Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to reintroduce the ``Peace Corps Reauthorization Act'' on today, the 60th anniversary of the Peace Corps' founding and the start of National Peace Corps Week. I want to thank my fellow Congressional Peace Corps Caucus co-chair Representative Graves (R-LA), as well as Representatives Meng (D-NY), Radewagen (R-AS), Phillips (D-MN), Case (D-HI), and Sires (D-NJ), for their support as original cosponsors.

Like successive generations of young Americans, my wife Patti and I answered President John F. Kennedy's call and served in the Peace Corps in Ethiopia from 1966 to 1968. This foundational experience inspired our lifetime of service that continued into California state government, the Clinton Administration, and now the United States Congress.

Since the establishment of the Peace Corps in 1961, more than 230,000 American volunteers have served in some 141 countries around the world. Due to the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, the Peace Corps was forced to recall all volunteers serving in 65 countries in March 2020. Now more than ever, Congress must support the Peace Corps' mission and realize President Kennedy's vision of generations of young Americans, ready to serve their nation and make the world a better place.

Our ``Peace Corps Reauthorization Act'' would do just that by providing additional federal resources to better support current and returned volunteers. This bipartisan bill would also provide the funding necessary to redeploy Peace Corps volunteers once it is safe to do so after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, with the goal of finally reaching 10,000 volunteers serving annually around the world.

This bipartisan bill builds upon the Sam Farr and Nick Castle Peace Corps Reform Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-256) and the Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-57) sponsored by former Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX). The bill also builds upon legislation sponsored by former Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA), who served in the Peace Corps in Colombia from 1964 to 1966.

As co-chair of the Congressional Peace Corps Caucus, I continue working in support of the Peace Corps' mission, its volunteers, and the indelible impact their service has on the lives of needy people the world over. Congress last reauthorized the Peace Corps in 1999 (Public Law 106-30), expiring at the end of fiscal year 2003. So, my bipartisan ``Peace Corps Reauthorization Act'' is long overdue.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with the new Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY) and Ranking Member Michael McCaul (R-TX) to pass the ``Peace Corps Reauthorization Act'' this Congress. I encourage all members of the House to cosponsor this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment (Garamendi No. 6) to the ``Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act'' (H.R. 803) would adjust the Congressionally designated boundary of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area to include approximately 62 acres of adjacent publicly owned land in unincorporated Solano County.

I thank Rules Chairman McGovern (D-MA) for making my noncontroversial amendment in order and Natural Resources Chairman Grijalva (D-AZ) for including it in the en bloc #1 amendments today, offered by Congressman Neguse (D-CO).

My amendment is identical to H.R. 1230, which I introduced on February 23, 2021, at the request of the City of Rio Vista. It would include the decommissioned United States Army Reserve Center (Rio Vista), U.S. Coast Guard Station Rio Vista, Beach Drive Wastewater Treatment Plant (City of Rio Vista), and Sandy Beach County Park (Solano County) in the National Heritage Area.

Two of these parcels--the decommissioned United States Army Reserve Center and Beach Drive Wastewater Treatment Plant--are owned by the City of Rio Vista but technically outside the city limits. As such, it appears these parcels were omitted inadvertently when the National Park Service prepared the legislative map for the then-proposed Delta National Heritage Area in 2010. Including these parcels within the National Heritage Area's boundary supports the City of Rio Vista's proposed redevelopment of the decommissioned United States Army Reserve Center, now owned by the City.

In March 2019, Congress enacted into law (Public Law 116-9) my legislation with U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) designating the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as California's first national heritage area. The Delta is a crown jewel of our state and an iconic working landscape, which my family has been fortunate to call home for over 40 years. It is the most productive watershed in the western United States and among the most ecologically important in the Western Hemisphere.

Together, we must safeguard the Delta and the historic communities that make it such a special place, including Rio Vista. Expanding the Delta National Heritage Area will ensure that the proposed redevelopment of the decommissioned Rio Vista Army base and similar projects on the adjacent publicly owned land are eligible to apply for the $10 million in federal grant funding available until 2034.

I urge all Members to support my amendment and the underlying bill, which I will work to enact into law before California's Delta Protection Commission completes the management plan for the National Heritage Area.

Madam Speaker, today I introduce legislation to adjust the Congressional designated boundary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area.

In March 2019, Congress enacted into law (Public Law 116-9) my legislation with U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein designating California's first national heritage area. The Delta is a crown jewel of our state and an iconic working landscape, which my family has been fortunate to call home for over 40 years. It is the most productive watershed in the western United States and among the most ecologically important in the Western Hemisphere. Together, we must safeguard the Delta and the historic communities that make it such a special place.

The legislation I introduce today, at the request of the City of Rio Vista, would expand the National Heritage Area's boundary to include approximately 62 acres of adjacent publicly owned land encompassing: the decommissioned United States Army Reserve Center (City of Rio Vista), U.S. Coast Guard Station Rio Vista, Beach Drive Wastewater Treatment Plant (City of Rio Vista), and Sandy Beach County Park (Solano County).

Two of these parcels--the decommissioned United States Army Reserve Center and Beach Drive Wastewater Treatment Plant--are owned by the City of Rio Vista but technically outside the city limits. As such, it appears that these parcels were omitted inadvertently when the National Park Service prepared the legislative map for the then-proposed Delta National Heritage Area in 2010.

