.

We also offered on these points of disagreement for catch limits and rebuilding timeframes to simply leave existing law in place because it has been working, and that, too, was unacceptable, unfortunately, to our colleagues across the aisle. So what is left before

us in H.R. 200 would fundamentally gut provisions that have made Magnuson so successful.

Now is not the time to move away from catch limits based on sound science and toward catch limits based on wishful thinking. It is not the time to allow rebuilding of overstocked fish to be delayed indefinitely. We have seen this movie before, and we know what happens.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment does remove some poison pill provisions that should never have been in the bill, but it does nothing to fix the wrongheaded rollbacks of catch limits and rebuilding timeframes that will inevitably lead us to overfishing. That is why this bill has been called the empty oceans act, and that is why it is opposed by so many stakeholders.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the dozens of letters we have received since the manager's amendment was introduced.

Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish

Shareholders' Alliance,

July 5, 2018.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record this column recently written by the head of the National Marine Fisheries Service and also the chief scientist for the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Bush administration.

I would like to call special attention to this statement by these experts from the Bush administration, who say: ``We believe this is an ill-conceived, dangerous piece of legislation that would undermine the tremendous progress in fisheries rebuilding and sustainable management that has occurred since the last reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2007.''

Don't Hurt Fisheries With Dangerous Legislation

(By William Hogarth and Steven Murawski, special to the Tampa Bay

Times)

This Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives is

scheduled to vote on H.R. 200, the Strengthen Fishing

Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries

Management Act. We believe this is an ill-conceived,

dangerous piece of legislation that would undermine the

tremendous progress in fisheries rebuilding and sustainable

management that has occurred since the latest

reauthorizations of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries

Conservation and Management Act in 2007.

Since 2007, more than 40 of the most overfished and

historically important fish stocks in the nation have been

recovered. Overfishing now occurs for fewer than 10 percent

of stocks, the lowest proportion since records have been

kept. Rebuilding stocks has resulted in increases in

fisheries yields and translated into lower prices to

consumers, more business-friendly approaches to commercial

fisheries management and more healthy recreational fisheries.

The term ``flexibility'' in H.R. 200 is a code word that

would undermine timely, effective management of stocks when

downturns inevitably occur. Heavy on requirements for studies

and other administrative requirements, H.R. 200 would make

fisheries management more cumbersome. The bill as written

would delay timely, effective conservation responses and

would limit the flexibility to use innovative management

tools. Healthy fisheries without healthy stocks is a non

sequitur. We urge the House to reject this piece of

legislation that seeks to solve problems that simply do not

exist.

Mr. Chairman, 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, supporters of this bill argue that the requirement to rebuild overfished stocks needs more ``flexibility,'' but it is important to note that the Magnuson Act already provides a lot of flexibility.

While I am fully aware that it isn't always easy or popular to implement fishing restrictions, management tools like annual catch limits and rebuilding plans are essential to ensuring a future for our fisheries and fishing industry.

In my district, fishermen went through several tough years while groundfish stocks were depleted. Magnuson provided the scientific and regulatory framework to bring those fisheries back. We have now rebuilt half of our groundfish species, and more are on the way to recovery.

These accomplishments certainly did not come easily. Our fishermen had to make sacrifices. But the long-term health of our fisheries and communities that depend on them in making these tough decisions has benefited from it. That is why these decisions were supported by commercial and recreational fishermen. That support has been integral to sustaining the fisheries that are critical for West Coast communities. This success story, by the way, has been replicated around the country time and again.

Our success and the sustainability of the fishing industry rely on harvesting from healthy and productive fish stocks. Fishing restrictions are only put in place because they are absolutely necessary. If there aren't enough fish to support strong harvests both now and in the future, we have no choice but to cut back in order to avoid the tragedy of the commons.

It is important to note that the law allows councils to delay rebuilding when the biology of the stock, environmental conditions, or international management considerations present challenges. Because of these broad but fair exemptions, more than 50 percent of all overfished stocks today have rebuilding plans that are longer than the 10-year baseline in the act. So there is flexibility, and it is being used.

