Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 2018, I was not present for votes due to a medical procedure in my District. If I had been present, I would have voted:

On Roll Call vote 92, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3183, I would have voted Aye; and

On Roll Call vote 93, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 4406, I would have voted Aye.

On March 6, 2018, I was not present for votes due to flight delays. If I had been present, I would have voted:

On Roll Call vote 94, on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 4607, I would have voted Aye; and

On Roll Call vote 95, on Passage of H.R. 4607, I would have voted No.

Mr. Speaker, today I voted Yes on final passage of H.R. 1917, when I intended to vote No. The bill would delay compliance with an EPA regulation which would reduce toxic emissions produced in the manufacturing of brick and clay ceramic tiles until all judicial review has been completed. The manufacturing of brick and clay tiles can emit toxics such as mercury and arsenic, both of which cause severe harm to human health. There is no need for this legislation; the law already allows judges to postpone regulations from taking effect. Under the bill, companies that make brick and clay tiles could continually file law suits, regardless of the merits, in effect killing the regulation. Further delaying the regulations means continuing to expose Americans to deadly toxic air pollution.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 9, 2018, I was not present for two votes due to an unavoidable delay. If I had been present, I would have voted:

On Roll Call vote 67, on Ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted Nay.

On Roll Call vote 68, agreeing to H. Res. 734, I would have voted Nay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr. Jim Johnston, president and CEO of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). Jim passed away on January 8, 2018.

Jim was born in 1939 in Summerfield, MA, but was raised in the Midwest after his family moved to Iowa when he was a child. In 1956, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and after completing his military service he entered the trucking industry as an owner-operator in 1960.

In 1969, Jim moved to Grain Valley, MO, during a turbulent time in the trucking industry. At that time--as it is now--trucking was dominated by small businesses. Recognizing the

need to form an association that could effectively communicate the concerns of small-business truckers to lawmakers, OOIDA was established in 1973.

Most of the founding members had returned to trucking full-time shortly after OOIDA was established. Jim was elected president and CEO of OOIDA in 1975, the Association's third president since its founding two years earlier. As Jim put it, he was the ``only one left and too dumb or stubborn to know when to quit.''

From its humble beginning in an office trailer chained to a light pole in Grain Valley, he grew OOIDA into the largest national organization fighting for the rights of all professional truckers. Under his leadership, OOIDA has grown to more than 160,000 members nationwide, increased its relentless advocacy efforts in Washington, DC, and offers a robust collection of unique services and programs for drivers.

Jim was OOIDA's leader for more than 42 years. OOIDA was his life's work and fighting for the rights of all truckers was his life's mission. Up until only days before his passing, he remained dedicated to both.

Jim leaves behind family, friends, and colleagues, but his contributions to the trucking industry will live forever.

Mr. Speaker, think back to school. You go to your teacher and say: My term paper is not done yet. Can I get an extension?

Well, okay, as a reasonable teacher, you can give them an excuse maybe once. Twice, not very many. Three times, I never knew a teacher like that. Four times, no way.

You are 114 days late with the budget for the government of the United States of America, which includes the military and everything else that you are carrying on about.

Let's listen to Secretary Mattis talking about your continuing resolutions running the government bit by bit:

Operating under a continuing resolution is unwise as can

be. It makes us rigid. We cannot deal with new and revealing

threats.

We know our enemies are not standing still.

You are bragging about funding the government for 30 days?

You have not done your most basic function as a ruling majority of the House, the Senate, and the White House, and that is, to give us proper funding for the entire government.

In transportation, we have lost $1.4 billion. That is 21,000 jobs.

Do your job.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said this is a 4-week budget for the government, and another speaker said they have done their job.

The most basic function of the majority party who controls the House, the Senate, and the White House is to write a permanent, 1-year budget for the Government of the United States. This is the fourth temporary continuing resolution. You are 113 days late.

Now, what is wrong with that?

Well, the Secretary of Defense says operating under a continuing resolution is about as unwise as could be. And you say you are here for the troops? Four weeks, now 18 days, maybe?

