Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, although I am a big fan of the Inspector General's Office, the current budget is funded at the budget request, and therefore I do not see us raising $2.5 million by raiding the Secretary of the Interior's operating account. I think it goes way too far.

I am glad to know that the gentleman from Arizona actually listened to our talking points on that. But I think at this point in time I would like to keep it exactly where it is.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment for several reasons.

The Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act of 1974 was intended to last 5 years. After that, the plan was to go ineffective. This program has lingered on for nearly four decades longer than it should have.

The Office of the Navajo-Hopi Relocation has indicated its intent to close by September 2018. Accordingly, we should not be reducing or even paying more money in fiscal year 2019 when they want to close the office in fiscal year 2018.

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

Mr. Chair, originally, this legislation was intended to help 1,000 families. We have helped more than 3,600 Navajo families and 27 Hopi families.

When we talk about the comprehensive plan, maybe we ought to get everybody in order to make sure that plan is acceptable by everybody before we keep throwing money at the problem.

Mr. Chair, once again, I am in opposition. Once again, it is four decades past its time. We don't get resolution on this aspect without putting some force behind it. There has to be finality to this. This cannot keep going on. Without putting some finality to the finances, we will see this continue over and over again.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2018 proposed eliminating the Environmental Justice Program. Also, the RSE budget supports Representative Sam Johnson's H.R. 958, the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2017, which, among other things, would eliminate the Environmental Justice Program.

Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in insisting that the Department of Justice fully comply with Congress and provide the requested documents, including subpoenas related to the potential FISA abuse.

The Department of Justice has done nothing but divert and block Congress from documents that are well within our rights to receive. They have repeatedly insisted that they have complied with the document request when they clearly have not.

The Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has been the major player in stonewalling Congress. The longer they stall this process, the more the American people lose faith in our justice system. That is a threat to our country's future.

I stand here today calling for transparency, answers, and accountability so that we can get to the truth. The American people deserve the accountability. The time to act is now.

If the DOJ fails to comply, then we will be forced to take it to the next level, to hold Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in contempt, as my previous speaker has spoken, or even to impeach, which would be my preferred course of action right now.

It is very simple. Comply with the law, do your job, or get out.

I support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the following purpose.

I want to share my concern about the arrest and conviction of Tommy Robinson in Great Britain. I am well aware that England does not share our free speech values and does not have the equivalent of a First Amendment. Indeed, the restrictive practices of England led directly to the birth of this great nation and the freedom we enjoy here.

Mr. Robinson, a British activist and journalist, was arrested and jailed for simply filming outside a public courtroom, and was sentenced to 13 months for this ``crime.'' His real crime is not taking pictures; His real crime is his refusal to agree to the government's efforts to cover up crimes by Muslim gangs who are raping British girls, almost with impunity, and with little apparent regard by the British government.

If this act violated a term of probation, it would mean the court system in England is a key part of the problem, covering up for criminals by imposing gag orders as terms of probation.

Dissent is patriotic when the ruling class are illegitimate and oppressive. The ruling class in England appears fearful of the truth. When it bans discussion, and when it criminalizes the truth, any such government can fairly be labeled as both oppressive and tyrannical. I object to the suppression of the truth.

England has a proud history and America is its progeny, but it needs to take back its liberty and freedom. ``It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom,'' Braveheart (1995).

Mr. Speaker, if any single thing epitomizes American ingenuity, it is the iconic American inventor. It is our distinct pleasure, therefore, to give special recognition to the month of May as National Inventors Month.

President Lincoln considered how ``certain inventions and discoveries [in history] occurred of peculiar value, on account of their great efficiency in facilitating all other inventions and discoveries.'' Mr. Lincoln specified ``the art of writing and of printing; the discovery of America, and the introduction of patent laws.'' Today, we might refer to such inventions and discoveries as ``disruptive technologies.''

National Inventors Month, 2018, it is well worth considering President Lincoln's exaltation of invention and, by implication, of inventors. Moreover, we as a nation should pause to reflect why the Sixteenth President of the United States connected patent laws with invention and ``disruptive'' advancements. Notably, he even placed patenting of inventions on par with the discovery of America and the invention of the printing press. In the same lecture titled ``Discoveries, Inventions, and Improvements,'' President Lincoln observed, ``Before then any man [might] instantly use what another man had invented, so that the inventor had no special advantage from his invention. The patent system changed this, secured to the inventor for a limited time exclusive use of his inventions . . . .''