I hope that Congress will enact my boundary adjustment before California's Delta Protection Commission completes the management plan for the National Heritage Area.

Madam Speaker, today I reintroduce the ``Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act,'' at the request of the California Special Districts Association and the 237 special districts within California's third Congressional district. I want to thank my original cosponsors for their support of this much-needed legislation. I also want to thank U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) for sponsoring the companion legislation.

Special districts are independent units of local government that provide public services cities and counties do not provide for residents. Those services include first responders, policing, firefighting, public health, and more, making special districts critical to the communities they serve.

To date, Congress has inadvertently excluded special districts from the direct federal financial assistance provided to state, county, and municipal governments during this pandemic for essential services. For example, special districts are currently ineligible for direct federal financial assistance under the ``Coronavirus Relief Fund'' established by the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136).

Our bicameral legislation would ensure that the 2,700 special districts in California and 30,000 special districts nationwide are eligible for any additional assistance provided by Congress to state, county, and local governments to aid in the fight against COVID-19.

The ``Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act'' would also allow special districts access to the Federal Reserve's Municipal Liquidity Facility, which provides states, counties, and municipalities federally guaranteed bridge financing to offset unexpected short-term revenue shortfalls. Like states, counties, and cities, many special districts serve large populations and have the legal authority to issue short-term tax and revenue anticipation notes. However, special districts are not currently guaranteed access to the Municipal Liquidity Facility, even to offset revenue shortfalls caused by this ongoing pandemic

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join us in cosponsoring the ``Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act.'' Congress must ensure that all local governments have the federal support needed to deliver crucial quality-of-life services for our communities during this global pandemic, including special districts nationwide.

Madam Speaker, today I reintroduce the ``American Food for American Schools Act,'' which I have sponsored since the 114th Congress. I want to thank Representatives Kaptur (D-OH), Fortenberry (R-NE), Ryan (D-OH), LaMalfa (R-CA), Carbajal (D-CA), Young (R-AK), and Kilmer (D-WA) for their support as original cosponsors.

Our ``American Food for American Schools Act'' would strengthen enforcement of the existing ``Buy American'' requirements under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) school breakfast, special milk, and national school lunch programs. This will ensure that school districts use federal taxpayer dollars to purchase domestically sourced food products for all in-school meals and afterschool snacks. Our bipartisan bill would also increase public transparency by allowing parents to know from where the food served to their children in school comes.

Even in California's Central Valley, which includes many of the most productive agricultural communities in the nation, school districts continue to misuse taxpayer dollars to buy imported foods, unnecessarily, without informing parents. In numerous cases, these same imported foods have been recalled due to safety concerns and outbreaks of food borne diseases. This is especially troubling as those same foods could have been sourced locally in the first place as required by federal law.

Under our bill, school districts would be required to obtain a written waiver from USDA to use federal taxpayer dollars to purchase foreign-sourced food products. Any such waivers would only be granted by USDA if the domestically produced food was cost prohibitive or simply unavailable. Our bill would also require that school districts notify parents of all foreign-sourced foods served to students, by posting any such waivers obtained from USDA on the school's website. This would increase public transparency and provide American farmers the opportunity to seek out school districts in need of affordable, domestically grown foods. Our nation's schoolchildren should be served nutritious, American-grown foods produced under the strictest food safety standards in the world, as required by federal law. That is exactly what our bill would accomplish.

In the 115th Congress, we included a ``Buy American'' enforcement provision for the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Program in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-334), commonly known as the 2018 Farm Bill. This was a first step in addressing this critical issue for American farmers and parents with school-age children. Now, Congress needs to finish the job by passing our ``American Food for American Schools Act'' into law.

Madam Speaker, I hope all members of the House will join us in cosponsoring the ``American Food for American Schools Act of 2021.'' I look forward to working with the Committee on Education and Labor to ensure that our bipartisan bill is included in any future Child Nutrition Reauthorization legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today determined to fulfill our sacred oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Last week's violent insurrection on the Capitol was a stain on our democracy. A riotous mob incited by the President stormed these very Halls, beat and murdered police officers, planted pipe bombs, and left our Nation shocked and in mourning.

The President's rhetoric, actions, and refusal to accept responsibilities are an imminent threat to our Nation. I vote to impeach the President. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Bruce Hammock and his exemplary interdisciplinary career. He has been a legendary figure in his field for over four decades and his efforts have made critical advancements in our understanding of neurodegenerative diseases, non- addictive solutions to managing chronic pain, and environmental conservation.

Dr. Hammock's recent research on regulatory enzyme inhibitors and their effect on neuroinflammation has reshaped the way we understand both the cause and cure of the degenerative disease. Alongside his UC Davis team, Dr. Hammock partnered with Baylor University as well as other researchers across the globe to study soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH) and its effect on the brains of mice. Dr. Hammock's study found that inhibiting sEH may offer a new pathway to reduce neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration; leading to a breakthrough in recognizing the potential benefits of sEH inhibitors in Alzheimer's treatment.

Groundbreaking research is nothing new in the world of Dr. Hammock. He is currently a distinguished professor at UC Davis in the Department of Entomology and Nematology and part of the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center. During his time at the university Hammock has been at the helm of the Superfund Research Program for over three decades--a government-funded program focused on finding solutions to the complex health and environmental issues linked with the nation's hazardous waste sites.