It has cost the Pentagon billions. It has cost us $1.4 billion of lost transportation projects. That is 21,000 jobs. That is hundreds of projects across the country.

Social Security needs new computers. They can't sign a contract to get them.

Instead of accepting responsibility for your failures to pass a single appropriation bill, you are now demonizing the DREAMers.

Pass a budget. Give us our appropriations--not 18 days, not 30 days-- for the rest of the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Division B of this bill, which has bipartisan, bicameral support of the leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. It includes H.R. 4460, the ``Disaster Recovery Reform Act'', and several other Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) bills that passed the House earlier this year.

While there are many good provisions in Division B, I will focus my comments on a few provisions that I believe will have the most impact in making the United States a leader in disaster recovery. Under Division B, the Nation will be on the right track to build stronger and more resilient communities and it will encourage better behavior before and after disaster strikes.

We know that for every dollar invested in mitigation to make our communities stronger before disaster strikes, the taxpayer saves $3 to $4 in future disaster costs. Section 2036 of this bill furthers the goal of investing in mitigation before disaster strikes by establishing a steady funding stream for FEMA's Predisaster Mitigation (PDM) program.

Under Section 2036, the President must provide a specific amount of additional funding from the Disaster Relief Fund for the PDM program. The specific amount of additional funding is equal to six percent of the estimated amount of disaster assistance provided for each major disaster. The President will then distribute these funds in accordance with existing law, with a certain amount provided to each State and the remainder made available through a competitive grant process.

Section 2036 uses language similar to language in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) authorizing FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which is mandatory funding provided post-disaster with each disaster declaration. Although Section 2036 uses the term ``may'', the intent is that FEMA will set aside funds for the PDM program, just as they do for HMGP. We have had several bipartisan conversations with FEMA confirming that FEMA understands the intent of this section and will interpret the ``may set-aside'' language included in section 2036 as mandatory. The mandatory funding for the PDM program from the Disaster Relief Fund required under this section will provide consistency to a program with a proven record of saving taxpayers money.

In addition, section 2036 authorizes FEMA to withdraw and redistribute funds that remain unobligated three fiscal years after FEMA awarded the funds to the grantee. The intent of this provision is to provide FEMA with discretionary authority to move funding that is not being used to States and projects that will use it. However, FEMA is not required to withdraw these funds from grantees and shall make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. For instance, a grantee may have commenced work on a project or is actively working on a project but the project is not at the point where funds need to be obligated. In this instance, we would not expect FEMA to withdraw the funds.

In addition, while this section will apply to PDM funds awarded prior to enactment of this Division, the intent is to give grantees three fiscal years from the date of enactment of this Act to obligate these funds. Grantees with existing PDM funds are now on notice that they have three years to obligate these funds or at least be actively working on projects that will allow those funds to be obligated shortly thereafter.

I have noted time and time again how nonsensical it is that the Federal Government pays to rebuild communities after a disaster to inadequate standards only to have those facilities destroyed again by a later disaster, with the Federal Government once again on the hook for the cost of rebuilding. Under this legislation, this nonsense will finally stop. Section 2037 requires communities to rebuild to the latest consensus-based, design standards and in a more resilient manner, thereby ensuring stronger, smarter facilities going forward. The cycle of repeatedly rebuilding and repairing disaster-damaged public infrastructure will end under this measure.

Although FEMA must define ``resilient'' and ``resiliency'' pursuant to regulations within two years of the date of enactment of this Act, FEMA is required to adopt guidance to immediately implement the ``resiliency'' requirements of this legislation. The need for resilient construction has become even more apparent after the 2017 disaster season. FEMA must use this opportunity to invest taxpayer funds wisely while saving lives and reducing injuries. FEMA has the ability to ensure that the United

States leads the way in disaster recovery and I urge FEMA to seize this moment.

Accordingly, as FEMA works to develop the definition of ``resilient'' and ``resiliency'', the agency needs to ensure that it takes into account the extent to which the improved facilities:

reduce deaths and injuries during and after a major disaster;

sustain minimal damage allowing the facility to continue to provide the primary function and services of the facility during and after a natural hazard;

prepare for and withstand all hazards that could result in a major disaster; and

reduce the magnitude or duration of a disruption to the facility's primary function and services to a facility.