Further, current law gives councils 2 years to put a rebuilding plan in place and another year to reduce rather than end overfishing. That is 3 years of lead time before significant harvest restrictions go into effect.

My amendment requires that an exemption to strong rebuilding timelines would only be permitted if rebuilding plans have at least a 75 percent chance of success. That is contrasted with the 50 percent chance of success that ordinarily applies to rebuilding plans.

Now, I am proud that, without being required to do so, most of the West Coast groundfish fishery recovery plans have a greater than 75 percent chance of meeting their rebuilding goals, and we have seen the success of that. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all the regions.

The bottom line is that we should not be weakening standards unless we have a very robust rebuilding plan in place. That is what this amendment addresses.

I want to note that, in addition to all of that, the current Magnuson Act requires a rebuilding timeline be as short as possible. H.R. 200 would change that requirement to be as short as practicable. This is a very problematic weakening of the law, with real consequences.

Currently, the agency has to do whatever is possible, whatever is feasible. Practicable is a lower standard. It means the stocks would not be built in a reasonable timeframe, and this change could even allow the agency to do little or nothing to rebuild a stock.

History has shown us what happens if we don't do that. We need to tackle rebuilding aggressively in order to succeed. Rebuilding plans that take a weak approach to harvest or drag on rebuilding for many years inevitably fail.

So, unless the law is very clear and strong on this point, managers could choose not to deal with rebuilding situations proactively. My amendment addresses this to be sure that we continue to see fish stocks rebuild so that fishermen can ultimately reap the rewards.

Mr. Chairman, I request an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it would set a bad precedent by waiving the requirements to provide compensatory mitigation for federally authorized maintenance dredging projects in inland waterways, inlets, or harbors located in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

As it should, Magnuson requires compensatory mitigation to protect essential fish habitat, including seagrass. This mitigation requires the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation of aquatic resources to offset unavoidable adverse impacts from activities like dredging.

Many of the inland waterways in the Southeast that need maintenance dredging are actually home to seagrasses, so these States are required to mitigate the negative impacts. Compensatory mitigation is the most obvious, commonsense solution for offsetting the damage to these important habitats.

Fish depend on healthy seagrass habitats to survive and reproduce, not only in the Southeast but all across the Nation's coasts, including in my district.

Moreover, we need all the help that we can get to recover seagrasses. Globally, 30 percent of seagrass meadows have disappeared. Of the seagrasses that remain, nearly a quarter are threatened or near threatened. In fact, the only marine plant listed as endangered in the United States is a seagrass found in Florida.

Seagrasses are highly productive hotspots for biodiversity and can act as a carbon sink, making this habitat a critical component in buffering oceans against the impacts of climate change. Protecting and restoring essential fish habitat and seagrass is very important to maintain productive fisheries and healthy oceans.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by stating that I can appreciate the frustration that the gentleman may be feeling, feeling like this is a process of remitigating for the same thing over and over again.

I think it is a little more complicated than that, but if the gentleman is willing to work going forward on some ways to perhaps consolidate the regulatory burden and find something for the long term that provides a little more certainty and streamlining, I would be happy to work with him on that.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Graves. This amendment requires the Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress, but it is unclear what the overall purpose of this report would be.

In fact, because of the vagueness of that purpose, there has been concern that it may be about identifying what would happen if the overall value of the red snapper fishery commercial quota was completely taken away or given to private anglers. Would this report be used to make the argument that the red snapper quota should be reallocated to recreational fishermen? I can't support either of those propositions, nor a reporting requirement with such ambiguous goals and potentially significant impacts on the fishery.

When it comes to setting these allocations, picking winners and losers from among commercial and recreational fishing interests, that should be the job of regional councils, not of Congress. In fact, the entire structure of Magnuson and the council system is designed to encourage stakeholder participation on the councils, from a regional perspective.

We need to let the fishery management councils do their job and not have Congress micromanaging these type of decisions.

It is unclear, also, why this amendment only targets limited access privilege permits. Every type of commercial or recreational fishing activity could be viewed as having a ``resource rent.'' So it is questionable that every other form of commercial and recreational activity would be excluded from this type of report. There is no reason why an analysis of the economic value commercial and recreational fishermen extract from a Federal resource would be limited to just catch share programs.