In addition to his invaluable contributions to science, Dr. Hammock has taken up another admirable charge--to make science and learning fun. Every year he and his lab organize a water balloon fight between faculty and students on the lawn of UC Davis' Briggs Hall where other labs and bystanders join in on the action. This event is a small glimpse into Hammock's unique character--one described by colleagues as enthusiastic, creative, and hard-working.

Dr. Hammock's limitless drive and curiosity contribute both to the stellar reputation of UC Davis as an esteemed research institute and California's 3rd Congressional District as a whole. We wish him all the best in his endeavors and look forward to seeing all that he accomplishes in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Marshall McKay and his legacy as a champion of Native American heritage and the rights of indigenous people in his community and around the world. My wife Patti and I are devastated to learn of Marshall McKay's passing, who died of COVID-19.

Born in Colusa, California, to a renowned Native American healer and basket weaver, Mr. McKay was the first person from his family to attend college. Following his graduation from Sonoma State University, he worked for the U.S. Department of Defense repairing and maintaining nuclear submarines for 15 years. Following his service, he became a founding member of the Native Arts and Cultures Foundation and was appointed to the Smithsonian Institution's Board of the National Museum of the American Indian, which stands just a few blocks from this chamber.

In addition, Mr. McKay served on the Yocha Dehe Tribal Council from 1984 to 2015. His dedication to the work of the council culminated in a decade of service as its chairman. During that time, the tribe was a key partner with the local community on several fronts and a benefactor to many local nonprofits. Through his many roles, Mr. McKay championed the environment and fought for tribal land-use rights.

His life's work has had an indelible positive impact on his tribe, our state, and the nation. He was a beloved member of our community, and he will be deeply missed. Our hearts are with Marshall McKay's family, loved ones, and tribe during this difficult time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Richard Rominger and his legacy as a champion of rural communities and American farmers. Patti and I are deeply saddened by Richard's passing, and our hearts are with Evelyn and their family during this difficult time. I called Rich's cell phone the morning he passed away. He did not answer. I've called that number hundreds of times seeking advice and counsel, and I have always come away from the conversation with a gem of wisdom, a better solution to a problem, encouragement, and a precious gift of friendship. Not this time. My call was answered by his son confirming Richard Rominger's death. I'll keep Rich's number. He won't answer, but just calling will encourage me to stay true to the lessons he taught me. I know that Rich treated everyone with the same respect and desire to help. Perhaps they will keep that number, too.

Richard and Evelyn Rominger served in President Bill Clinton's administration with Patti and I. Richard was Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Patti ran the Foreign Agriculture Service's food and famine programs. Richard was always the bulwark of support for the American family farmer. He knew the challenges facing farm families, and he knew how to use government to improve their lot. During the Clinton years the Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior, where I was also Deputy, teamed up to produce seminal studies on the effects of Climate Change, create the first Tahoe Summit, address droughts, support land conservation efforts nationwide, attack invasive species, and protect America's great forest.

Governor Jerry Brown recognized Richard's potential as a problem solver when he appointed Richard to serve as the Secretary of the California Department of Agriculture. A problem-solver was necessary with Medflies, drought, water wars, and agricultural labor problems in abundance. Undaunted by these challenges, Rominger steered a wise course that yielded a bumper crop of solutions.

Following his time in government, Richard returned to Winters--where he was raised--to continue his work supporting the U.S. agriculture industry. Richard was named Agriculturalist of the Year by the California State Fair and received a Distinguished Service Award from the California Farm Bureau Federation for his lifelong commitment to the agricultural community.

Richard was a dear friend for whom I have the deepest respect and admiration. His life's work has had an indelible positive impact on our state and nation, and he will be deeply missed. Patti and I send our condolences to Evelyn and the Rominger family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness and anger over the events that transpired on January 6, and I rise with steadfast determination to take every possible action to ensure that those who incited and committed the unconscionable acts on that day are brought to justice.

Last week's violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol left at least six people dead and dozens injured. It was a stain on our Nation and our democracy. They beat police officers, they murdered a police officer, they planted pipe bombs, they brandished weapons, and they left our Nation shocked and mourning.

Just as this Congress returned mere hours after this insurrection to certify the lawful results of the 2020 Presidential election, we stand here today prepared to take firm, decisive, and necessary action to restore our country.

No President who invites thousands of his most devoted supporters to Washington and urges them to fight his political enemies by committing a seditious act on our democracy should be allowed to remain in office.

If the Vice President does not act to hold the President accountable, then we leave this Nation vulnerable to future demagogues.

That brings us here today, on this somber day, to carry out our sacred oath to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote to impeach those responsible, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness and anger over the events that transpired on January 6th, and steadfast determination to take every possible action to ensure those who incited and committed the unconscionable acts on that day are brought to justice.

Last week's violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, which has left at least five people dead and dozens injured, was a stain on our nation and our democracy. The President's blatantly false claims about election fraud, which were parroted by current administration officials and members of the House and Senate, finally reached a tipping point last week when these boldface lies gave way to a violent assault on our nation's Capitol. Even after 64 failed attempts in federal court to substantiate the baseless claims about election fraud, the President, his administration, and members of Congress continued to double down and use these mistruths to incite a mob to stage a bloody insurrection against the United States Government. They beat and murdered police officers, they planted pipe bombs, brandished weapons, and left our nation shocked and in mourning.