Not only President Lincoln, but the Founders held this belief about securing patent rights to the intellectual fruits of one's labor. The Founders thought it important enough to empower and encourage invention by any American so inclined, in order to advance our nation's collective knowledge and economic strength, that they included this very special, exclusive property right within the Constitution itself. Thus, our Founders deliberately intended to stimulate invention by inventors from sea to shining sea--be they on farms, in factories, toiling in their basements, barns, garages, in corporate research and development facilities, in the laboratories of companies and of our world-class universities.

President Lincoln, who has been the only U.S. president with a patent, summarized this famous, successful formula. He credited our patent system for its securing inventors' exclusive rights to use their inventions as they see fit. He phrased this famously, completing the thought in the same speech. Mr. Lincoln said U.S. patents ``added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery and production of new and useful things.''

Therefore, we proudly recognize National Inventors Month. I encourage my fellow Americans to take this opportunity to reflect on the great benefits we daily enjoy from the inventions, great and small, of American inventors.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the ARPA-E program first began receiving funding through the 2009 Obama stimulus and is currently unauthorized.

ARPA-E grew out of those years' overly optimistic perception of the Federal Government's ability to lead in areas of commercially viable energy research and technology, particularly in renewables.

The obvious problem with this premise is that the government, unlike our Nation's industries and corporations, has never been in the business of cost-benefit maximization, as other blunders from that period, like the Solyndra scandal, demonstrated.

This is because the Federal Government is competent and accomplished in the areas of basic, early-stage scientific research but poorly positioned to move research from concept to market. And ARPA-E provides even further demonstration of that. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies defunded the program in their FY18 draft passed bill.

The administration and the Republican Study Committee have both advocated eliminating this stimulus-era program and have continually indicated that the proper role of government in energy research is at the level of basic research taking place in existent, well-funded programs like the Office of Science and the applied energy research and development program.

Those DOE programs that they point to are more worthy recipients of Federal dollars, are effective, and produce results because they focus on the right goals.

For this reason, the administration is also strongly opposed to continued funding for the ARPA-E program. The White House stated in its fiscal year 2019 budget proposal:

Appropriations for ARPA-E were only authorized through 2013

under the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. In

addition, there has been concern about the potential for

ARPA-E's efforts to overlap with research and development

being carried out, or which should be carried out, by the

private sector.

No new appropriations are requested in 2019. The Department

would request reprogramming of prior-year unobligated

balances for program closeout activities to ensure full

closure of ARPA-E by mid-2020. Any remaining contract

closeout and award monitoring activities would be transferred

elsewhere within DOE.

This proposed elimination reflects both a streamlining of

Federal activities and a refocusing on the proper Federal

role in energy research and development.

In a May 15 view letter to House Appropriations on the Energy and Water bill, the White House stated: ``The Administration is disappointed that the bill does not eliminate ARPA-E. The Committee is encouraged to explore options to incorporate certain ARPA-E attributes, such as cross-cutting research coordination and enhanced flexibility, into the Department of Energy's primary research efforts within the Office of Science and Applied Energy Research Programs rather than maintain a separate program through ARPA-E.''

In a June 5 Statement of Administration Policy, the White House stated: ``The Administration believes that the continued funding of ARPA-E makes little strategic sense given the existence of applied energy research elsewhere within the Department. The Congress is urged to eliminate ARPA-E and incorporate its more successful elements, such as coordination with industry and cross-cutting research, into the Department's applied energy programs.''

The innovations ARPA-E supporters crow about must come from the market or from academic research institutions, because the Federal Government's track record of responding to commercial incentives in a cost-beneficial way to the taxpayer is absolutely poor.

The proper Federal nexus for research is the early-stage work being done at the existing Office of Science and the applied energy research program, not projects foisted onto the government that weren't compelling enough to receive private funding.

Heritage Action, Freedomworks, Club for Growth, and the National Taxpayers Union are key-voting this amendment. The amendment is also endorsed by the Americans for Limited Government and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

I urge adoption of this amendment that supports President Trump's agenda.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, any program that receives this much funding has individual successes proponents can point to. The problem with this program is that the ratio of successes to the failures is far lower with this one than comparable Federal research programs.

It also targets an area of research that is inappropriate for Federal research. Basic early-stage research is a profit avenue for Federal dollars to go, not late-stage research on projects approaching commercialization. If a concept or technology is nearing commercialization, that is the right nexus for private industry to get involved.

Our country's major companies in tech, engineering, and energy are flush with cash, and projects that they think are commercially viable are getting more funding than ever before. Failure by the government to salvage a project means that the projects, on the whole, aren't worth being salvaged by government, industry, or anyone.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, this is an unauthorized program and it treads on existing jurisdictions at the Department of Energy, specifically, the Office of Science and Applied Energy Research program. It is a program in search of justification.

