Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding time.

I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2740, the four-bill fiscal 2020 appropriations package that includes the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.

As ranking member of that subcommittee, I know there are several bipartisan priorities in the bill, but, unfortunately, the overall four-bill package is too flawed for me to be able to support it at this time.

First and foremost, these bills were developed using top-line funding levels that do not reflect a bipartisan, bicameral agreement.

The reality is that we are dealing with monopoly money here, and we all know that. These will not be the final numbers that come out whenever we reach an agreement.

The majority's budget framework also promotes the misguided notion that increases to defense spending must be matched or exceeded by increases in nondefense spending.

In the Energy and Water bill specifically, a bill that was roughly half defense and half nondefense spending in fiscal year 2019, the increase for nondefense programs is more than 1\1/2\ times the increase for defense programs.

While I support many of the nondefense programs in this bill, we need to know the broader budgetary context before we can decide whether individual programs are funded appropriately.

We must work together with the Senate and the White House and develop an agreement on overall spending caps. Only then can we write bills that can be passed by both Chambers and that the President will sign.

Speaking of the Energy and Water bill specifically, one of my highest priorities in this bill is the Department of Energy's nuclear energy program. The bill includes many good investments within that account, but, overall, the account is kept essentially flat from last year.

This decision is a bit perplexing. The bill's allocation is well above last year's, and the majority has stated an intent to focus on technologies to address climate change.

The subcommittee held several hearings, at which Members of both parties and witnesses discussed the necessity of advanced nuclear technologies in any kind of low-carbon energy future, yet the nuclear energy program does not share in the funding increases provided for almost all of the other nondefense programs. I am hopeful that, as the bill moves forward, we can address this issue and create a stronger bill.

The bill continues significant investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure, including harbor maintenance activities.

Unfortunately, while the majority included additional funding for critical water storage projects, they also decided not to allow previous appropriated dollars to be put to good use.

The exclusion of the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project amounts to throwing away a key opportunity to enhance water security in the drought-prone West.

The full House should have been allowed to consider the Calvert amendment to correct this problem in the bill.

While the majority has referred to funding increases for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the truth is the bill does not sufficiently prioritize activities to maintain and modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile.

The Weapons Activities program is $648 million below the budget request. That is more than half a billion dollars below the budget request. As detailed in the Statement of Administration Policy, these cuts to the budget request will delay efforts to improve safety and security features and disrupt alignment with the Department of Defense's plans.

Since this delay typically leads to increases, reduced spending does not actually save money; it costs money. We must make the investments necessary to invest in a safe, reliable, and effective stockpile.

Finally, I am disappointed that the bill does not include any funding to advance the Yucca Mountain licensing application process and, instead, offers a false promise of interim storage as a solution to the nuclear waste issue.

Funding for interim storage alone cannot solve the issue of nuclear waste disposal, especially since current law strictly limits Federal action in this area.

Additionally, interim storage locations will be much more difficult to site if there are no assurances of a permanent disposal, as the interim sites would become de facto permanent sites.

The Governor of New Mexico recently raised this very point in expressing her concerns about a private interim storage site proposed to be located in her State.

Continuing the licensing process is a necessary step to establish a permanent repository for our Nation's defense and commercial nuclear waste.

Over the past few decades, electricity consumers across the country have paid roughly $41 billion, with accrued interest, into the Nuclear Waste Fund for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Due to the political decision to halt advancement of a permanent repository, however, it is the taxpayers--not ratepayers but taxpayers--in all 435 congressional districts who currently are paying $2.2 million a day, more than $800 million per year, to cover the cost of temporary onsite storage.

My colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) filed an amendment to address this, but it was not allowed. We have had strong bipartisan support in the past for this issue.

Despite our disagreements over the issues that I have mentioned, I want to close by thanking Chairwoman Kaptur and the majority staff and my staff for their dedication and hard work on this bill.

Ms. Kaptur and I have worked together on the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee for several years now; and, while we don't agree on every issue, I value our friendship and continue to appreciate the collegial and cooperative tradition of the subcommittee.

I would also like to thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger of the full committee for their leadership and support for the important programs in the Energy and Water bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rick Johnson upon his retirement as Executive Director of the Idaho Conservation League. His leadership will be greatly missed by myself and many others.