What does it mean, then, for America that a sitting President invited thousands of his most fervent supporters to Washington and incited them to commence a violent occupation of the world's citadel of democracy-- the United States Capitol?

Without a proper check and proportional response to these events, we will be doomed to re-live the same hell over and over again. In time, we will lose our democracy, our hallowed institutions, and irreparably tear at the very fabric of our nation. As elected leaders of this nation, we have a right, but more importantly, a moral obligation to respond to those who incited this riot in the strongest possible terms.

Just as this Congress returned mere hours after this insurrection to certify the lawful results of the 2020 Presidential election, we stand here today prepared to take firm, decisive, and necessary action to restore our country from the heinous state it spiraled into on 1/6/ 2021.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to implore the Vice President of the United States and the members of the President's cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove this dangerous President from office before he can inflict more harm on our nation. It's time for the Vice President to stand up for American democracy. I will also join my colleagues in supporting articles of impeachment against the President.

The President's violent rhetoric and actions pose a significant threat to our nation with every passing minute that he's allowed to remain in office. No President who invites thousands of his most devoted supporters to Washington and urges them to ``fight'' his political enemies by committing a seditious attack on our Capitol should be allowed to remain in office. Our nation has endured and persevered through so much, and it will survive this President. But if we do not act and hold him accountable, then we will leave our nation vulnerable to a future demagogue. That brings us here on this somber day to carry out our sacred oath to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

I will vote to impeach this President, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I want to engage in a discussion because it is extremely important here.

I thank my good friend, Mr. Turner, for raising some issues. Indeed, we might be better off going to the museum and getting the Apollo because the current Moon launch system isn't working too well, well over budget and well delayed. But the issue at hand has to do with these missiles.

There is clarity that this can be delayed. In one of our hearings, General Clark said it can be refurbished once again.

Other hearings have provided information that the key here is the command and control system, which is indeed antiquated and which indeed must be refurbished and rebuilt. We ought to spend our time on that.

This amendment does not delay the ground-based system. What it does is it gives us the information so that we can make an informed decision about when to engage and spend the $100 billion to $150 billion on the new ground-based missile system.

Mr. Chair, if you are around here long enough, your mind can go in 1-minute sections, and I was right on the 1 minute and 15. I will try to close very quickly on this in the next few seconds.

Mr. Chair, this amendment doesn't stop the ground-based system from going forward. It simply gives us, the decisionmakers, the opportunity to make a very informed decision about when we must renew this system.

There is clear evidence, clear discussion in various areas, that an additional period of time is available before we initiate and go full bore into the new ground-based system. Let's get information. Let's get knowledge.

Mr. Chairman, with enormous respect to my colleagues who are opposed to this amendment, I think this amendment makes enormous sense. It is $185 million of additional money that has been requested in just the last couple of months to move this program forward.

We ought to be very careful here because the NNSA is only 50 percent sure that it is a $12 billion program. That is on the upside, not on the downside. So we are talking about something very expensive.

It is unfortunate that we have divided this extraordinarily important debate about the future of our nuclear systems into 5-minute segments. This ought to be a 5-hour debate on the floor. I see my colleagues nodding their head.

A fundamental question is being asked here about where we are going with our nuclear enterprises. We do know this: We are in the midst of a three-party nuclear arms race. And this one is going to be extremely dangerous because the weapons are bigger; they are safer, to be sure, but they are more likely to explode; and, finally, they are going to be delivered by stealth technology.

Sad, but true, we need a 5-hour debate on this entire thing.

Mr. Chair, oh, my, we definitely need 5 hours. This is extraordinarily important. In fact, it is the United States that terminated its role in the INF Treaty when President Trump pulled out of the treaty. Presumably, Russia is still in, although they are clearly violating the treaty. We lost whatever leverage there may have been.

We are now in the midst of, what I said a moment ago, one more stage of a nuclear arms race. All of us better take a deep breath here and begin some serious negotiations, because this time it is extraordinarily dangerous.

In addition to that, please understand that our allies on whose land these missiles may be placed are not in agreement that they should be placed there, and so there really is no plan for the deployment, let alone exactly how these missiles would be done.

By the way, we clearly have alternative ways of delivering nuclear weapons: short-range, long-range, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and most every other way except no longer in a briefcase or in a projectile, fortunately.

So it is not harmful to delay this. It is not harmful to make sure that our allies are in sync with us as to how they may be deployed.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation. It is a good piece of legislation.

I thank Chairman Smith; Ranking Member Thornberry; and my colleague, Mr. Lamborn, for working with our committee. We worked closely with members of the committee on and off to ensure that the bill addresses four priority areas affecting our military.

First, we ask the question: Is the military ready for climate change? It is not. In the last 12 months, severe storms have devastated Marine Corps

Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Tyndall Air Force Base, and Offutt Air Force Base. This NDAA will accelerate and enhance readiness by requiring the Department of Defense to plan for and respond to the threat that climate change poses to military installations and operations.

Second, the bill includes a number of bipartisan provisions aimed at addressing problems associated with the management and oversight of military housing for families.

Third, the bill authorizes additional funding and includes bipartisan provisions to mitigate drinking water contamination resulting from fluorinated compounds used in military installations.