Finally, with respect to the conflict of interest provisions in this bill, I would have supported--and I have talked to the gentleman about this--this amendment, had it been a report on ways to eliminate conflicts of interest on all fishery management councils, because there are concerns, bipartisan concerns, in that regard, and it is something that should be addressed to improve fishery management in all councils.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a rather targeted and direct attack on what many view as a well-managed commercial red snapper fishery, and we should not be devoting public resources to such a report.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, we are not opposed.

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

Mr. Chair, I do rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. This is an amendment that would lift the ban on striped bass fishing in the Block Island transit zone between Montauk, New York, and Block Island, Rhode Island.

Commercial and recreational fishing is allowed in State waters, as the gentleman said, from shore to 3 miles offshore. Striped bass is managed by the States from Maine through North Carolina through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Federal waters have been closed to striped bass fishing since 1990 when a moratorium went into effect to protect juvenile fish entering the spawning population and to help rebuild a fishery that was recovering from decades of overfishing.

There has been an ongoing effort to reopen the striped bass fishery in the transit zone, yet there is no science to justify it. In contrast, the science shows that allowing fishing in this transit zone, which encompasses about 155 square miles of habitat, could disproportionately impact spawning females and, thus, threaten the overall health of the striped bass stock.

This would be detrimental to some of biggest recreational and commercial fishing ports on the East Coast. Opening up Federal waters in one region would undermine the protections and commitment to rebuilding that others along the coast have invested in. It would set a bad precedent in managing the striped bass fishery, which still has a long way to go.

Finally, Congress should not be legislating on species-specific fishery management actions. This issue is regularly assessed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. We need to let that commission do its job and make decisions that are based on science.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, these certainly are arguments that can and should be made at the Atlantic Council. In fact, they are made regularly, and that council has representation regionally, has representation from all the key stakeholders, and has access to the best available science, the state-of-the-art science on this issue. So I think we need to let that council do its job, and, with that, I request a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th Anniversary of Pini Ace Hardware, which has served the City of Novato and greater Marin County since 1918, enduring through disasters, including a large fire in 1944, and major world events such as World War I, World War II, and the Great Depression.

Founded by Henri Pini, who immigrated from Switzerland in 1906, Pini Hardware started out as a small grocery store, selling dry goods and produce. Over the years, the store relocated and expanded to respond to the changing demands of the growing community, and was sold by the Pini family after Henri passed away. Currently owned by Tom, Russel, and David Young, not only is Pini Hardware celebrating 100 years of business this year, but also 50 years of Young family ownership.

Well-known for outstanding customer service, Pini Ace Hardware is praised by shoppers for its old-fashioned and community-oriented approach, and for its enduring community service. The store regularly sponsors school sports teams, hosts monthly Kid Club events, and participates in local events such as the Downtown Novato Tree Lighting and Scream on the Green as well as in Novato's Fourth of July parade with the Pini Plunger Brigade. As a member of the Novato Chamber of Commerce, Pini Hardware is a shining example of the Chamber's mission of ``Building Business, Building Community.''

Mr. Speaker, after a century of outstanding customer and community service, Pini Ace Hardware's legacy to Novato and Marin County is immeasurable, and I wish them another 100 years of success. It is therefore appropriate to honor Pini Ace Hardware on this momentous occasion.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is the most corrupt in our country's long history. They are enriching themselves and rewarding special interests and campaign donors like nothing we have ever seen. If you need proof, look no further than our polluter in chief, Scott Pruitt.

Every day brings another Pruitt bombshell. Just today, news broke that, last year, he enlisted a top EPA aide to ask big Republican donors to help his wife find a job, eventually securing her a position with a conservative political group, Judicial Crisis Network. We have learned about similar efforts involving Pruitt's attempt to secure a Chick-fil-A franchise for his wife using EPA resources.