For the past three decades, Rick has been the seminal leader in Idaho protecting Idaho's outdoors and environment. Whenever I am asked who in the conservation community to speak to in Idaho, the answer is always Rick Johnson.

When I first met Rick in the 1990s, I would describe the environmental community as having a single mission of fighting and objecting to almost anything proposed by the resource industry.

Through the years, I am pleased to say that both Rick and I have evolved and recognized that there are other ways to accomplish conservation. Rick's willingness to recognize the needs and concerns of others and his willingness to look for options where all parties can win, have made him a leader in the nation in finding ways to reach consensus on difficult conservation issues.

Rick and I have been through many battles together. We started with a not so harmonious discussion of nuclear power at my first wild Idaho and one day we ended up in the Oval Office with the President signing the Boulder-White Clouds and Jerry Peak Wilderness bills.

You learn a lot about an individual when you work for 15 years together on a wilderness bill and go camping in the mountains you are both trying to protect.

They also learn a lot about you. Rick was able to recognize my sincerity and concern for Idaho's special areas and more importantly convey that to others.

Rick wasn't a partner in crime, he was a partner in conservation. We were both able to maximize ``wins'' for our respective sides that they could take to the bank. He conserved hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness and I was able to create security and certainty for counties, ranchers and motorized users.

Working together we were able to find the proverbial ``win-win'' that everybody is looking for but always seems elusive. We found it, and Idaho is better off for it.

As future generations of Idahoans gaze over the beautiful vistas of the Cecil Andrus-White

Clouds, the Hemingway-Boulders, the McClure-Jerry Peaks, and the Owyhees, they should be thanking Rick Johnson for his work, his effort, and most importantly his ability to compromise with others.

I will miss Rick greatly as a leader and as my partner in conservation, but I know he is not leaving us forever. I will always have my friend I can call on.

I am wishing Rick and his wonderful wife Roberta, the best of luck in their future endeavors and retirement. I thank them for all that both of them have done for Idaho.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 35th anniversary of Sawtooths and Other Ranges of Imagination: Contemporary Art from Idaho.

In 1983-84, the Smithsonian American Art Museum (SAAM) featured an exhibition titled Sawtooths and Other Ranges of Imagination: Contemporary Art from Idaho that exclusively showcased artwork by acclaimed Idaho artists. The exhibition was shown at SAAM and then at the Boise Art Museum. Curated by Barbara Shissler Nosanow from the Smithsonian, the exhibition was realized thanks to the strong influence of Louise McClure, wife of U.S. Senator Jim McClure (Idaho).

Louise, Senator McClure, Barbara, and one of Senator McClure's staff toured Idaho in a five-seat plane, stopping in at least five locations to jury entries submitted by Idaho artists. The opening reception featured Idaho food, including a special potato chip made by Ore-Idaho and fresh huckleberries.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush appointed Louise to the National Council on the Arts, the body that oversees the National Endowment for the Arts. She helped guide the National Endowment for the Arts through a challenging period during her six-year term of service. In addition to this important role in arts policy, Louise also advanced the arts in Idaho, including service on the Lionel Hampton International Jazz Festival Board, Boise State Public Radio Community Advisory Board, Boise Philharmonic, Women's and Children's Alliance, and many others. Louise's work has supported and fostered a strong arts culture in the capital city that continues today. In 2010, Idaho Governor C.L. ``Butch'' Otter honored Louise and Jim by bestowing the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Governor's Awards in the Arts.

On May 15, 2019, the James A. and Louise McClure Center for Public Policy Research, along with the University of Idaho's College of Art and Architecture, will partner with the Boise Art Museum to host a reception celebrating the 35th anniversary of this exhibition and the policymakers who value and support the arts, including Louise McClure.

There is no question that Senator McClure had a huge influence on me and my political career. I strive every day to represent Idaho in the manner which he did, and Louise has always been a close, personal friend of Kathy and mine. It is truly an honor to recognize her today and thank her for all she has done for Idaho.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true public servant on her retirement. Wendy Baron retires today from the Idaho National Laboratory as the Emergency Communications Department manager.