In addition, any ``resilient'' facility should be constructed:

in consideration of current and future environmental conditions based upon the best-available science, changes in demand, and extreme weather events;

to reduce potential disruptions to the facility, including by building in operational redundancies, and increasing the ability of the facility to recover more rapidly; using techniques and materials that have the absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and recoverability to withstand a potentially disruptive event;

to the maximum extent practicable, using durable and sustainable material; and

to incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, natural and nature-based measures and energy efficiency improvements.

Currently, FEMA provides HMGP funds when a State receives a disaster declaration, but HMGP funds are not provided when a State receives a Fire Management Assistance Grant to respond to wildfires on non-Federal lands. Unfortunately, wildfires destroy the landscape often causing mudslides and flooding that then result in a disaster declaration. Under Division B, States will receive HMGP funds if they have received Fire Management Assistance Grants to respond to wildfires. With HMGP funds, States will be able to restore landscapes and vegetation destroyed by wildfires and make the land less susceptible to future mudslides and floods. This legislation also clarifies that wildfire- related mitigation activities are eligible under both the PDM and HMGP programs. Together, these provisions will help prevent wildfires and related disasters and I commend our colleague from California (Mr. Ruiz) for his leadership on these issues.

Division B also clarifies that earthquake-related activities are eligible for mitigation assistance. The West Coast faces the most risk from multiple and extreme earthquakes, and Oregon is long overdue for an earthquake and tsunami on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Yet, the United States' earthquake early warning system lags behind those of other nations. Clarifying for grantees that mitigation funds are available for earthquake-related activities will save lives and reduce injuries in a future disaster.

Finally, important to the State of Oregon, section 2029 clarifies that for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), FEMA is not responsible for privately funded actions taken by private parties on private land. Under actions proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the entire State of Oregon would become a critical habitat, seriously impeding economic development. The proposed requirements, are so onerous, the State of Oregon, which already has strict land use regulations, would have difficulty implementing them, as they violate federal and state property rights. This provision will help ensure that FEMA implements the NFIP in a manner that is consistent from state-to-state and does not become a land use regulatory agency.

I support all of these important provisions and urge their adoption.

Mr. Speaker, it is a dark day; $3 trillion in revenue cuts, in tax breaks; three quarters of that goes to corporations under the premise that they will use that money to employ people. The last time they got this kind of a break, 93 percent of the money went to stock dividends, buybacks, and executive bonuses, and it will be no different this time--squandering America's wealth for the wealthiest among us.

Eighty-three percent of the remainder goes to people who earn over $400,000 a year. They are going to trickle down on us, yet again.

At the same time, there is no infrastructure package. The Trump administration, the DOT says, we just don't know where we can find the money.

Well, imagine if they used a fraction of these tax giveaways for infrastructure--15,000 jobs per billion invested. We could have had $1.5 million with 3 percent of the money they just wasted on these tax cuts.

Shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for explaining in some detail what the impacts of this legislation are and who is going to benefit. The gentleman is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which I am the ranking member.

I just want to say, we have been waiting for the trillion-dollar Trump infrastructure plan for a year now, and what we are hearing is, well, they just can't afford it. We can't afford to rebuild America's infrastructure.

So let's compare the impact of a few of these tax cuts to what we could have done or could do with that money. Every tax cut means the government forgoes revenue.

So let's just take the estate tax. Doubling the exemption from an $11 million to $22 million estate, that costs $100 billion. If we invested that $100 billion in infrastructure, we would create 1.5 million working family wage jobs for Americans--1.5 million jobs. Now, I suppose those people with the cuts in the estate tax, they are going to trickle something on working people, probably not jobs, though.

And let's look at one of my favorites, the passthrough. We are going to help small business. Well, no, we are not really going to help small business. If you work in your small business, you are not going to get a tax break. If you are a passive investor in a so-called small business or passthrough entity, you get a big tax break.

Now, the President says he won't benefit. He owns 500 passthrough businesses according to his financial disclosure. Each one of those will give him a massive tax break.