He raised millions of dollars as attorney general of Oklahoma from oil, gas, and coal companies for his campaign. He chaired a dark-money group that organized State challenges to clean water and clean air protections. He sued the EPA 14 times as Oklahoma AG to block public health protections while raking in campaign contributions from his polluter co-litigants.

He is facing more than 12 Federal investigations into his corruption, influence peddling, and waste of millions in taxpayer dollars on his lavish lifestyle.

Mr. Speaker, in any other administration, at any other time, he would have been fired long ago. It is time for Pruitt to go, and it is time for Congress to do something about the toxic corruption in the Trump administration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Arlene Beverly Halligan, who passed away on April 1, 2018 at the age of 82, after a lifetime of public service to her community.

Mrs. Halligan was born on March 30, 1936 in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and later moved to San Francisco in the late 1950s, looking .to enjoy the single life in a big city. Not long after, she would meet and marry Jim Halligan, and settle in Marin County to raise their children Shea and Kelly.

Known in and around Marin County as a prominent philanthropist, Mrs. Halligan's most recent, treasured venture was the restoration of Mt. Tamalpias Railroad's historic Gravity Car Barn and Depot, where she once held the position of Project Director for the Mount Tamalpias Association. Working on her passion project to the very end, just weeks before her passing, Mrs. Halligan helped to secure the final steps to bring back to Marin County the No. 9 Heisler from where it has been located in Scotia, California. It was the only remaining locomotive from the Mt. Tamalpias Scenic Railway.

In addition to her extensive community service, Mrs. Halligan was well known around Marin and beyond for her famous Christmas Eve parties, which many residents looked forward to all year long. Mrs. Halligan could also be found playing a lively game of tennis, traveling around the world, passionately discussing politics, or voraciously reading anything she could get her hands on.

Mrs. Halligan is survived by her son Shea Halligan, daughter Kelly Halligan and son in-law Don LeBuhn, and her three grandchildren Samantha, Andrew, and Mackenzie LeBuhn.

Mr. Speaker, the depth of Mrs. Halligan's service to her community has left a positive legacy across Marin County and the entire Bay Area, and she will be profoundly missed. It is therefore appropriate that we pay tribute to her today and honor her memory.

Mr. Speaker, on the day of June 8th, 2018, I was unavoidably detained and as a result, I was absent for rollcall votes 254-257.

Had I been present for the rollcall vote 254, on Agreeing to the Amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the rollcall vote 255, on Agreeing to the Amendment, I would have voted ``aye.''

Had I been present for the rollcall vote 256, on motion to recommit with Instructions, I would have voted ``aye.''

Had I been present for the rollcall vote 257, on passage of H.R. 5895, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson in recognition of the Petaluma Gap's recent designation as an American Viticultural Area (AVA). Spanning 202,476 total acres, the Petaluma Gap AVA represents the culmination and heritage of more than 180 years of steadfast dedication to the craft of winemaking throughout the region.

The first wine producing grapes were planted in what would become the Petaluma Gap in the 1830s, with the first winery later established in 1884. Wine production in the region then continued to grow at an increasingly rapid pace for the next thirty years. However, with the establishment of prohibition in the 1920s and the influx of Phylloxera aphids that followed, the region's wine production plummeted and remained in tatters through the 1960s.

By 1987, planting conditions and subsequent wine production began to rebound, which led to the establishment of the Sonoma Coast AVA. The Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance eventually formed from this resurgence in 2005, and initiated the AVA process for the Petaluma Gap ten years later. On December 7, 2017, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) approved the alliance's application, and the Petaluma Gap AVA then went into effect on January 8th of this year.

Today, Petaluma Gap contains over 4,000 vineyard acres that support more than eighty commercially producing vineyards and nine bonded wineries, contributing to a thirty-four billion dollar California wine industry. It is the 241st AVA to be established in the United States, the 139th to be established in the state of California, and the 18th AVA to include a portion of Sonoma County.