Her remarkable journey at the lab started in the early 1980's. She first held a summer job at Argonne National Laboratory-West while she was in college and then returned after earning a degree in communications at Idaho State University in the public affairs office.

She left to work in private consulting in the 90's but found her way back to the lab in 2000. During this time, she also began volunteering with the Chubbuck Fire Department. I am not sure if it was that first EMT call to the Chubbuck Flying J where she delivered a baby in the front seat of a minivan, but it was in this job that Wendy discovered a passion for firefighting and emergency response. So Wendy turned her volunteer passion into her career.

In 2005 at 41 years old, Wendy became a member of the Idaho National Laboratory Fire Department. She trained hard to pass the physical test, including dragging a toboggan loaded with rock salt around her neighborhood at 4 a.m. Wendy immediately became active in union activities and leadership at the INLFD and just two years later, she helped lead the effort to reorganize the 75-member department into the International Association of Firefighters and served as the new local's president. That same year, Wendy was named the 2007 INL Firefighter of the year and was elected to serve on the executive board of the Professional Fire Fighters of Idaho (PFFI). She was then named PFFI Fire Fighter of the Year in 2009.

In 2013, Wendy was promoted to assistant fire chief for planning and logistics. Today, there are seven women in the INLFD, one of them a battalion chief. Fire Chief Eric Gosswiller credits Wendy for laying the groundwork for them.

Wendy is quick to credit those around her for her success. But even despite her humility, it is clear that Wendy is extraordinarily talented, hardworking, and dedicated. These qualities have resulted in the great respect and affection that her colleagues share for her.

I know Wendy looks forward to spending more time with her family in retirement, especially her husband Victor. She will also enjoy more sailing, backpacking, scuba and participating in competitive swimming and running events.

On behalf of a grateful community, I congratulate Wendy Baron on an incredibly successful and admirable career, and I wish you all the best in your well-deserved retirement.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and a little sadness that I rise today to recognize Ed Cannady and the great service he has given to our country, conservation and recreation as he retires from the United States Forest Service.

One of the great aspects of serving in Congress is meeting people, and Ed will be one of the individuals I remember most. Over the years, Ed has been a guide, a teacher and a friend to me and my staff.

I first met Ed in the early 2000s when I began working on my Boulder- White Clouds Wilderness bill. I thought it would be important to get a first-hand look at the lands I would be proposing for wilderness designation so I asked the Sawtooth National Forest Supervisor to set up a backpacking trip for my staff and me.

It was my good fortune that Ed was given the assignment to take a Congressman and his staff into the Boulder-White Clouds. I'm not

sure that Ed thought the same. He decided we would hike to the foot of Castle Peak in the Chamberlain basin. It was the middle of August-- summer mind you--and when we got our tents set up that afternoon it began to snow. It snowed more and blew some and snowed more. When we woke the next day to a winter scene and the chance of even more snow, prudence dictated that it was time to pack up and go home early.

While it was a short trip, it made for a great story and was the first of many enlightening trips and learning experiences into what is now the Cecil D. Andrus-White Clouds Wilderness that Ed took us on.

I also want to give special recognition to Ed for the help and expertise that he provided me and my staff as we developed the Boulder- White Clouds and Jerry Peak wilderness package. As far as I know, there is only one person alive who has been through and over every acre of those mountains and it happens to be Ed.

As we were determining wilderness boundaries, roads, trails, creeks, snowmobile areas and helicopter landing and ski areas, Ed was the one person who could always give me the answers I needed. More importantly, I could always count on Ed to give me both sides of the issue in an impartial manner that was fair to all parties.

He also identified potential conflicts for me with boundaries and uses so that we could resolve problems before they were locked into legislation. I can say with confidence that it would have been very difficult to write the bill without his help and expertise and for that I want to say ``thank you Ed.''

Ed Cannady is one of the good guys and my staff and I are going to miss him. Fortunately, we know he's not really going away and we will keep in touch in the many years to come.

Good luck and enjoy your retirement Ed

Madam Speaker, February been dedicated as the National Children's Dental Health Month. This is such an important cause and we are glad to bring awareness to promote good oral health for children. Tooth decay is the number one chronic infectious disease among children in the U.S. The impact of not treating decay can lead to other bad outcomes beyond just oral health. The Congressional Oral Health Caucus is pleased to support National Children's Dental Health Month and any activities taking place throughout the month of February.