Let's take, for example, Solyndra. That is a wonderful success. Really? Private sector couldn't do that? They could do it a ton better than that type of application.

I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. This is sound.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that utilizes the Holman rule to hold WAPA Administrator Mark Gabriel accountable.

On Gabriel's watch, millions of taxpayer and customer dollars were flushed down the drain on fraudulent and improper transactions while a culture of fear from the highest echelons of the agency enforced silence as to the true nature and scope of these misdeeds.

Wasteful and fraudulent expenditures by WAPA in recent years include things like ammunition; specialized weapons, including numerous purchases of $1,200 rifle scopes; an unauthorized ATV at a cost of $14,000; a John Deere lawn tractor; personal clothing; prohibited purchases of $349,000 to accessorize personal cars; $271,000 at book stores; $102,000 to deck out motorcycles from shops and dealers; and questionable expenditures from one employee to the tune of $50,000 per month.

Now, in response, the Western Area Power Administration slow-walked investigations, covered up the fraud, and intimidated anyone bold enough to call it out.

A 14-year Federal employee who once worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office told reporters: ``Instead of aggressively going after corruption, WAPA's bosses slow-walked the investigation, retaliated against those who uncovered fraud, and failed to protect them from threats.''

Unfortunately, this employee is not alone. A former WAPA vice president for procurement went on record to state that, during his 30 years of Federal service, he had never seen anything like this and certainly had never felt unsafe at work until he worked at WAPA on a daily basis.

Disturbingly, 20 complaints of violence in the workplace occurred over the last 3-year period. The mismanagement, corruption, and culture is so bad at WAPA that an independent consultant did a violence assessment in late 2015 and found: ``Multiple employees reported having been threatened directly or heard others being threatened regarding the current investigations. . . . Several indicated they had not bothered to report the incidents for reasons of fear and/or the belief upper management would not act. Because of past failures to address these issues more seriously, it is very likely the incidents will increase in number and severity.''

Assessors also reported: ``Employees mentioned bosses who actively seek to intimidate employees, especially women, and who tolerate and perhaps promote a culture of unacceptable behavior in their teams.''

Equally troubling, Administrator Gabriel is routinely and publicly insubordinate as an agency head. At an April 12, 2018, budget hearing, Mr. Gabriel took a public position contrary to that of the current administration, advocating for tip funding even though the budget proposal proposed to eliminate such funding.

This commonsense amendment seeks to hold this rogue bureaucrat accountable to the American people and the victims who have suffered under his tenure.

I am pleased to have the support of FreedomWorks, who is key voting this amendment; Club for Growth, who is key voting the amendment; the Tea Party Patriots; Americans for Limited Government; Texas' Michael Q. Sullivan; the Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association; the Mohave Electric Cooperative; the Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative; Arizona Pork Producers; New Mexico Cattle Growers Association; New Mexico Wool Growers; Sulphur Up North Jobs, Incorporated.

Numerous customers and Federal employees no longer want Mr. Gabriel in charge, having understandably lost faith in his leadership. It is far past time that the Department of Energy clean house and show this Obama administration holdover the door.

Mr. Chair, I commend the chairman and the committee for their efforts on this legislation. I urge support of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the current application of the Holman rule authorizes three specific uses in an appropriation bill: the reduction of amounts of money in the bill, the reduction of the number and salary of officers of the United States, or the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out in the treasury of the United States.

Let's go back through this. Look at this fraud. Look at these 20 complaints of violence.

I have to tell you: Are you sure you want to defend this guy? Inconceivable. Inconceivable that we are going to allow this. We owe it to the Federal employees under this gentleman to have an employment environment to be well taken care of.

Mr. Chair, I ask for the Members to vote on behalf of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chair, this isn't a jurisdictional aspect of power across the West. This is fraud. This is workplace violence--20. This has nothing to do with jurisdictional application of water or power. This is an unsafe application within the workplace. This is a bully in an agency who is weighing in and doing unwanted things.

We have an obligation, an absolute obligation, to rein somebody in like this. That is what is wrong here. If we can't do this to a swamp creature of this magnitude, then what can we do.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, on July 19, 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order 13547 and sought to implement a new National Ocean Policy. According to the House Committee on Natural Resources: ``In this unilateral action, he established a top-down Washington, D.C.- based approval process that will hinder rather than promote ocean and inland activities and cost American jobs. . . . This has the potential to inflict damage across a spectrum of sectors, including agriculture, fishing, construction, manufacturing, mining, oil and natural gas, renewable energy, and marine commerce, among others. . . . Over 80 national and local organizations representing agriculture, forestry, energy, fishing, boating, mining, transportation, and construction wrote to then Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers requesting a prohibition on funding for the implementation of the President's National Ocean Policy.''