Mr. Speaker, the designation of the Petaluma Gap as an AVA represents nearly two centuries of winegrowers working to build a distinct reputation and heritage. It is therefore appropriate that we stand together today, in celebration of this momentous achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Susan Williams, a world renowned marine ecologist who died last month in a tragic car accident. Dr. Williams' scientific research on coastal ecology and her activism surrounding the expansion of marine sanctuaries have left an indelible impact on the world. Born in 1951, Dr. Susan Williams earned a bachelor's of science in biology, a master's degree in biological oceanography, and a doctoral degree in botany and marine biology. After finishing her doctoral program in 1981, she conducted research at major marine laboratories across the world for three years. By 1986, after serving as the science director for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's National Undersea Research Program, Dr. Williams started teaching at universities while continuing her research. She became the director of the Coastal and Marine Institute at San Diego State University in 1990, and the director of the Bodega Marine Laboratory at the University of California Davis in 2000. Dr. Williams stepped down from that role in 2010, and became a full-time professor and researcher at the University of California, Davis, until her death in 2018.

Throughout her career, Dr. Williams' research underlined the connection between the health of oceans and the communities surrounding them. Her work on the ecology of nearshore marine ecosystems, seagrass, coral reefs, and invasive species helped illustrate the impact of warming oceans on coastal environments and yielded strategies for mitigating those impacts. Her work was heralded by the international scientific community, and provided the foundation for critical changes to state and federal policies addressing the management of coastal environments. As an educator and mentor, she had an immense impact: she supported students around the world, encouraged women in science, bridged international divides in her collaborations, and empowered others to be leaders in the field.

During Dr. Williams' ten-year tenure as the director of the Bodega Marine Laboratory, she brought scientists from around the world to conduct research at the laboratory, while at the same time working with local schools and the community in adopting conservation practices based on the latest scientific discoveries. Through this work and her ongoing research, Dr. Williams became a valued advisor for state and federal officials seeking to protect the California coast. Nowhere was this more apparent than through her work in significantly expanding two national marine sanctuaries off the coast of Northern California: the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the Gulf of the Farallones, now known as the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Both sanctuary boundary expansions were proposed in legislation in 2005, and were ultimately expanded to more than twice their original size by the Obama administration in 2015. Throughout that ten-year process, Dr. Williams was the driving force that propelled the policy forward.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Susan Williams' lifelong pursuit of knowledge has left a positive legacy across our country and the world. It is therefore appropriate that we pay tribute to her today, and honor the memory of a scientist who believed that no problem was insurmountable.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Daniel Price on the occasion of his retirement after 25 years of dedicated service as senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Eureka.

In 1974, Daniel Price graduated from Westmont College in Santa Barbara with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies. After obtaining a Master of Divinity degree in 1978 from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, he was ordained through the Presbyterian Church (USA) and served as Associate Pastor of the Easton Presbyterian Church in Fresno. In 1987, Pastor Price pursued his Ph.D. in Theology at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. After completing his doctorate, he became pastor at the International Protestant Church of Zurich, Switzerland, where he gained experience serving in a more urban setting.

In 1993, Pastor Price moved to Eureka, California, where he has served as senior pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Eureka for the past 25 years. During his tenure, Pastor Price led a major renovation of the First Presbyterian church facility, which was completed in the fall of 2005. He implemented two. services, one contemporary and one traditional, and writes a weekly column for his parish.

Throughout his career, Pastor Price has engaged in his community through volunteer and community efforts. He currently serves as president of the Betty Kwan Chinn Foundation and is a former member of Eureka Rotary and de facto chair of the Eureka Interfaith Fellowship and North Coast Presbyterian Parish. He taught religious studies courses at Humboldt State University and the North Coast Bible Institute.

Mr. Speaker, Pastor Daniel Price's leadership and service have left many lasting and positive impacts on his community and is worthy of recognition. I urge my colleagues to join me in extending our congratulations to him and best wishes in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brad Breithaupt of Marin County, California, on the occasion of his retirement, for 42 years of dedication to local journalism.

Brad Breithaupt was raised in Marin County, where he attended Redwood High School and College of Marin. He then graduated with a bachelor's degree in English from U.C. Berkeley in 1976 and began his career in local journalism that same year.