Give Kids A Smile, which is sponsored by the ADA Foundation, is at the center of National Children's Dental Health Month. Give Kids a Smile day is such an important event for all children and dentists throughout the country. Because of this program, the ADA Foundation is able to provide assistance to more than 6,000 dentists and 57,000 dental team members, and other volunteers who proudly give their time and effort to make a difference in the health of children. Since this program has started, volunteers have graciously provided services to over 5.5 million kids across the country, and to all 50 states as well. They have truly made a huge impact in their communities and improved the oral health of so many children.

Throughout National Children's Dental Health Month, dentists and dental team members across the country will be providing oral health services for children in need, and this will continue throughout the year. These services will include oral health education, screenings, preventive care and restorative services. Some will provide this in their own dental practice, others will go right into schools and the community to reach the kids that need it most. There are also many major events at dental hygiene schools where hundreds of kid may receive oral health services.

Continued public awareness on this issue is so critical. On behalf of the Congressional Oral Health Caucus, I would once again like to state our full endorsement for the month, and push for continued care for good oral health of children.

Madam Speaker, I rise to call your attention to a notable retirement taking place at the nation's lead nuclear energy research and development laboratory.

For the last thirty-one years, Cal Ozaki has served in leadership roles at the Argonne-West/Idaho National Laboratory facilities in Eastern Idaho.

As director of INL's Campus Development office, Cal played a principal role in developing the laboratory's campus in Idaho Falls.

As laboratory liaison to the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy in Washington, D.C., Cal was a one-stop office for the agency to access INL Facilities and capabilities.

As director of INL's Facility Operations and Maintenance office, Cal was responsible for 2 million square feet of laboratory space, support facilities and infrastructure.

Finally, in his current position, manager of Public Affairs & Strategic Initiatives, Cal has helped educate his fellow citizens about INL's important clean energy and national security work.

But today's recognition cannot just focus on Cal's professional accomplishments. I also would like to mention his decades of remarkable public service.

Cal currently serves as an inaugural trustee at the new College of Eastern Idaho. He is a past chairman for the Idaho Falls Chamber of Commerce and served on the board of directors for the United Way and Eastern Idaho Economic Development Council. And, for the last 25 years, Cal has participated in community delegation exchanges with the Idaho Falls-Tokai Mura, Japan, Sister City program. With a smile on his face and a hearty laugh in the air, Cal has made a significant contribution to the quality of life for all of us in Eastern Idaho. Cal and his wife Cindy are pillars in the Idaho Falls community and their legacy of service and giving back is greatly appreciated.

It is my great honor to congratulate Cal on a notable career, thank him for his public service, and wish him and his wife, Cindy, all the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this conference report and commend Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger and their staffs for the hard work that goes into this. Not many people understand the important and long time that is spent by the staff in trying to put these bills together.

I could sit here until the cows come home, which might be shorter than we think if we run out of cows and get rid of those. But anyway, I could talk about the provisions in this bill that are important to Idaho, whether it is the PILT payment, the sage-grouse listing, or other provisions, but this is an important bill.

What I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention is a very important section of this conference agreement, section 7. It is with sadness that this section is included. It honors the late Stephen Sepp.

Sepp, as he was known to his friends and colleagues, spent the last 8 years as a senior adviser to the House Appropriations Committee. He was instrumental in the enactment of division O of the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act. I know this division well because it was the fire borrowing and forest management reforms I advocated and worked on for several years.

Sepp steadfastly worked with Members, the committees, the administration, and staff over several years to resolve the problems that fire borrowing caused for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. More than that, he helped solve a problem that threatens the lives and property of people in the West and, in fact, all over the country.

His strength, his courage, his sense of humor, and his vast knowledge of the Federal budget law and rules made him indispensable, especially to his colleagues. Without Sepp, division O would never have passed.

Along with my fellow colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, the chairwoman, and the ranking member--and I know our former colleague had a hand in this, Rodney Frelinghuysen--we would all like to express our gratitude to his wife, Diem, and children, Ashley and Matthew, for allowing him the many, many hours he spent with us making Congress and the Nation better.

