Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the appropriations bills we are talking about today should be about providing critical funds to keep our servicemembers safe, take care of our veterans, and support necessary defense programs. It should not be about helping President Trump keep a campaign promise that has no grounding in reality.

House Republicans' reckless decision to force the American people to pay for a wall that does nothing to increase our security or to solve real problems facing our immigration system is both wasteful and counterproductive.

This wall will cost American taxpayers $1.6 billion. That is $1.6 billion that could go toward helping veterans or getting our servicemembers the resources they need to stay safe while they risk their lives defending our country.

Rather than come to the table to work on meaningful bipartisan and long-term solutions to fix our broken immigration system, House Republicans would rather give American families' paychecks to President Trump so he can build this wall.

We are here to do the people's work. Building this wall doesn't do the people's work. It soothes the President's ego at the expense of American families.

I urge my colleague to oppose this bill if this dangerous and divisive policy rider is included.

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

Mr. Chair, for decades, our Nation's nuclear weapons and triad have provided us with strategic deterrence against nuclear war and the existential threat it represents. And as is often said, it is essential that these weapons and delivery systems be safe, secure, and reliable.

However, the age of our forces is a major concern. Currently, our nuclear-capable bomber fleet contains 76 B-52s with the first models entering service over 50 years ago and continuing to fly only after numerous modernization efforts.

Our Ohio class submarines' lifespan, which were originally 30 years, have been extended to 42 years with the end of the 42-year lifespan approaching in 2027. The first Minuteman III ICBMs were deployed 40 years ago.

With the provocative actions of North Korea and the increase in nuclear weapon activities taking place around the world, a credible nuclear deterrent is vital to national security of the United States. But, over the past few years, there has been a good amount of debate as to how much this modernization process will cost.

Over the next 30 years, not only will all three legs of our nuclear triad, our bombers, ICBMs, and missile submarines have to be replaced, a sustainment and modernization program for our nuclear bombs and warheads will be taking place at the same time as well.

The Congressional Budget Office currently produces a projected cost of nuclear weapons report annually. However, it only covers 10 fiscal years into the future. My concern is that the CBO's current 10-year timeframe does not encompass the later out-year costs, including the late 2020s, and early 2030s, when costs are projected by many to increase significantly.

My amendment would modify section 1643 of the fiscal year 2015 NDAA, the CBO review of cost estimates of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon delivery systems, to make the timeframe 30 years instead of 10 years, Mr. Chairman.

I brought this issue up last year when I served on the House Armed Services Committee, and earlier this year Ranking Member Smith and Ranking Member Visclosky wrote a letter to the CBO expressing their interest in an assessment of the sustainment and modernization costs associated with the triad for the next 30 years. The New York Times reports that the CBO 30-year estimate, which is due to be released later this year, will put costs at more than $1.2 trillion.

With a resurgent Russia, a rising China, and destabilized Middle East, there is little evidence that the demands of our conventional forces will decrease. That is why it is imperative that we have proper accounting for our 30-year nuclear modernization process if we are to adequately plan for future conventional and nuclear investments and provide proper oversight.

Now, some of my colleagues will say that a 30-year cost estimate isn't worth the paper that it is written on; that they would depict a time period far too much into the future to obtain a realistic estimate. But that isn't the case. Why do we have an FY17 Annual Long- range Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels, which not only contains an estimated 30-year funding requirement spanning the 30-year timeframe, but also this was produced by DOD for a cost of $395,000 to produce. We have a 30-year cost estimate for the Navy, but not for our strategic deterrence.

I will close by mentioning, one of our nuclear gravity bombs is an example of why we need a permanent 30-year estimate. According to GAO, one cost estimate produced by NNSA's Office of Cost Estimating points out that it could cost $2.6 billion more than previous estimates to complete the B61-12 Life Extension Program. But the original baseline was from NNSA's fiscal year 2017 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.

If Congress hopes to provide proper oversight of these modernization efforts, we must have up-to-date estimates that accurately reflect any updates and changes that impact our nuclear bombs, warheads, and delivery systems. That is why I wish to make the time period for CBO's estimate 30 years instead of 10 years.

These are important investments to make in our national security and a responsible way to better understand the cost.

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

Mr. Chairman, if anything, my former chairman, when I was on Armed Services, is consistent. He is right. He has continued to oppose this amendment in the past.

But what I ask is: Why not have a 30-year estimate? We have one for the Navy. We have one for other programs. If these reports truly aren't worth the paper that they are written on, then why commission this report? It is almost $400,000 in taxpayer costs.