For the next three years, Brad Breithaupt served a variety of roles at The Ark newspaper in Tiburon, ranging from reporter, to editor, to publisher. By 1979, he started working for the Marin Suburban Newspaper, now known as Marinscope, and would go on to serve as a reporter there for the next 4 years.

He became the managing editor for the Ross Valley Reporter, San Rafael News Pointer, and Ignacio News.

After seven years of quality local reporting in a variety of newspaper roles, Brad Breithaupt was recruited by the Marin Independent Journal in 1983. For the next 35 years, Mr. Breithaupt remained at the Marin Independent Journal, where he served as a reporter, columnist, city editor, editorial writer, and editorial editor, among other roles.

During his time at the Marin Independent Journal, Brad Breithaupt stayed committed to balanced reporting and shining a light on causes in need of the public's attention. His work put a spotlight on local and regional topics including crime, community politics, and infrastructure hazards, driving the region's agenda and helping set priorities for the public and decision-makers.

Mr. Speaker, Brad Breithaupt's career represents more than a collection of articles, but rather a laudable example of the role that local journalism can play in informing and supporting our communities. Given the adverse conditions that local news sources increasingly face across the country, it seems fitting and appropriate to celebrate the culmination of this momentous career. Therefore, please join me in congratulating him on his retirement and expressing our deep appreciation for his long and exceptional career in local journalism.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado is right that the pace of revelations and controversies surrounding this Trump White House and their personal financial and political involvement with Russia, their attempts to interfere with and obstruct justice relating to Mr. Mueller's investigation, the pace of all that is just dizzy. So, here we are, 1 year into the work of Special Counsel Mueller.

I am glad that Congressman Perlmutter began his remarks by reminding us of the context of this issue; the fact that what happened in the 2016 Presidential election was a big deal. It was unprecedented. A foreign adversary maliciously interfered in our election with a specific intent to help one candidate and to hurt another. They placed a bet on Donald Trump. They put their thumb on the scale in every way they could to help Donald Trump.

Maybe that is why all along he has been reluctant to acknowledge what obviously happened. He doesn't want to talk about it. He wants to write it all off as a witch hunt and a conspiracy theory. He probably feels a little defensive about that cloud of legitimacy involving Russian interference.

Based on what we know so far, there may be an even more sinister explanation for some of his behavior. It may be that he--or, at least a lot of people very close to him--were actively working with the Russians as part of this. That is what the Mueller investigation is looking into and that is what the American people have to find out. We have to know the full extent of exactly what happened, no matter where those facts may lead.

The truth is, at this 1-year mark in this historic investigation, this historic scandal, there is plenty of reason to worry about what President Trump might do by way of trying to block and stop and interfere with this investigation. It is not just us saying it. You can look at his own word.

He has said at various times in recent months: ``At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved.''

That is obviously a threat, whether that is using his pardon power or beginning to fire people in the Department of Justice, the FBI, or even the Special Counsel himself.

He has threatened to reveal conflicts of interest of the Special Counsel. Obviously, this is a favorite tactic of President Trump, trying to intimidate, trying to posture with folks who he perceives as adversaries.

He said on another occasion: ``Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy.''

These are the ravings of someone who is acting very defensively. And I would say as a former attorney--Congressman Perlmutter is a former attorney himself--it really speaks to a consciousness of guilt. We would argue that if we were in a court of law and we had evidence of statements such as this repeatedly calling this investigation a witch hunt.

On another occasion, he says: ``As I have been saying all along, it is all a big hoax by Democrats based on payments and lies. There should never have been a Special Counsel appointed. Witch hunt.''

On another occasion he said:

Why don't I just fire Mueller? Well, we'll see what

happens.

Taken together, all of his various statements should be very troubling to anyone who cares about the independence of our law enforcement agencies and about the integrity of this critically important investigation.

I am glad to stand with the gentleman tonight and every night that we have had these Special Order hours to continue to make sure that our colleagues here in the House know that we are going to defend this investigation, that we are going to do everything we can to make sure that our law enforcement professionals and Special Counsel Mueller have the chance to fully find the evidence, wherever it may lead, to get the truth out to the American people. We deserve nothing less.