Our thoughts are with him today as we pass this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's put the 2019 appropriations behind us so that we can move on to 2020.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, first, I would like to assure my colleague that I am not opposed to the project she is trying to fund. I am aware of the project and its importance to Puerto Rico. In a different context, I could support it.

In fact, as the previous chairman of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide funding for ecosystem restoration projects well above the annual budget request.

What I am opposed to is funding the ecosystem restoration projects in a disaster supplemental appropriations bill. A disaster supplemental is not simply a chance to clear the Army Corps of Engineers' construction backlog. That is what the annual appropriations process is for.

A disaster supplemental is intended to protect storm-ravaged areas against future storms and to reduce Federal liabilities from future storms. That is why the underlying bill is consistent with previous disaster bills and limits funding to projects that provide real benefits for that type, namely, flood and storm damage reduction projects.

Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the particular project of interest would not even be eligible for funding under this amendment.

The underlying bill restricts construction funding to areas impacted by various storms, none of which impacted Puerto Rico. We should not raise hopes knowing the project isn't even eligible.

While I am happy to offer to work with my colleague and try to support the project through the regular appropriations process, which I am sure the new chairwoman, Chairwoman Kaptur, is willing to do also, I must oppose funding in a disaster supplemental appropriations bill for ecosystem restoration projects.

Madam Chair, therefore, I oppose the amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would just say, again, it doesn't really matter whether you vote for this amendment or not. It doesn't really do anything because the project is not eligible. What we are doing by adopting this amendment is raising false hopes, knowing that the project isn't even eligible.

I encourage the gentlewoman to withdraw the amendment and work with us to see if we can fund this through the regular appropriations process.

Madam Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, first of all, there are no funds in this bill to expand or build detention facilities.

There are no funds in this bill to expand or build detention facilities.

There are no funds in this bill to expand or build detention facilities.

But let me get this straight, see if I have got it straight. We don't want to enhance border security to stop people from coming across the border illegally. We have got immigration courts being overrun. And we don't want to have the necessary facilities to keep those people because they can't get into the immigration courts right away.

What exactly do you want us to do?

Just because Congress says, Hey, I am only giving you funding for 40,000 people. What if 100,000 people come across the border illegally? What do you expect us to do?

You have no answers, except: No, no, don't detain them.

Just let them go?

I know how we can reduce the cost of prisons in this country. Let's only appropriate enough money to house 100,000 prisoners. Regardless of the crimes they have committed or anything else, I am only going to fund 100,000. Above that, just let them go.

I don't get it. I don't know where the heck we are coming from on this. All this does is put another poison pill in this bill that will make it much more difficult to pass and will ensure that the Senate will never take it up, which I doubt they will anyway.

To me, I just don't understand what the heck is going on here. We all know what the answer to this shutdown is. Every one of us, in our heart, knows what the answer is. It is a compromise. And a compromise means both sides give some and get some. That is the nature of a compromise.

That means there are going to be parts in it that I don't like, but I am going to end up voting for it. That means there are going to be parts in it you don't like, but you need to end up voting for it.

Anyway, we need to get back to opening this government and quit putting these poison pills and this nonsense in this bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I would just say that the argument I just heard is kind of ridiculous. If what we are going to do is list everything this bill, these funds, can't be spent on, I don't think we should be able to give any of this money to NASA to put a man on the moon.

We could list everything that the Federal Government does except these things and say we have to specify it in the bill.

No. This is a poison pill.

Again, I didn't hear an answer. What do you expect to do when these people come across the border illegally? What if they are waiting for hearings and stuff and the courts are just being flooded?

There are no answers. You have no answers. This is a bad amendment. Just trying to make a statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, my good friend, for yielding and for the job that he has done as chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee in the past.

Let me begin by saying that we all want the government to reopen--all on this side, all on that side. We don't agree with this shutdown. I also want strong border security, and I know you all want strong border security. We disagree about how to get there.

These can both be accomplished with a little word called ``compromise.'' I heard everybody throw around that word quite a bit and then go back to their hardened positions and forget what a compromise is. So I looked it up in the dictionary, because I thought maybe I was mistaken about what a compromise is.