Our oceans are home to a variety of industries, and it is critical that we maintain our offshore environments and promote a robust offshore economy. The National Ocean Policy represents the previous administration's heavyhanded, top-down approach to Federal land and water management and does not reflect the realities of our working oceans and coastal communities.

Our offshore assets contribute billions to the U.S. economy, and the National Ocean Policy's vague directive sharply discouraged the development of American energy, sustainable fisheries, and our coastal economies. Policies like this cause industries to turn outside of the U.S. to do their business.

Adding duplicative layers of permitting and consultation to our already highly regulated ocean industries and subject all parties to virtually unlimited legal exposure, we are seeing this firsthand in the Northeast, where direct conflict in the ocean user groups has resulted in litigation. This is the exact thing that this policy is supposed to alleviate. Years into implementation, this policy is incapable of achieving its stated goal.

U.S. oceans industries are major global players, and we need to keep our industries competitive. The National Ocean Policy does the opposite. As such, I strongly oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my good friend and colleague, Representative Amodei's, amendment.

The amendment aims to streamline a bureaucratic process that is hampering the production of defense critical metals and minerals. Strategic and critical minerals are important to national security and help provide our troops with the equipment and weapons they need to keep us safe.

A nonclassified defense study recently found that failure to have a reliable supply chain for at least 16 of the 35 critical minerals has already caused significant weapon system production delays for the Department of Defense.

A recent report published by the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey found the U.S. is 100 percent net import reliant on foreign countries, including China, for 20 different critical minerals. Such reliance threatens our national security as well as our ability to make equipment and weapons that our troops need to be successful in their missions.

I applaud Representative Amodei and his strong leadership and tireless efforts to support the needs of our men and women in uniform, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

This good governance and commonsense amendment will reduce costs associated with consultation and allow important projects to move forward while ensuring these actions don't negatively impact species and result in more private contributions that help recover endangered species.

In recent years, local landowners showed unprecedented support for lesser prairie chicken conservation and committed approximately 4 million acres and more than $26 million toward these efforts. Unfortunately, current practices do not allow conservation measures that take place outside of designated critical habitat to count in relation to Federal actions.

This arbitrary interpretation results in less conservation efforts for species and stifles private investment that would otherwise be encouraged if the totality of habitat conservation measures underway were allowed to be considered.

Last year, Senator John Barrasso pointed out that, of the more than 1,600 species of animals and plants listed on the Endangered Species Act since 1973, only 3 percent have been recovered. That is 3 percent. This is failure by any definition or reason.

This amendment encourages voluntary conservation that will help recover threatened and endangered species. Property owners, States, and local communities should be encouraged to be part of the solution, not pushed aside in favor of Federal micromanagement.

I applaud Representative Johnson for his strong leadership and tireless efforts to improve an outdated system that is failing to protect species and failing to consider the totality of conservation measures underway before moving forward with new Federal actions.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Banks.

The previous administration's Waters of the U.S. rule, commonly referred to as WOTUS, attempted to assert Clean Water Act jurisdiction over nearly all areas with even the slightest connection to water resources, including manmade conveyances. The Obama administration threatened the very livelihoods of farmers, ranchers, small businesses, water users, and property owners when unilaterally enacting this overreaching water and land grab by executive fiat.

Contrary to claims by the Obama administration, this regulation directly contradicts prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions which imposed limits on the extent of Federal Clean Water Act authority. Although the agencies maintained the rule was narrow and clarified the Clean Water Act jurisdiction, it would actually aggressively expand Federal authority under the Clean Water Act while bypassing Congress and creating unnecessary ambiguity. In fact, even the agencies admitted, when announcing the final rule, that WOTUS would expand agency control over 60 percent of our country's streams and millions of acres of wetlands that were previously non-jurisdictional.

Moreover, the rule was based on incomplete scientific and economic analysis. In recent years, the House has voted at least five different times to block or reduce the damage associated with the Obama WOTUS rule. In January 2016, the House and Senate passed legislation blocking WOTUS, utilizing the Congressional Review Act, and put a bill on President Obama's desk that he subsequently vetoed.