I am glad to see our colleague, Joe Courtney from Connecticut, joining the conversation.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, that infamous Trump Tower meeting in June of 2016 just stinks to high heaven; the gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who looks objectively at what we know about that meeting, anyone who is not hosting a show on FOX News, at least, would feel that there is a big, big problem here and we have got to ask some hard questions.

Of course, Donald Trump, Jr., initially outright lied about it, said it was about adoption. And then we saw the full text of the email exchange, making it very clear that this was the front-end part of a quid pro quo between the Trump operation and the Russians, that this was the offer of assistance, of dirt, of a bombshell on the Clinton campaign. And of course that was greeted with enthusiasm by Trump, Jr., who hastily arranged the meeting, brought in the top brass, said he was very excited about it if it is what he thought it was.

And then, when it proved not to reveal that bombshell, he immediately expressed how disappointed he was, and some phone calls ensued. One of those phone calls was from a restricted number, and he claims he didn't remember exactly who that call was. Well, turns out his dad, our President now, has a restricted number.

And that is a knowable fact. If our colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee were serious about this investigation, they would find out who that phone call was to because it is one of the dots that could need to be connected around this very controversial Trump Tower meeting. But they are not interested at all. They didn't ask those questions. They didn't even require Trump, Jr., to answer the questions, and they have rushed to shut down their investigation.

So that brings me to the other point. We have all talked about the threats to the Mueller investigation from President Trump himself, but there is another threat from within these walls, from our colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee, who have taken this sacred trust of oversight that we have as Members of Congress and, unfortunately, compromised it to the level that they seem to simply be fronting for the President instead of doing a genuine investigation.

Unlike their colleagues in the Senate who at least acknowledge the obvious, that Russia was trying to help President Trump in its interference, their report doesn't even say that. And then they include a gratuitous statement that they find no evidence of collusion, despite everything we have been talking about, everything that is already in

the public record. We have got a real problem within these walls that also threatens the investigation.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has just hit on the ``quo.'' We talked about the ``quid'': the solicitations from Russia. Through Papadopoulos, even earlier, in April, the spring of 2016, those solicitations were welcomed and embraced by the highest levels of the Trump campaign, possibly even Mr. Trump himself. We need to nail down that phone call and a few other details.

But now we are talking about the ``quo'' part: what would Russia get in return? And we know from undisputed evidence that Mike Flynn was working on sanctions relief even before they took office, during the transition, violating, apparently, the Logan Act as he was doing it. We know that this President and others in his administration have bent over backwards to try to cut Russia breaks on these sanctions.

So, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right to focus on that obvious piece, the ``quo'' part of this seeming quid pro quo. That is another reason why we have to let this investigation run its course: so that we can find out exactly what happened here.

Mr. Speaker, on the day of April 27, I was unavoidably detained. As a result, I was absent for Roll Call votes 163 through 166. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: for Roll Call vote 163, on agreeing to the amendment on of H.R. 4, I would have voted no; for Roll Call vote 164, on motion to recommit with instructions of H.R. 4, I would have voted yes; for vote 165, on passage of H.R. 4, I would have voted yes; and for Roll Call vote 166, on motion to table H. Res. 856, I would have voted no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Wade Thomas Elementary School in Marin County for its recognition on May 3, 2018 as a 2018 California Distinguished School by the California Department of Education. Chosen for its exemplary high performance, as measured by state and national assessments, Wade Thomas Elementary School was one of 287 schools to attain this honor statewide. This highly competitive award reflects outstanding achievement and the highest caliber of professional service, family commitment, and community engagement.

With 412 students across six grades, Wade Thomas Elementary School offers comprehensive educational programs that academically challenge and instill a joy of learning in its students while ensuring that all children have the skills and knowledge to reach their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, this hard-earned distinction reflects true community success. From the students and their families, to the staff and administrators, and the extended community, Wade Thomas Elementary School has developed an education model for the state and the nation: empowering today's students to be tomorrow's problem-solvers, inventors, and pioneers. Please join me in congratulating Wade Thomas Elementary School on this impressive achievement.