The dictionary says it is ``a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, et cetera, by reciprocal modification of demands.''

We can't call for a compromise and then go back to our hardened positions and say: ``I want everything I want, and you get nothing you want.''

This bill is not a compromise. If you would bring up the compromised conference bills between the House and the Senate, you would have my support, but that is not what this is. This is the Senate bill.

We have a conference bill between the House and the Senate that was prepared to be brought to the floor last year and never made it. Bring up that conference report.

Unfortunately, by adopting just the Senate bill, we might not even have a House Chamber. Why have a House Chamber if all we are going to do is adopt whatever the Senate decides to do?

This bill, as has been mentioned, reduces funding by $160 million from the House bill for Indian Country, and has a:

$21 million reduction from the House bill for hazardous fuels reduction that prevents catastrophic wildfires;

$23 million reduction from the House bill in sage-grouse funding, which is vital to keeping the species off of the endangered species list;

$27 million reduction from the House bill for national parks funding, which is needed to solve the maintenance backlog; and

$12 million reduction from the House bill for the Water Infrastructure Finance Act, which is critical to financing community water projects, given the enormous backlog that exists for our water system.

The bill also leaves out vital report language directives from the House bill that were carefully crafted to represent House Members' priorities, both Republican and Democratic priorities. They are being totally ignored with this legislation.

In the end, we all know that this isn't going anywhere. This is just a game. And I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am tired; I am tired of the finger-pointing, the name-calling, and the games we are playing.

I know that on the Democratic side of the aisle you are getting phone calls by the hundreds, if not thousands, from your constituents who say: Don't give in to Trump; don't give in to any border security wall or fencing or whatever.

We are getting the same phone calls on our side, who say: Don't you vote for anything that doesn't have Trump's border wall in it.

The uncomfortable thing is that, occasionally, as elected Representatives, we are called upon to lead, regardless of the consequences; and I have to say, we have all failed, all of us, and for that, I am very, very sorry.

Mr. Speaker, I have always found this debate interesting, but we know what this is all about. This is all about the negotiations on border security.

What I found interesting is to listen to everybody talk about the President not being willing to negotiate, not being willing to compromise. Yet, he has offered many of the things that the Democrats say that they want in any border security bill.

A negotiation ends when both parties can say they got something that they want. Yet, the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate continue to say ``no'' to anything the President wants. He wants a border wall for a part of border security, and they continue to say ``no.'' That is no kind of negotiation, and we know that is what has led us here today.

Every one of us wants government reopened, but we know the games that are being played here. I will tell you, the problem with what is on the floor today is that we are bringing up the Senate bills that completely ignore the priorities of House Republicans and House Democrats in the appropriations process.

Most of these bills have been conferenced. Why bring up just the Senate bill and not the conference report that was done that recognizes both Senate and House priorities?

Let me give you one example. The House T-HUD bill carried a bipartisan provision that raises the length limit for specific vehicles used to transport sugar beets, and only on specific routes used to ship sugar beets between Oregon and Idaho for processing. It is a provision that is supported by the Oregon Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the State of Idaho. It is very limited--only sugar beets on non-interstate highways--and everybody agrees with it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from two Senators, one from Idaho and one from Oregon, who support this provision, and I will include it in the Record.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, September 11, 2018.

Hon. Richard Shelby,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Susan Collins,

Chairwoman, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,

and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick Leahy,

Vice Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, this provision is noncontroversial. It is in the House bill. Guess what? It is not in the Senate bill. That means, if you adopt the Senate bill, you have dropped out this provision and you have dropped out many other provisions that are a priority for both House Republicans and House Democrats.

Why would we turn over everything to the Senate and their priorities?

You all know how this works. When we write a bill, we emphasize House priorities and we downplay Senate priorities. They do the same thing on their side, emphasizing Senate priorities and downplaying House priorities. Then we go to conference, and we work it out and find a compromise. But we are not doing that with this bill.

I will tell you, if you bring up the conferenced bills, the bills that have been conferenced last year between the House and the Senate, you will have my support. I will vote for them, but not for a bill that just emphasizes the Senate priorities and ignores the work of the House and the House Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an outstanding rural hospital in Southeast Idaho. The hospital I am referring to is the Bear Lake Memorial Hospital. This hospital was honored with two prestigious awards in 2018 by the National Rural Health Association. They were awarded Top 20 honors as a Critical Access Hospital and for Best Practices in Quality among rural hospitals.