WOTUS is a dream-killer for future generations and will result in significant job losses as well as considerable harm to our economy. Congress must take action today to repeal this fundamentally flawed mandate once and for all. I applaud Representative Banks for his strong leadership and tireless efforts to protect the livelihoods of farmers, ranchers, businessmen, and other local stakeholders by repealing this unconstitutional power grab.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this lawful and necessary amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment that will empower local communities by allowing counties to be included in Good Neighbor Authority cooperative agreements and contracts in order to improve forest health and bolster watershed restoration.

The base farm bill reauthorizes Good Neighbor Authority through fiscal year 2023 and contains a provision that allows tribal governments to be eligible to enter into Good Neighbor Authority cooperative agreements and contracts. Our amendment simply builds on that commonsense provision by also authorizing counties to be eligible for Good Neighbor Authority.

Good Neighbor Authority projects have been remarkably successful. From 2002 to 2013, 63 projects treated more than 4,100 acres in Colorado and Utah. These worthwhile treatments mitigated the threat of catastrophic wildfire, reduced flooding, enhanced forest health, and improved water quality.

Counties on both sides of the aisle requested this amendment and new authority.

The problem in Coconino County, a liberal county represented by my colleague Mr. O'Halleran, is that the wood is low-value timber, so they can't attract private industry to thin their forest for pending work they need completed.

Counties want to do this type of work themselves or find a contractor if the Federal Government won't treat their forests. All that is missing is the authorization from Congress.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is already entering into cooperative agreements with counties to partner in the management of Wisconsin County Forests, and it is working for them as well.

Some counties have actual foresters or other land management professionals on staff. These are not limited specifically to large counties either. For example, Adams County, Idaho, population of 4,000, has a natural resources committee that is chaired by a retired Forest Service employee who also serves on the local forest collaborative.

Coconino County has a forest restoration director who would be in charge of these county Good Neighbor Authority agreements. This is a director-level executive position that reports directly to the deputy county manager.

While some counties will likely contract with outside entities to perform the work, county contracts will be overseen by someone such as an auditor or a clerk.

The National Association of Counties supports this amendment, stating, ``NACo stands ready to work with you to promote locally supported, consensus-driven solutions to address forest management challenges and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. NACo encourages the United States House of Representatives to adopt your amendment to H.R. 2 and give counties the opportunity to assist our Federal partners to make our national forests healthy again.''

In addition to NACo, I am also honored to have the support of the National Water Resources Association, the Arizona Association of Conservation Districts, the Salt River Project, the Colorado Pork Producers Council,

and more than 20 other local and national organizations and elected officials.

I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this commonsense amendment that will empower bipartisan communities throughout the country, improve forest health, and bolster watershed restoration.

Again, this is an authorization, not a requirement. It puts more power into the hands of local communities who need the work done but have nowhere to turn under the status quo.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), my good friend and colleague, who is a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my good friend and colleague Congressman Gianforte's wildfire salvage operations amendment. I am glad that, with the farm bill package, we have the opportunity to look at the forest industry and wildfire issues from all sides.

This amendment is part and parcel of a broader wildfire strategy that requires proactive action from Congress for the steps before, during, and after wildfires are expected. Specifically, this amendment will ensure that the National Forest System forest is cleared and replanted if a catastrophic wildfire chars it to the ground.

Our National Forest System lands will be rehabilitated after wildfire devastates them, but in a way consistent with forest plans. That way, the ecosystem of the new forest will have better management and be less susceptible to another large-scale burn-down event.

This is a forward-thinking amendment to fix a backwards system we have devised in Congress, and I urge Members to vote for this demonstration that shows Congress isn't willing to just give up and let our forest system lands be catastrophically burnt.

Mr. Chair, I applaud Representative Gianforte for his strong leadership and tireless efforts to reduce the threat of dangerous wildfires. I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Westerman.

The United States is about to embark on yet another year of ravaging catastrophic wildfire. I say ``embark'' because this is ultimately a choice. While some amount of summer wildfire is to be expected during the heat of summer, the devastation we have seen in recent years is unprecedented.

2017 was one of the worst wildfire seasons on record. More than 58,000 fires burned more than 9.2 million acres. The Forest Service spent more than $2.5 billion on suppression costs this fiscal year alone, a new record.

These expenditures and destruction coincide perfectly with Congress' dereliction of its duty to ensure our land management agencies are equipped with the tools and authorities to properly manage our forests. Congress has provided some legislative fixes this year, but I think every Member understands full well we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back just yet.

As the coming months will demonstrate, we and, by extension, the American taxpayer are still on the hook here. We are susceptible to years more of supermassive fire blanketing the country unless we build on our progress.