Well, that little beauty costs $600 billion. For $600 billion, if we invested it in infrastructure, we could create 9 million jobs. These passive investors in oil and gas and real estate, how many jobs are they going to create? Again, they might hire another manservant or someone to cut the lawn or someone to wax the yacht, but it's not going to be 9 million jobs, and it isn't going to be at family wages--Davis- Bacon wages, I might say, really good wages.

Let's just look at one item, the top rate. That only goes to people who earn over $500,000 a year. They are going to get a substantial break. About $130 billion it is going to cost us to give a tax break to people who earn over $500,000 a year, more of the trickle class, and that would have created 2 million family wage jobs rebuilding America's infrastructure, and not just benefiting the people who do the work.

And it isn't just construction. It is design. It is engineering. It is small business. And just think of all the benefits in terms of the movement of goods and people and how it makes America more competitive.

What a sad day it is when, as you pointed out very well, we are giving this money--three-quarters of it goes to corporate tax breaks, three-quarters. The last time we gave corporations a big tax cut under Bush when they repatriated almost $1 trillion, 93 percent of the money was spent on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive bonuses. I don't know what they did with the other 7 percent because those same corporations actually reduced employment.

So what a false promise this is. A very, very sad day. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.J. Res. 123, a stop-gap resolution that keeps the government open for another two weeks, through December 22, 2017. Once again Republicans, who control both the House and the Senate, cannot get their work done. Instead they continue to kick the can down the road.

The resolution keeps funding transportation at last year's levels rather than the higher funding levels provided by the FAST Act for 2018, meaning it cuts the mandated increases in transportation investment by more than $950 million for Federal-aid highways and almost $200 million for public transit investment. As a result, this bill withholds $1.2 billion from Federal highway, public transit, and highway safety investments--preventing States, local governments, and public transit agencies from making critical investments, letting contracts, creating good-paying jobs, and working to relieve the Nation's crippling traffic congestion.

A two-week resolution gives Republicans more time to complete their massive tax scam bill, which benefits corporations and the wealthy at the cost of middle class workers, seniors, students, and our national debt. Paul Ryan has said after the bill passes, Republicans will move to cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

Further, the resolution does not reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Instead, it includes a technical fix to ensure no state runs out of CHIP funding in December. If Congress does not reauthorize CHIP by December 31st, Oregon will not have enough funds to fully fund CHIP on January 1, 2018.

The resolution does not include a permanent fire borrowing fix or additional disaster aid for communities devastated by wildfire or other natural disasters. Oregon suffered through one of the worst fire seasons in decades. Congress has twice provided USFS emergency funding to repay non-wildfire accounts this year. Without a permanent fire borrowing fix, USFS will continue to have to rob forest management accounts to pay for fire suppression--meaning our forests will continue to be overgrown and infested with insects and disease, powder kegs waiting to burn next year.

Finally, the resolution does not include any solutions for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Roughly 800,000 law-abiding individuals are at risk of deportation otherwise. Congress must work together to ensure that individuals who were brought illegally into this country as children, through no fault of their own, are not targeted for deportation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter:

The United States Conference of Mayors, National

Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and

National Association of Regional Councils,

March 28, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Frank J, Pallone, Jr.,

Ranking Member, Energy and Commerce Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Bill Shuster,

Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Peter DeFazio,

Ranking Member, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman

Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: On behalf of the nation's

mayors, cities, counties and regions, we strongly encourage

you to reauthorize and improve the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields program, which is key for

both economic development and job creation In local

communities across the county.

Since its creation, the EPA Brownfields program has

provided crucial assistance to local governments for

reclaiming hazardous, polluted and underutilized properties.

To date, there have been over 26,000 brownfields assessments

and 1,200 brownfields cleanups nationally, which has led to

over 123,000 jobs. Each of the $22 billion federal dollars

that has been invested since the program was established in

2002 has leveraged approximately $16 in other investments,

close to $400 billion in total.

While many communities have benefited from brownfields

redevelopment efforts under this program, the U.S. Government

Accountability Office estimates there are between 400,000 and

600,000 remaining brownfields sites throughout the United

States. To build upon these past successes and assist in the

cleanup, reuse and redevelopment of remaining sites, some key

Improvements to the program are needed.