Bear Lake Memorial Hospital is located in Montpelier, Idaho, in the Southeast corner of Idaho. Montpelier is the biggest town in Bear Lake County. It is a small town with a population of less than 3,000, yet manages to provide some of the best rural healthcare in our nation.

The National Rural Health Association compared Bear Lake Memorial Hospital with over 1300 other critical access hospitals. Bear Lake Memorial Hospital scored in the 99.6th percentile overall, making them one of the Top 20 Critical Access Hospitals in the country.

Bear Lake Memorial Hospital was also awarded Top 20 Best Practices in Quality among the 1300 rural hospitals surveyed. This award is based on a hospital's exceptional performance across five categories of Hospital Compare Process of Care measures. Bear Lake Memorial Hospital is being recognized by National Rural Health Association for the outstanding quality of service and care they deliver to their patients and community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Martin Epeldi, better known as Marty, for his 23 years of service as a United States Postal Service letter carrier.

Marty was born and raised in our state's capital city, Boise, Idaho. Martin graduated from Boise High School and then Boise State University. He is also a proud member of Boise's Basque community. For over two decades, Marty has served our community as a letter carrier, delivering the mail `neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of

their appointed rounds' and Marty is no exception.

Marty has delivered mail to my Boise office for almost twenty years. In addition to providing trusted and timely delivery of the daily mail, he is a welcome and celebrated visitor to my Boise office. Members of my staff always look forward to his friendly conversation and entertaining stories. Marty's contagious smile and laugh and his outgoing disposition will certainly be missed by the residents and business people of downtown Boise.

It is an honor to congratulate Martin Epeldi on his remarkable dedication and service to the citizens of Boise. I wish him an enjoyment retirement and much pleasure spending time with family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding set of twins from Idaho: Boyd Frank Henderson and Ralph Jay Henderson, who recently celebrated their 100th birthday. Those 100 years were marked by dedicated service to their country, church, and community, and I wish to recognize them for their outstanding contributions to Idaho.

As young men in 1941, the Henderson twins joined the United Sates Army. That same year, they left their wives and entered World War II in the 183 Field Artillery Battalion, fighting in North Africa and Europe. After being injured in combat, Boyd was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for heroic achievement. Ralph showed extreme bravery and was awarded the Silver Star. Both learned and grew from their experiences in the United States Army and utilized these talents and skills throughout their lives.

Before joining the Army, the Henderson twins enjoyed many of life's accomplishments together. They both graduated from Pocatello High School in 1936, and in 1937 participated in Boy Scout and an Eagle Scout Courts of Honor. In 1941, both were married: Boyd to Ethel Chilton and Ralph to Lena Rawlins.

At the end of their tours of duty, the Henderson twills returned to Pocatello, Idaho. Boyd returned to his wife Ethel and had nine children. Ralph returned to his wife Lena and had five children. After Lena's passing, Ralph married LeNore Thompson Smedley in 2002.

Boyd and Ralph opened Henderson Lumber shortly after returning from the war. The twins contributed substantially to building the community of Pocatello. They also contributed politically and served in various leadership positions in the community. Boyd served as a Bannock County Commissioner for six years.

Boyd and Ralph were also both active in their church. In 1927, they were baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Both held unpaid, lay clergy positions that helped countless members of their church, and both were called to serve as Bishops in their geographical area. Boyd also held the position of Stake President and Regional Representative, as well as serving for three years in Australia as a Mission President.

Few people live to be 100 years old and even fewer can share that day with a twin. Boyd and Ralph Henderson accomplished that on September 6, 2018. They shared their 100th birthday with each other, their families, and their friends. The 100 years that Boyd and Ralph have lived have helped shape Pocatello into the place it is today. Unfortunately, Ralph passed away on November 5, 2018. He will be missed by many, but undoubtedly none more than his twin brother, Boyd.

The family, friends, and community who have had the privilege of knowing Boyd and Ralph Henderson are proud of the lives they both have lived.

The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arkansas has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.