Mr. Westerman's amendment here does just that. It will require the government to holistically evaluate the impacts of its forestry decisions on overall forest health. By requiring the costs of inaction to be weighed, the Forest Service will have to demonstrate its decisions are ultimately in a forest's interest.

Mr. Chair, I applaud Mr. Westerman for his strong leadership and tireless efforts to improve a failing system that we have inherited.

Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of the commonsense amendment

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my good friend and colleague Congressman LaMalfa's amendment.

The amendment aims to streamline a bureaucratic process that is hampering broadband infrastructure development in rural America.

As chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus and Representative for Arizona's Fourth Congressional District, I can tell you that this problem is all too real in the communities that I represent.

Many families and businesses in the West still lack basic broadband. According to a November 2017 Brookings Institution study, more than 50 percent of my district live in neighborhoods without an available broadband connection. Many of you all will find this hard to believe, but a huge chunk of my district has no social media platform whatsoever.

Closing the broadband availability gap should be a priority for all Members of Congress. Doing so will create jobs, improve education, and grow our economy.

I applaud Representative LaMalfa for his leadership and tireless efforts to close the broadband availability gap, and I urge adoption of this excellent amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the work of Embry- Riddle Aeronautical University, and include in the Record an article by P. Barry Butler on its program.

Joseph Scanlan left for Marine boot camp the day after his

18th birthday. At 23, he was ending his service as a platoon

sergeant. Unlike many veterans, he knew where he was going

next: Microsoft.

Although the veteran unemployment rate hit its lowest point

in more than a decade in December 2017, U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics experts say the data do not reflect

underemployment. Many are trapped in minimum-wage jobs that

only add to the pressure of transitioning to civilian life.

Today, Scanlan is a Microsoft Premier Field Engineer based

in Boulder, Colo. He entered the skilled workforce through

the Microsoft Software & Systems Academy (MSSA) program,

available through Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He is

now pursuing a degree in Technical Management from Embry-

Riddle and hopes to work on artificial intelligence or cloud

computing.

Microsoft launched the MSSA program in November 2013 at

Joint Base-Lewis McChord. The reskilling program is now

accessible to military personnel across the country.

Enrollment is open to transitioning service members within

six months of separation and honorably discharged veterans

who recently transitioned from the military.

The two-term, 18-week program available through Embry-

Riddle prepares graduates to launch careers as server and

cloud administrators, cloud applications developers and

cybersecurity administrators. Graduates are guaranteed an

interview for a full-time job at one of the more than 280

industry hiring companies.

They enjoy a 92 percent placement rate in the IT industry

at an average starting salary of more than $70,000. For the

80 percent who enter the program without a degree, this

triples their earning potential.

By 2020, Microsoft estimates they will graduate

approximately 1,000 students annually from the MSSA program.

``Along the way, we've learned valuable lessons about the

importance of mentorship, communication, interpersonal

training, and dedicated one-on-one career support--and I

believe this model is ripe for expansion,'' said USMC Maj.

Gen. (Ret.) Chris Cortez, Vice President of Microsoft

Military Affairs.

Scanlan is part of that one-on-one equation. After his

graduation, he mentored the first MSSA cohort at Fort Carson,

Colo. He had no IT background going into MSSA, so he can

speak directly to the anxieties of veterans with minimal

technical skills as they tackle a challenging mix of theory,

practice, virtual labs and certification testing. He cites

his work ethic and willingness to learn as qualities that now

make him successful at Microsoft.

Corporations and universities have a strong incentive to

reach out to veterans like Scanlan. Bringing them into

technology fields such as IT fills a science, technology,

engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills gap and promotes

diversity in the workforce.

The United States invests in military personnel and

entrusts them with the highest level of responsibility. We

can benefit from this investment by welcoming veterans as

skilled employees with demonstrated potential as leaders and

mentors.

We cannot afford to squander talents just because a

person's active service has ended. A job allows them to

survive. A career--with the opportunity to mentor others--

gives them back a future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Arizona, the Honorable Debbie Lesko, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. Speaker, Debbie Lesko has dedicated years of her life to public service, starting back in 2009, when she took the oath as a State legislator from Arizona, and then serving as a member of the Arizona Senate from 2015 to earlier this year.

Her commitment and dedication to the people of Arizona will continue as she joins the House of Representatives and upholds her constitutional oath. The oath is a reminder to all of us standing here today that our duty is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I look forward to working together with our newest colleague to find commonsense solutions to the problems our Nation faces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill offered by Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers.

This is a great piece of legislation that supports smart hydroelectric operation, a stable and integrated energy grid, and above all, reinforces that the United States Congress has a vested interest in ensuring it, Congress, rather than the judiciary, promulgates Federal policy.