Fourth, the bill continues to uphold the committee's responsibility to conduct oversight of, and provide support for, military training maintenance and infrastructure. For example, the mark authorizes $256.4 billion, an $8.8 billion increase over fiscal year 2019 authorized levels, for operation and maintenance accounts. This includes an additional $834 million to address submarine and surface ship maintenance shortfalls and an additional $309 million for the Air Force weapon systems sustainment accounts. It also includes $11.5 billion for military construction, family housing, and implementation of previous Base Realignment and Closure activities.

This includes $168 million above the budget request for construction projects associated with the European Deterrence Initiative and authorizes 31 additional programs.

Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I would like to start by thanking Chairman Smith and the House Armed Services Committee staff who have worked many long nights putting together this year's NDAA. The bill that is before the House is a good bill and I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

As the Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I worked closely with members on and off the committee to ensure the bill addressed three priority areas affecting our military. First, the bill includes a number of bipartisan provisions aimed at addressing problems associated with the management and oversight of military family housing. The bill does the following:

Requires the military services to establish a tenants' bill of rights for residents of privatized military family housing;

Requires the Secretary of Defense to develop an assessment tool to identify and measure health and safety hazards in housing;

Prohibits the use of non-disclosure agreements in connection with entering into, continuing, or terminating a lease for on-base military housing;

Authorizes an additional $140.8 million to hire additional civilian personnel to improve oversight and management of military family housing; and

Creates a public database for complaints related to military housing, requires annual financial audits of randomly selected privatized military family housing, and annual congressional reports on the condition, maintenance, and management of privatized military family housing.

Second, the bill authorizes additional funding and includes bipartisan provisions to mitigate drinking water contamination resulting from fluorinated compounds around military installations:

Prohibits the release of fluorinated firefighting foam (AFFF) at military installations except in cases of emergency response or in limited circumstances;

Requires the Secretary of Navy to complete a new military specification by January 2025 for a fluorine free firefighting agent to be used at all DoD installations and a complete ban on fluorinated foams on military installations by September 2029, or sooner if possible;

Authorizes the National Guard to access Defense Environmental Remediation Account funds, for five years, for the limited purpose of addressing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) exposure and contamination;

Prohibits the use of fluorinated AFFF in training exercises and encourages the Department to ensure adequate training for individuals in regular contact with AFFF about the potential dangers associated with PFAS;

Requires a report on the Department's understanding of best-practices for cleanup and disposal of PFAS;

Provides an additional $121.3 million in environmental restoration accounts for remediation activities related to perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water on or near military installations; and

Authorizes DoD to provide fresh water and treatment of contaminated water for agricultural purposes adjacent to a military installation where water is contaminated due to military activities.

Third, the bill contains a number of sensible provisions requiring the Department of Defense to plan for and respond to the threat that climate change poses to military installations and military operations:

Requires DoD to develop installation master plans that assess current climate vulnerabilities and plan for mitigating the risks;

Limits DoD's ability to spend planning and design funds until it initiates the process of amending the building standards for military construction to ensure that building practices and standards promote energy, climate, and cyber resilience at military installations;

Requires all proposals for military construction projects to consider potential long-term changes in environmental conditions, and increasingly frequent extreme weather events, as well as, industry best-practices to withstand extreme weather events;

Authorizes an additional $40 million for the Department's Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program; and

Directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a climate vulnerability and risk assessment tool to assist in providing standardized risk calculations of climate-related impacts to military installations and capabilities.

Further, the bill also includes important provisions to reform border deployment and ensure funding for our military is spent wisely and as Congress intended, and not on an unnecessary border wall:

It prevents the President from diverting Defense funding to pay for an unnecessary border wall;

Includes a blanket prohibition on funding for the construction of a wall, barrier, or fence along the southern land border;

Prohibits reprogramming of funds into the counter drug account, which has been used by the Administration to do construction along the southern land border;

Does not include the $7.2 billion requested by the Administration to backfill MILCON projects and/or forward fund portions of the wall;

Modifies an authority the DoD uses when deploying active duty personnel to the border to require all support to be reimbursable and require a wavier that the deployment won't affect readiness, the support task aligns with the unit's mission, the task is inherently government and can't be contracted; and

Amends the emergency construction authority (10 USC 2808) to limit the total cost of military construction projects undertaken during a national emergency to $500 million, with a further limit of $100 million for construction projects within the United States and would add elements to required congressional notifications.

In addition, the bill continues to uphold the committee's responsibility to conduct oversight of, and provide support for, military training, maintenance, and infrastructure. For example, the mark authorizes $256.4 billion, an $8.8 billion increase over fiscal year 2019 authorized levels, for operation and maintenance accounts. This includes an additional $834 million to address submarine and surface ship maintenance shortfalls and an additional $309 million for Air Force weapon systems sustainment accounts. The mark also included $11.5 billion for military construction, family housing, and implementation of previous Base Realignment and Closure activities. This includes $168.6 million above the budget request for construction projects associated with the European Deterrence Initiative and authorization for 31 additional construction projects valued at over $1 billion, that were not included in the budget request, but that the committee were able to accelerate from the military departments' unfunded priority lists.

Additionally, this year's NDAA funds important priorities at Travis and Beale Air Force Bases in my district. The military construction projects authorized in this bill will support the new KC-46 mission at Travis Air Force Base and will improve resilience and power supply at Beale Air Force Base, enabling it to continue to support intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and multidomain operations.