The taxpayers deserve, and we deserve, to provide oversight over these costs. If Congress hopes to provide the oversight for modernizing these efforts, we need these up-to-date reports that accurately reflect these updates and changes to bombs, warheads, and delivery systems. I hope that the chairman would agree with me there.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act introduced by my Republican colleague and regional partner, Colonel Paul Cook. The Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act is the final step, as he mentioned, to complete the transfer of land between the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District and the Bureau of Land Management, known as the BLM.

This legislation allows the BLM and the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District to trade parcels of land which will benefit both the BLM and the conservation district.

This land exchange will empower mining companies, Robertson's Ready Mix, and CEMEX, which sit on land managed by the BLM, to increase efficiency. And as the gentleman mentioned, by increasing that efficiency, these local mining companies will produce aggregate that will support numerous infrastructure projects and approximately $36 million in annual payroll from this site alone.

Additionally, the land exchange creates 59 acres of land for the conservation district to use for conservation purposes to protect endangered plants and species and for recharging water in more than 70 basins.

The wash plan has been an ongoing project since the late 1980s, when it was a proposal from the cities of Highland and Redlands. As the former mayor of Redlands, I worked on this project at the local level. Years, and actually decades, of studies and committee reports have culminated in this final presentation of the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan.

The Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act moves this decades- long process forward, which will

allow San Bernardino County to take advantage of critical economic and environmental benefits.

After years of working on this project at the local level and listening to constituents and local stakeholders' comments and questions, I can confidently say that this land exchange is widely supported.

I have received letters of support from two mining companies affected by the transfer, the County of San Bernardino, the city of Highland, the city of Redlands, the San Bernardino Valley Conservation District, a local chapter of the Habitat League, and Inland Action, which is an organization of regional stakeholders that promote economic growth in the Inland Empire.

This bill is a smart bipartisan plan that will help us support our local economy and protect the environment. It is a victory for all involved, and I offer my complete support and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act.

I want to commend Representative Cook again. He has been a regional leader on this issue. He has been a colleague. We have worked on many of these issues that border our two districts. He has been incredibly thoughtful in his approach to this. He has done a yeoman's work with his staff in carrying forward this bill, and it is always a pleasure to work with my colleague.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Active Duty Voluntary Acquisition of Necessary Credentials for Employment Act, or the ADVANCE Act.

The ADVANCE Act will allow Active Duty servicemembers, reservists, and National Guardsmen the same unique testing standards for commercial driver's licenses granted to veterans by the latest surface transportation bill, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, the FAST Act.

The FAST Act allows veterans with qualifying experience to be exempt from State knowledge-based tests when obtaining commercial driver's licenses. The ADVANCE Act would extend this exemption to Active Duty servicemembers, reservists, and National Guardsmen.

I introduced the ADVANCE Act to ensure that Active Duty servicemembers and reservists have access to the same benefits as veterans, helping to smooth their transition from military to civilian life. We owe it to our brave men and women to help them find work here at home.

This bipartisan bill is a commonsense measure that will create opportunities for servicemembers to find work in their communities by simplifying how they translate the driving skills they learned in the military to American jobs across this country. According to the Department of Transportation, the ADVANCE Act can help nearly 75,000 Active Duty, Reserves, and National Guardsmen throughout the United States.

This legislation comes at a critical time. According to the American Trucking Associations, there is an estimated 40,000 truck driver shortage nationally. The American Trucking Associations has endorsed the ADVANCE Act because it will help put servicemembers back to work here at home and it will allow us to close a troubling skills gap in our local communities.

The ADVANCE Act has also been endorsed by the Association of the United States Navy and The Retired Enlisted Association. It was unanimously passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and has strong bipartisan support.

Additionally, Senators Cornyn and Warren have introduced a bipartisan companion bill in the Senate.

I urge my colleagues to join me today and support this bill so we can make this commonsense change to ensure that all current and former members of the military with specialized training can more easily access the licenses they need to get good-paying jobs as they transition to civilian life.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, we watched President Donald Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan ram their healthcare bill through the House of Representatives before it even had a cost analysis.

It didn't take long for us to learn why. It will strip over 20 million Americans of affordable healthcare. It will drive up premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for older Americans by as much as 25 percent. It will allow insurance companies to discriminate against pregnant women, children, and seniors. And this is all so Donald Trump can give a tax break to his wealthiest friends.

Mr. Speaker, this healthcare bill will literally be a death sentence to some Americans. House Republicans had years--let me say that again-- had years to come up with ways to make healthcare more affordable. But instead, they would rather pull the plug out from millions of families who put their healthcare in the hands of the insurance companies.

Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, nearly 40,000 of my constituents have enrolled in Covered California, and nearly 200,000 in San Bernardino County, our residents, have been added to Medi-Cal following the ACA expansion. TrumpCare will end Medicaid and leave millions of Americans without coverage.

Children will be stripped of their coverage because their parents will fall into an income bracket that doesn't satisfy our President. This legislation isn't just bad, it is detestable. According to Donald Trump, it is even mean. Though, apparently, it doesn't matter how mean it is for middle class families as long as it gives tax breaks to his wealthy friends.

And now, Senate Republicans have taken a page out of the House Republican playbook and are writing their healthcare bill in secret. This is not how we govern. This is not what the American people expect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Reporting Efficiently to Proper Officials in Response to Terrorism Act, or the REPORT Act.

I introduced the REPORT Act a year after the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Our community has seen more than its fair share of gun violence, but this terrorist mass shooting claimed 14 lives, injured another 22 people, and shook my community. In the days and weeks after, we pledged to do all we could to prevent another attack like this from happening ever again. This is what this bill seeks to do.

The REPORT Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to submit a report to Congress when a terror attack occurs in the United States. Under the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the United States Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the head of the National Counterterrorism Center will produce a report detailing the attack and how to prevent future attacks.

The idea is to have a uniform after-action report following a terrorist attack here in the United States. There is currently no legal requirement to create such a report. Specifically, this report will include policy recommendations for lawmakers to make our communities safer and to prevent the next San Bernardino, Boston, New York, or Orlando.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. It also has the support of regional leaders in communities impacted by acts of terror. It has been endorsed by my region's law enforcement community: San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan and Sheriff John McMahon. Chief Burguan and Sheriff McMahon are my community's law enforcement leaders who led the heroic response on December 2, 2015, and stopped the violent rampage, preventing further loss of life.

The REPORT Act is a commonsense bill that will empower lawmakers with the facts they need to create meaningful laws to thwart future attacks of terror.

This bill is for the 14 killed and 22 injured in San Bernardino. It is for my community. It is also for every American city touched by these heinous acts of terrorism.

We can and must work together to protect our homeland, and I believe this is a smart, bipartisan step to achieve that.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for votes on Thursday, June 8, 2017 because of a family obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 295, on Agreeing to the Hensarling Amendment; ``no'' on rollcall No. 296, on Agreeing to the Hollingsworth Amendment; ``no'' on rollcall No. 297, on Agreeing to the Faso Amendment; ``no'' on rollcall No. 298, on Agreeing to the Buck Amendment; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 299, on Passage of H.R. 10, the Financial Choice Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Al Karnig, a dedicated and passionate member of the San Bernardino community who served as president for California State University, San Bernardino, for 15 years.

Dr. Karnig was a fierce advocate for our students, overseeing record numbers of enrollment, diversity, and faculty, as well as raising tens of millions of dollars for the university.

When Al wasn't working on improving access to higher education in our community, he was investing his personal time to make the inland empire a better place to live and raise a family. He served on the board for KVCR Educational Foundation, Inland Empire Economic Partnership, and the Community Hospital of San Bernardino.

Just last month, Al was in my office touting his latest philanthropic venture to help children, the Infant-Toddler Success program, working with parents and caregivers of children from birth to 36 months to help them to be ready for school and life.

I thank Dr. Karnig for his tireless efforts to make our region home to a world-class institution through Cal State, San Bernardino, as well as his advocacy on behalf of San Bernardino County families. As we mourn his loss, we give thanks for his contributions to our community, which will live on in his family, colleagues, graduates, students, children, and parents he helped through so many years of service.

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts: the Affordable Care Act covered over 20 million Americans. The House Republicans' bill will strip 24 million people of their health care.

I have received thousands of calls, emails, and social media messages regarding this topic from constituents opposing a repeal and sharing their stories of how the Affordable Care Act has helped them and how terrified they are of losing their coverage. I would like to share just one of those stories.

Daria from Redlands wrote to me about how Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, is called a lifeline in her

family. Daria, who suffers from a debilitating and rare disease, closed her letter by saying: ``There are tens of millions more like me. American citizens, Moms and dads. Working hard, struggling with illness. Loving our families through hardship and disease. All of us-- these tens of millions of American families, would be absolutely devastated by the loss of our insurance coverage.''

Mr. Speaker, what would you say to Daria about your plan that would cut Medicaid and raise the cost of insurance on families like hers while giving tax breaks to the uberwealthy?