H.R. 3144 keeps in place the operational plan, developed by consensus through multiple agency processes and based in the best available science, for four dams in Washington State which have wrongfully come under siege recently due to an arbitrary court order by a judge in Oregon.

In general, continuing to lean on hydropower as a long-term component of our Nation's electrical grid is an absolute no-brainer. Hydropower is a clean source of energy, and its reliability and cost effectiveness are just a few of the reasons it enjoys the stature it has today.

It needs to maintain that stature, including the requirement of careful science-based policy crafting when changes to hydroelectric policy are in question if we are to guarantee a reliable energy future for our country.

But if overzealous special interest groups have their way, we would immediately begin deconstructing and destroying all our dams across the country. To their mindset, dams are not natural parts of the landscape and, therefore, represent a most serious threat to the planet. To them, changes to the natural landscape are anathema, despite the fact that the only real constant on our planet and in the environment is change itself.

The judges's order in this case in question is, unfortunately, in keeping with this very same mindset. This is not a stretch to say because he, in fact, fails to rely on the only available and complete science that informed past decisions concerning the Federal Columbia River Power System.

These past decisions, keep in mind, included the Obama administration's green-lighting of the current operation plan in 2014 that the judge seeks to overturn with his spill order.

What the judge did in this case was to take it upon himself to depart from agency consensus based on sound science and ordered changes to the operation plan of the power system just because he wanted to.

He ordered this major policy change first, which will cost electricity customers in the region $40 million annually, by the way, and pegged future changes to the outcome of a NEPA review which is just getting underway.

But the only grounds for so radical a policy change would be if the NEPA review in question called for those changes when it is finally finished. The judge doesn't know what the outcome of the NEPA review will be, obviously, because it is still being conducted.

He made his decision without basis, and now the country is supposed to pay for it. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle constantly rail about how they oppose bills and proposals and prevent the National Environmental Policy Act review process from being carried out.

H.R. 3144 also allows continuation of a court-ordered national NEPA review process. If my colleagues practice what they preach, then they would support this bill as it allows the NEPA review process to be carried out. Congress has an obligation to remind everyone involved that we are the constitutionally authorized policymakers and that we choose to make policy and require agency decisionmaking on the basis of sound science.

This bill will keep the current operation plan in place until 2022, unless the NEPA process review finishes first, at which point the NEPA- supported plan would commence. This bill abides by the proper statutory NEPA process, even though the judge's order fails to do that.

As stated by the Public Power Council, H.R. 3144 allows a court- ordered NEPA process to continue without avoiding a costly and potentially harmful spill experiment. The fear is that without this legislation, a spill regime will be put in place that increases regional power costs while providing no apparent benefit to the fish it purports to help.

What is perhaps most crucial to keep in mind during this whole debate is the broader significance of this bill to any Member who has a major public works infrastructure operating in their district. Without this bill, it is possible that this judge's terrible precedent could stand. At that point, nothing stands in the way of an activist judge across the country waking up one day and deciding to put a halt to a whole slew of public works infrastructures which makes this country tick.

H.R. 3144 is absolutely necessary to establish congressional intent. Sound process must win the day over the capriciousness of any given activist judge or his political leanings.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from the local public utility districts on behalf of H.R. 3144.

Pend Oreille County

Public Utility District,

Newport, WA, April 24, 2018.

Hon. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers,

Hon. Dan Newhouse,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives McMorris-Rodgers and Newhouse: On

behalf of the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille

County we greatly appreciate the support you have shown for

hydropower and, more specifically, the Federal Columbia River

Power System (FCRPS) with the recent introduction of H.R.

3144. This bill supports the hydro system and the many

benefits it brings to the region through renewable, reliable

and affordable power.

Despite the success of the current FCRPS Biological Opinion

(BiOp), the plan has been rejected with a ruling that all

options need to be reviewed including breaching or removing

one or more of the four Snake River dams.

Your bill provides relief to the endless litigation of

federal hydro system operations by directing the federal

agencies to implement the current BiOp as adopted in 2014.

The current BiOp is based on the best available science, has

been vetted by stakeholders and was formally approved by the

Obama administration. Implementation of the BiOp has

successfully increased salmon runs due to operational

requirements within, and the installation of new fish passage

technologies.