I'm proud of the funding authorized by, and legislative provisions included in the Readiness mark. I believe the mark ensures Congress fulfills its oversight responsibilities, helps advance our military's near-term readiness goals, and drives the Department to plan for and take action against long-term threats.

I'm also pleased this NDAA includes a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops and includes the text of my bill, H.R. 2617, the Occupational and Environmental Transparency Health Act. This will require DoD to input any Occupational Environmental Health hazards exposure into servicemembers' records while deployed, so it is tracked throughout their career and into veteran status. It will also require the VA to retroactively update records based on information contained in the Burn Pit Registry, since many veterans' health records do not account for their exposures.

Additional provisions I'm pleased are included in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA are included below, many of which are related to the critical oversight the Strategic Forces Subcommittee is conducting over our nuclear weapons enterprise:

Requires a report from the Secretary of Defense on military-to- military dialogue with foreign countries to reduce the risk of miscalculation, unintended consequences, or accidents that could precipitate a nuclear war;

Prohibits funding for the deployment of new, low-yield nuclear missile warheads;

Clarifies the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's authorities by providing prompt and unfettered access to defense nuclear facilities for independent nuclear oversight;

Facilitates implementation of the Open Skies Treaty and prohibits funding for withdrawal unless Russia is in material breach or DoD and State provide a certification that withdrawal is in the best interest of national security and have consulted with U.S. allies;

Increases funding for Nuclear Command, Control and Communications.

Repeals the requirement to demonstrate plutonium pit production of at a rate of 80 pits per year by 2027, and instead prioritizes producing 30 plutonium pits per year by 2026;

Until the National Nuclear Security Administrator submits an analysis of alternatives with respect to replacing the ICBM W78 warhead, this bill cuts $103 million from the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, cuts $59 million from the related warhead, and fences remaining funding for the warhead;

Requires an independent technical study of the W78 replacement and potential problems; and

Repeals the conventional requirement for the Long Range Stand Off Weapon.

I'm proud of the hard work that's been done to put together a strong National Defense Authorization Act this year, and I urge my colleagues to support the fiscal year 2020 NDAA.

Mr. Speaker, I just put this placard up to emphasize what our Democratic Caucus is attempting to do. We have a program called ``For the People,'' and we are trying to deal with the issues of healthcare across this Nation.

We know, as do basically all the American public, that healthcare is, in many cases, not affordable. So how can we deal with this?

Well, one way is to deal with the cost of prescription medicines. We have a program. We have actually voted it off the floor. It is over in the Senate where it will linger as the Grim Reaper, Senator McConnell, kills legislation that would be for the people. So this is one example of many that we Democrats are trying to address.

Back in 2010, we addressed this issue, at least in part, with the Affordable Care Act, which was promptly called ObamaCare by our Republican colleagues at that time. They campaigned against it and, ultimately, succeeded in winning the House in the 2010 election, and then spent 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 in an effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Fortunately, they did not succeed.

When the new President, Mr. Trump, came to office, they tried, once again, to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017. They failed, largely because a Senator from Arizona, who was then suffering from cancer, voted no in the Senate. So I thank Senator McCain for having the courage and the understanding of what it meant to have a preexisting condition.

So here we are today with all kinds of charts that I am not going to put up. I am just going to speak directly to this issue.

As was said just a moment ago by my colleague from Ohio, the appellate court in New Orleans is taking up an issue that Republicans, including the President, have put before the court. Unable to gain a repeal in the Congress of the United States, they are now pursuing in the courts of the land a repeal put forward by, I think, 16 attorneys general--all Republicans--to use the courts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

I want us to understand what this means. The fight of the last 8 years, unsuccessfully, in the court of the people, the Congress and the Senate of the United States, being unsuccessful, they are now attempting in the courts of this land to do what they could not do through the representatives of the people of the United States.

The cynical effort to do this actually began with the December 2017 tax cuts that the Republicans rammed through Congress without one hearing: not a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee, not a hearing in the Senate Committee on Finance, not a hearing at all.

Attached to that legislation was a repeal of the mandate that was in the Affordable Care Act that every American must either purchase insurance or have insurance through their employer. That repeal then opened the door to the current attempt now in the appellate court in New Orleans that could give rise to a decision that might ultimately be made by the U.S. Supreme Court that would totally repeal all aspects of the Affordable Care Act.

So what does this mean? Mr. Speaker, what does this mean for you and me?

I hope you do not have a preexisting condition. I do, because I am over 65, and 130 million Americans have a preexisting condition. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act would remove the protections that those Americans have that would guarantee them coverage without discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I was the insurance commissioner in California in the early 1990s and again in 2002 to 2005. I know what it means when the insurance companies discriminate based upon preexisting conditions. I have seen the documents that they would require men and women to fill out before they would issue a health insurance program.

Every conceivable issue that a human being would have, from high blood pressure to, indeed, being a female, was on that list, and the insurance companies had unilateral, total discretion to charge more or not provide insurance at all.

So the President of the United States, at this moment, together with those attorneys general and, apparently, the support of our Republican colleagues are, at this moment, attempting to reestablish a burden on 130 million Americans who do have a preexisting condition, who are protected but, if they have their way in court, would lose that protection and face, once again, the onerous and, in many cases, deadly burden of having a preexisting condition and not being able to get healthcare insurance or having to pay several times more because of their preexisting condition.