Instead of working with Democrats to improve the bill, Republicans drafted it in secret, rushed it through committee in the dead of night, and are now ramming it through Congress. This plan is bad for the middle class.

Madam Speaker, last week I introduced the Reporting Efficiently to Proper Officials in Response to Terrorism Act, the REPORT Act. It creates a legal requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the United States Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, submit a report to Congress when an incident of terrorism occurs in the United States.

Currently, there is no legal mandate for this report which would play an important role in helping lawmakers and agencies learn more and respond to extraordinary emergencies like we saw in San Bernardino.

I would like to thank my colleague Representative Ken Calvert, an original cosponsor of the bill, for working with me and my office over the past year to help in the San Bernardino recovery process.

I would also like to recognize Mr. Gregory Clayborn, father of Sierra Clayborn. Sierra was one of the 14 victims of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, and Mr. Clayborn worked with my office for months to help shape this legislation.

This bill is a tribute to Sierra, the other 13 innocent victims, and all of those who were affected by the attack on December 2. While it does not address every issue raised by the attack, it is a commonsense change to help us understand how this and other attacks unfolded so we can prevent these types of tragedies from happening in other cities and to other families.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill and to help strengthen our national security.

Mr. Speaker, for over 6 years, we have watched House Republicans attack the Affordable Care Act. The law may not be perfect, but Republicans can't ignore the fact that the ACA has allowed 30 million Americans to access affordable health care.

Calls and emails have poured into my office from my constituents who are begging me to do everything in my power to protect their health care and to strengthen the ACA. Earlier this week I received an email from Brian in San Bernardino, who shared that his wife didn't have insurance before the ACA. When the law went into effect, she had a physical, whereby doctors discovered she had ovarian cancer. It was caught early and treated, and now she is living healthy in San Bernardino. If she had not obtained health insurance through the ACA, she wouldn't have had a preventative screening, which saved her life.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot strip 30 million people of their health care. We cannot look people in the eyes and say we are doing everything we can to help them if we allow insurance companies to discriminate against them and to cap their coverage. I will not compromise their health care or our future, and neither should you.

Mr. Speaker, today, once again, we find ourselves on the verge of a shutdown--because Congress can't do its job and pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform plan--a commonsense plan--that the House failed to pass. The House has failed to pass anything to address immigration reform, forcing the President to act.

And now, Congress is playing politics, trying to roll back the President's reforms and threatening to force the American people to pay the price for Congress' inability to agree on funding to protect our homeland.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot risk American jobs, lives, and the national security of the United States. We need to pass the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. We face many threats around the world. We cannot play games here.

To my colleagues I ask you: Is it more important to score political points, or is it more important to safeguard our national security?

Mr. Speaker, I am urging you today to bring a clean appropriations bill to the floor so we can fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to join this effort.

Mr. Speaker, natural gas pipeline explosions do happen.

Last week, a pipeline exploded in Mississippi. Last year, pipelines exploded in Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Kentucky. In 2013, a pipeline south of Dallas exploded. Reports described the massive explosion as ``shooting flames high in the air and prompting evacuations from nearby homes and a school district,'' with black smoke visible for some 20 miles. In 2010, a natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, California, in my home State, causing an explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes. Even as technology has improved, pipelines have failed.

We should make clear with this legislation that, in the event of the catastrophic failure of a pipeline, taxpayers are not liable for the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in damages that these explosions can cause. Companies are responsible for the safety and reliability of their pipelines, and we should ensure that they are also liable for the damages caused by those pipelines.

Last year, when this very bill came before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the president of the Pipeline Safety Trust testified. This group is a national, independent, nonprofit watchdog organization created using funds from a settlement reached in the aftermath of a pipeline explosion in Washington State that killed three people. The Trust's president testified that ``rushed, or worse, incomplete reviews resulting in automatic approvals pose a threat to public safety.''

To be clear, this is not an organization that opposes new pipelines. They only focus on pipeline safety, and they have serious problems with this bill and its effects on public safety for new pipelines. Their president pointed out that this bill treats a ``10-mile pipeline across a barren desert the same as a 1,400-mile pipeline that crosses multiple ecosystems and through dense population areas where it could pose a threat to the life or property of citizens living nearby.''

Mr. Speaker, pipelines can fail. And those failures can have disastrous effects on communities and the environment. This commonsense amendment would protect taxpayers from ever having to pay the costs of a pipeline explosion. I hope we never see another natural gas pipeline explosion, but that would require that history not repeat itself.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit and to vote against the underlying bill because of the danger it poses to the communities and the environment.

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