The Bonneville Power Administration has spent over $15

billion on infrastructure and fish mitigation projects since

1978. These improvements and mitigation measures are paid for

by our customers through their electric bills. Their bills

are already higher by at least 15 percent for fish mitigation

programs. The ``spill test'' ordered by the judge will be an

additional cost that will result in higher electric bills for

Northwest families and businesses and likely to be more

detrimental to the fish runs than helpful. Your legislation

will bring an end to the wasteful activities.

This is particularly important for Pend Oreille PUD as our

largest industrial customer Ponderay Newsprint is a large

consumer of BPA power for its operations. The

unnecessary spending and additional mitigation costs continue

to put jobs at stake in our rural communities.

We appreciate your leadership on this issue with the

introduction of H.R. 3144 and urge other legislators to

follow your lead.

Sincerely,

F. Colin Willenbrock,

General Manager.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Adolfo ``Harpo'' Celaya, who passed away on April 12th, at the age of 90. Harpo Celaya enlisted in the Navy at the age of 16 to serve his country in World War II. He was only 17 when the ship he was stationed aboard, the USS Indianapolis, was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. The ship sank in 12 minutes plunging Celaya and hundreds of his fellow sailors into the sea where they clung to sparse life vests or rafts, battling dehydration, exposure, and shark infested waters for more than four days awaiting rescue. Of the nearly 1,200 sailors that had been stationed aboard the USS Indianapolis, only 317 survived and were pulled from the sea.

Mr. Celaya was awarded the Purple Heart and upon recovery returned to Arizona and continued a lifetime of service in his community. He is well known throughout Arizona for sharing his experiences with high school students as part of the Veterans Heritage Project in an effort to keep history alive.

In 2016, I was pleased that President Obama signed into law my bill, H.R. 6304, which renamed that post office at 501 North Main Street in Florence, Arizona in Mr. Celaya's honor. Adolfo Celaya's incredible story will now be officially and permanently commemorated in his hometown of Florence, Arizona. This legislation ensures that future

generations will learn about the incredible sacrifice that Mr. Celaya and the 317 survivors of the USS Indianapolis made for our country.

Despite living through one of the darkest moments of WWII, Mr. Celaya has continued to inspire countless Arizonans through his eternal patriotism and commitment to serving all Americans. I would like to commend the Town of Florence for their leadership in making this tribute possible and recognize Mr. Celaya for his dedicated sacrifice to our nation and commitment to his local community.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2371) to require the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration to establish a pilot project to provide increased transparency for customers, and for other purposes.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Today, we are considering my bill, H.R. 2371, the Western Area Power Administration Transparency Act. This bipartisan bill simply requires the Western Area Power Administration, known as WAPA, to establish a pilot project to allow for a more detailed understanding of how it uses both taxpayer and ratepayer dollars.

This bill is the result of calls from some of WAPA's customers given rate increase trends and other financial discrepancies. H.R. 2371 requires WAPA to develop a publicly available website that contains a detailed accounting of its rates, expenditures, staffing, and other operational and financial dealings. Since cost increases are ultimately borne by its customers, WAPA needs to be more transparent about its business practices. That is exactly what this bill seeks to achieve. H.R. 2371 will increase transparency and afford ratepayers with the necessary information to positively engage with WAPA about its operation and spending decisions. I urge adoption of the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2371 will increase transparency and afford ratepayers with the necessary information to positively engage WAPA about its operations and spending decisions. Imagine that: getting back to what customers want.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2888) to establish the Ste. Genevieve National Historic Site in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2888, the Ste. Genevieve National Historical Park Establishment Act, sponsored by Representative Jason Smith from Missouri, would establish the Ste. Genevieve National Historical Park in the city of Ste. Genevieve, Missouri. It would also authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land for the park by donation, purchase, or exchange.

Founded around 1750 by French Canadian settlers, Ste. Genevieve was Missouri's first settlement. Settlers from present-day Illinois crossed the Mississippi River attracted to the rich soil in the area. After severe floods in 1785, the town was moved 3 miles inland, where it still exists today, retaining many of its historic buildings, landscapes, and community characteristics.

Ste. Genevieve is one of the oldest National Historic Landmark districts in the country, with a portion of the landmark designated in 1960. It is famous for the use of French vertical log architecture.

In 2009, Congress authorized a National Park Service study of the area, which concluded that the Ste. Genevieve historic district is nationally significant and suitable for direct National Park Service management.

There is widespread local support for the establishment of a historical park, including the city, county commission, and Chamber of Commerce.

Ste. Genevieve is an important part of our Nation's expansion and agricultural history and merits becoming a unit of the National Park System.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the original sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Ste. Genevieve is an important part of our Nation's expansion and agriculture history and merits becoming a unit of the National Park.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend that all vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.