Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 699 clarifies the terms of the land exchange between the Forest Service and Mt. Hood Meadows, a privately held ski resort. The exchange was authorized by Congress in 2009, but due to lack of clarity, here we are 7 years later and the exchange still has not been executed.

Last year, the Forest Service and Mt. Hood Meadows engaged in mediation to resolve the issues that have held up the exchange. This bill is a result of that mediation, and its passage will ensure that, after 7 long years, the exchange will finally move forward.

I want to thank the sponsors, Representative Walden and Representative Blumenauer from Oregon, for their hard work and commitment to resolving this issue.

Last year, this bill passed the House and Senate as part of S. 2012. Given all the positive momentum this legislation has seen in recent years, I hope that we can get this bill across the finish line as soon as possible and finally complete the land exchange. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the bill's sponsor.

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

Congress established the Coltsville National Historical Park at the end of 2014. The law that established the park also authorized the National Park Service to utilize a 10,000-square-foot building, known as the East Armory for the purpose of park administration.

However, during the planning phase for establishing this new park, local stakeholders and the Park Service have determined that the Colt Armory Complex is better suited for this purpose. This bill simply makes that change and authorizes use of the Colt Armory Complex.

I support this simple fix to the enabling legislation that responds to the on-the-ground dynamics of this particular park. I want to thank the majority and my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee for expediting review of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his hard work on moving this bill forward. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 863.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one of the consequences of Donald Trump's refugee ban that has so far been ignored.

The day after Donald Trump issued his executive order to ban refugees and all citizens from seven Muslim majority countries, four children from El Salvador landed in Miami International Airport.

It is a short flight from El Salvador, but the children had been waiting a long time to come here. In 2015, they applied to come here through the Central American Minors program that was started in 2014 as a safe and legal way for a limited--a very small--number of children from Central America.

After submitting to DNA tests, screenings, and a long application process, they were finally given visas, and they were on their way here. However, after landing at Miami and passing through the Customs and Border Protection screening, and on their way to their connecting flight, they were stopped and pulled into a secondary inspection. For six long hours, these children were detained in a cold room without food or water.

These children had done everything right, and waited a long time to flee a very traumatic situation. They came here, and their first experience was to be treated like criminals.

This is just one example of how Trump's hasty, harmful executive order is undermining our American values. It is just one more reason why, instead of rewriting it, as he says that he is doing, he should rescind it altogether.

But, of course, these children are the lucky ones, the fortunate few who got a chance to come here legally.

Many of my colleagues will recall that, in the summer of 2014, thousands of children from Central America arrived at our southern border. Those children were fleeing gangs and violence. Many of them turned themselves in to the Border Patrol. They were not trying to sneak in to our country. They were asking for asylum. They were asking for relief and protection.

We knew that if we were going to stop kids from making that dangerous journey to come here, some of them walking over 1,000 miles to our southern border, that we would have to tackle the root causes that compelled them to leave. So the leaders of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, with some help from General John Kelly, came up with a plan to bring some stability to those three countries. And Congress, working on a bipartisan basis, provided some financial support.

But even as we make long-term investments in the Northern Triangle, we need to deal with the fact that children from these countries still need our protection in the short-term. That is why the Obama administration created a few programs to help a very small number of those children.

Those children did what we asked them. They didn't come across our border. They didn't cross Mexico. They waited in line as they were told, even if waiting in line meant staying in harm's way. Because of Donald Trump's executive order, those children now face a very uncertain future.

Lost in the media coverage of this order is the suspension of the refugee program, blockage of these vulnerable children as well. I am glad that the judge has stayed the order. I hope that the President will respect the judge's order.

But more than that, I hope that the President will take a real look at all the harm that he has already caused for so many people, including so many innocent children. I hope that he puts an end to his cruel, counterproductive executive order once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution which would do away with the new procedures established under BLM Planning 2.0.

Planning 2.0 encourages, at its foundation, early and frequent public input. By rolling back this planning effort, public input--in particular, tribal input--will be removed.

Federally recognized tribes have the right to engage in government- to-government consultation, and, under Planning 2.0, tribal rights to participate in the planning process are clearly enumerated and protected.

By introducing the resolution we are considering today, the majority is making clear it doesn't value tribal input in the development of BLM's resource management plans. In this updated planning process, the BLM worked hard to ensure government-to-government consultation was accomplished. Tribes were encouraged to submit comments through the formal comment period and through government-to-government consultation. But BLM recognizes the hard work of tribes and has been inclusive of tribal concerns.

In fact, BLM has recognized the quality and value that tribes' traditional ecological knowledge brings to planning efforts. It is important to incorporate this information to avoid resource conflicts and to protect hunting and fishing grounds.

In many areas, the BLM and tribes actually have to manage resources together. How can they do this when tribes are not invited to be a part of the consultation process? By including government-to-government consultation early in the planning process, all taxpayers benefit in the long run because we can develop a stronger plan that doesn't end up in court being litigated.

We want BLM to be an agency that actively embraces the people who live on and use the land they manage. By formalizing the tribal consultation role and recognizing the value tribes bring to the planning process as Planning 2.0 does, the BLM is taking important steps to fully engage with all their constituents.

Land management is about looking at the bigger picture, and tribes understand that more than anyone. They deserve to be recognized in the planning process, and Planning 2.0 does that.

Repealing this rule through the CRA is shortsighted and wrongheaded.

Mr. Speaker, due to a conflict, I unavoidably missed the following vote on February 2. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: On roll call No. 77, I would have voted ``nay'' on H.J. Res. 40, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, this is what a refugee looks like, and I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban and help unify the family of an Iraqi refugee who is now separated indefinitely from her husband and children because of the ban.

Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to hold homeland security funds hostage simply because some of my colleagues don't like the President's action on immigration. There is a time and place to have this debate--and this isn't it.

I spent my career working in public safety and emergency preparedness with the LAPD. Security is in my blood. I know how important it is to be able to plan, prepare, and maintain the morale of those on the front lines.

If we let the Department of Homeland Security funding expire, it isn't nameless bureaucrats who will be suffering. We will shutter the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, halt R&D work to counter security threats, and end FEMA training activities with our local law enforcement. That says nothing of the 147,000 Border Patrol, ICE, and TSA officers, Active Duty Coast Guard, and Secret Service agents who will be forced to work without pay.

These men and women have our backs. We should have theirs.