Who among us does not have that? Well, perhaps the other 40 percent-- actually, 50 percent of Americans who stand at risk of developing high blood pressure, diabetes, or some other illness.

That is not all. In my district in the Sacramento Valley of California, the Affordable Care Act has allowed the creation of what we call Federally Qualified Health Centers, which now are the principal providers of initial healthcare in my district.

It is not just for poor people, not just for transients who have moved from one job to another, but for people who have been insured for years but, because of a lack of medical services, could not get insurance.

These Federally Qualified Health Centers are totally dependent upon the Affordable Care Act. Repeal the Affordable Care Act and those clinics are gone, and the services that they provide will not be in communities, both urban and rural, across America.

How bad is it that those attorneys general are so stuck on repealing ObamaCare that they are ignoring the reality that millions upon millions of Americans have come to depend upon these clinics? If the Affordable Care Act is found to be contrary to law and the Constitution by the courts and by the cynical, diabolical repeal of one section of the Affordable Care Act, those people will not be able to get primary care services.

And that is not all. The Affordable Care Act expanded the Medicaid program across this Nation, and some 15 million Americans have been able to gain healthcare access through the Medicaid programs. In California, we call it Medi-Cal. The Medi-Cal program in California provides, perhaps, 3 million Californians with access to healthcare services. That, too, the expansion will be gone, and the support for States across this Nation will be eliminated if the Affordable Care Act is found to no longer exist because of court action.

How cynical, how sad, how harmful, but that is what they are pursuing. And that is not all. There is a problem that existed before the Affordable Care Act.

Young men and women found coverage in some universities, in some jobs through either the university and the fees or through an employer; but most, when they became 18 years of age, lost their family insurance. The Affordable Care Act said that is not good. They would be able to stay on their family's insurance until the age of 26, where, presumably, they would be better able to buy insurance themselves or be able to have a job in which insurance would be provided.

Insurance is expensive, so the exchanges were set up across the Nation, insurance exchanges where people could shop for insurance. Those exchanges provided not only access to insurance markets, but they also provided, through the Affordable Care Act, tax credits that would make the insurance affordable to them.

Nope, it is going to be gone. It is going to disappear if the court in New Orleans rules against the Affordable Care Act.

And so how will they afford insurance? Well, they won't. And in many States where there are Federal exchanges--California not included, because California set up its own State exchange. But in those States that have a Federal exchange, it won't exist. The ability to shop for insurance will be diminished or eliminated and, along with it, the subsidies. So those people, some 9 million who now enjoy those subsidies, will not receive them.

It goes on and on.

Are you a senior? Are you on Medicaid? If so, you are in the last year in which the doughnut hole will no longer exist, beginning 4 years ago. The doughnut hole, the prescription drugs doughnut hole in which prior to the Affordable Care Act there was a subsidy, part D, for prescription drugs, that ended at about $1,500 of prescription costs.

Then there was a doughnut hole in which the individual on Medicare would have to pay for insurance, and that was somewhere around $4,000. And then above that, Medicare would once again pick up the cost or most of the cost.

In the Affordable Care Act, we specifically set up a system so that over a 4-year period, the doughnut hole would disappear. It would shrink each and every year. It would rise from $1,500 to $2,000, $3,000, and so forth. And next year, it would be gone.

I am sorry for the seniors. The Affordable Care Act, if found by the court to no longer be constitutional, would reemerge immediately upon an action by either the appellate court or, I suppose, ultimately, the Supreme Court. So, welcome the doughnut hole back.

If someone happens to be a senior, they better start pocketing money--which I am sure they don't have, to begin with--to prepare for the day when the cynical action of these attorneys general-- Republicans, every single one of them--and the President would once again reestablish the awesome, terrible prescription drugs doughnut hole.

How small-minded can you be? Apparently, there is no end to it. So here we are. Our effort on this Democratic side of the aisle is for the people, not for some ideological mumbo jumbo, but for the people. We want a healthcare program that provides solid benefits for Americans.

The Affordable Care Act takes us a long, long way toward that goal. It doesn't achieve it totally, and we have more to do. Many of us talk about Medicare for All, and we hope to get there some day. But in the meantime, we have the Affordable Care Act, and our Republican colleagues are doing everything they can since its institution in 2010 to do away with it, and they have never, ever provided a substitute.

Do you remember that repeal and replacement mantra? There has never been a replacement program that made any sense whatsoever.

So, we are for the people. We want to deal with the cost of prescription drugs, not to increase them for seniors, as our Republican colleagues are attempting to do; not to put Americans out of the insurance market, as they are attempting to do, by eliminating the guaranteed coverage regardless of your healthcare status; not to put people out of insurance if they are 18 to 26 years of age, as our Republican colleagues are attempting to do; not to eliminate the clinics that millions upon millions of Americans now depend on for their primary care, as our Republican colleagues are attempting to do.

We want it for the people. We want healthcare coverage for every American. We want it to be affordable, and we want it to be available.

So here we are on a day in which the appellate court in New Orleans is hearing from the President's lawyers in the Department of Justice that 13 million Americans should lose their health coverage and that 130 million Americans should be, once again, facing insurance discrimination because of an existing healthcare issue. We are hearing from the President's lawyers that it is good to eliminate the clinics, that it is good to eliminate the subsidies that some 9 million Americans are able to get to so that they can afford insurance, and that the exchanges that provide a marketplace for people to sort out what kind of an insurance policy they want should be eliminated.

The President's lawyers are out there purposely harming Americans all because the President has said we must repeal the ObamaCare program.

I am sorry. I disagree. I want Americans to have healthcare coverage. I was an insurance commissioner for years, and I fought the insurance companies every single day. Then I came here in 2009 and was able to vote, providing on this floor the vote that allowed the Affordable Care Act to move out of this House to the Senate and eventually become law-- the 218th vote. I am proud of that vote because I know from my personal experience that the Affordable Care Act dealt with real problems that Americans had and gave Americans a real opportunity to get healthcare and to get healthcare services.

Here we are with the President of the United States actively this day doing everything he could not achieve in the Congress but rather now in the courts doing everything he can to harm Americans--how cynical, how terrible, and how harmful. But that is where we are.

We will see what the court does. Hopefully, they will be sympathetic to 130 million Americans, to 9 million Americans, to 15 million Americans, to children, and to young adults 18 to 25. Maybe they will be sympathetic. We will see what happens.

But if the Affordable Care Act is somehow through the courts repealed and there is no replacement, then I want the American people to understand who is responsible for the harm that will immediately be inflicted upon Americans. It is our President and it is his colleagues who have aided and abetted and who today in-State attorneys general are arguing for the harm that will come to Americans.

We haven't given up the fight, and we will never give up the fight so that every American has affordable health insurance, whatever that may be.

We have come a long way with the Affordable Care Act, and we will fight all along the way. Should we lose this battle, we are never, ever going to give up our goal of providing quality, affordable healthcare to every American.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Peace Corps Reauthorization Act of 2019.

I want to thank my returned Peace Corps volunteers; Joe Kennedy and Donna Shalala, the co-chairs of the Peace Corps Caucus; as well as Mr. Graves, Mr. Sires, Mrs. Radewagen, and Ms. Shalala for their support as original cosponsors.

Like successive generations of young Americans, my wife, Patti, and I answered President John F. Kennedy's call and served in the Peace Corps in Ethiopia from 1966 to 1968. This foundational experience inspired our lifetime of service that continued into State government in California, the Clinton administration, and now the United States Congress.

Since the establishment of the Peace Corps in 1961, more than 230,000 Americans have volunteered and have served in 141 countries around the world. When the Africans fought for their independence, the Peace Corps volunteers came, and they were there to assist in the transition in countries throughout that continent. They were there as teachers, community development, and agriculture, and so that tradition carried on in countries all around the world. Today there are some 8,000 Peace Corps volunteers in 65 countries.

Now more than ever, Congress should and must support the Peace Corps mission and realize President Kennedy's vision of generations of young Americans, ready to serve their Nation and make the world a better place and return home to America and continue to educate all Americans about what is going on around the world.

Our Peace Corps Reauthorization Act of 2019 would do just this by providing additional Federal resources to better support current, returning, and former Peace Corps volunteers by doing the following: First, since 2002 the Peace Corps has not been reauthorized. So we would pick up that and make the Peace Corps reauthorization good for the next 5 years. We would authorize $450 million per fiscal year for the Peace Corps, an increase over the flat $410 million that has been provided in the current year.

We would also direct the Peace Corps to establish new volunteer opportunities that promote internet adoption and development in countries and engage tech savvy American volunteers.

We would increase the monthly allowance for Peace Corps volunteers and leaders to $417 per month of service completed to reflect the increase in the cost of living and provide $10,000 for the 2-year full term of service.

We would reform the Peace Corps National Advisory Council that has been in abeyance since 1980 by providing that donated funds from a qualified nonprofit organization would cover all administrative costs for the advisory council with no cost to the taxpayers.

We would include Respect for Peace Corps Volunteers Act, H.R. 1411, sponsored by Congressman Sires of New Jersey since 2013, allowing use of the Peace Corps logo in headstones and other funeral materials, in recognition of the meaning the deceased's Peace Corps service had for their lives.

We would codify President Kennedy's 1963 executive order affording returned Peace Corps volunteers a 12-month hiring preference for most Federal job openings and also deal with the shutdowns that occasionally occur.

We would require the Peace Corps and the U.S. State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security to routinely update existing memorandums of agreement for Peace Corps volunteer security and consular protection in foreign countries.

We would clarify that American Samoans and other U.S. nationals have an opportunity to serve in the Peace Corps as volunteers as well as in leadership positions.

We would also increase the workers' compensation rate for Peace Corps volunteers.

This bipartisan bill builds upon the success of the Sam Farr and Nick Castle Peace Corps Reform Act of 2018, public law 115-256, sponsored by former Congressman Ted Poe of Texas.

Our bill also builds upon legislation sponsored by my California colleague Sam Farr, who served in the Peace Corps from 1964 to 1966.

As co-chairman of the Peace Corps Caucus, I am proud to continue the work in support of the Peace Corps mission, its volunteers, and the indelible impact of their service.

I ask all Members of Congress to cosponsor this legislation and support it. It is important, and I look forward to working with the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Engel, and Ranking Member McCaul to advance the Peace Corps Reauthorization Act.

Madam Speaker, in a long vote series Thursday evening, I unintentionally voted nay for Mr. Cunningham's amendment No. 167. Had I been able to correct my vote, I would have voted aye.