Increase or maintain authorization amounts

While we understand the fiscal challenges and constraints

faced by the U.S. Congress, we strongly encourage you to

authorize and fully fund the Brownfields program to at least

previously authorized levels. The Brownfields program has a

proven track record of leveraging additional investments,

creating new jobs, and redeveloping new properties, while

creating additional tax revenues.

At current appropriation levels, EPA has had to turn away

many highly qualified applicants due to a lack of funding.

EPA estimates that for the past 5 years, over 1,700 requests

for viable projects were not awarded money because of limited

funding. EPA estimates that if they were able to provide

funding to those turned away applicants, an additional 50,000

jobs would have been created along with $12 billion of

leveraged funding.

Additionally, President Trump has made reinvesting in

America and putting people back to work as key priorities for

his administration. In order to make this happen and to do so

quickly, Congress should utilize existing programs, and we

believe that the Brownfields program would be a strong

candidate for any type of reinvestment initiative. That is

why we urge Congress to increase or at least maintain the

current authorization levels for EPA's brownfields program.

increase overall grant funding to allow communities to cleanup more

difficult sites

Although many brownfield sites have been redeveloped, what

remains are brownfield sites that are more difficult to

redevelop due to their level of contamination or marketplace

conditions. Communities would like the EPA program to be

expanded to address the clean up challenges at these more

complex sites.

We suggest the following:

Increase Cleanup Grant Amounts--Congress should recognize

the complexity of the cleanup process for larger or more

complicated sites by increasing the funding limit for cleanup

of a single site to $1 million. Under special circumstances,

EPA could waive the limit, up to $2 million per site.

Establish Multi-Purpose Brownfields Grants--Congress should

allow local governments to have the option to apply for

multi-purpose grants that can be used for the full range of

brownfields-funded activities (assessment, cleanup, reuse

planning, etc.) on a community-wide basis. Applicants should

be required to demonstrate a plan and the capacity for using

this multi-purpose funding within a set timeline in order to

qualify for such funding.

Allow Funding for Reasonable Administrative Costs for Local

Brownfields Programs--Congress should allow brownfields grant

recipients to use a small portion (10 percent) of their grant

to cover reasonable administrative costs such as rent,

utilities and other costs necessary to carry out a

brownfields project.

brownflelds liability concerns are a disincentive for local governments

Local governments face enormous challenges in brownfields

redevelopment. One of the most significant challenges is the

potential liability for local governments, which creates a

disincentive to acquire contaminated property. We encourage

Congress to revise the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERLA) to encourage

and protect local communities who choose to take ownership of

blighted properties for the purpose of brownfields

redevelopment where the local government had no role in

creating the contamination. These changes should include:

Clarify Eligibility of Publicly-Owned Sites Acquired Before

2002--Congress should allow local governments to be eligible

for grant funding for properties that were acquired prior to

the January 11, 2002 enactment of the Brownfields

Revitalization Act--when there was no required standard for

``all appropriate inquiries''--provided that the applicant

did not cause or contribute to the contamination and

performed ``appropriate care.'' For these sites, applicants

would not have to demonstrate that they performed all

appropriate inquiry.

Remove Barriers to Local and State Governments in

Addressing Mothballed Sites--Congress should exempt local and

state governments from CERCLA liability if the government

unit (a) owns a brownfields property as defined by section

101(39); (b) did not cause or contribute to contamination on

the property; and (c) exercises due care with regard to any

known contamination at the site. We suggest language to amend

section 101(20)(D) that clarifies that properties acquired

through eminent domain qualify for the CERCLA exemption for

local governments involved in ``Involuntary Acquisitions.''

Alternatively, we would suggest language that establishes a

simplified and clear exemption from CERCLA liability for

local governments that acquire brownfields sites.

Eliminate Eligibility Barriers for Petroleum Brownfields

Sites--Grantees that seek to use assessment, cleanup or

multi-purpose grants on sites with petroleum contamination

should not be required to make the difficult demonstrations

that the site is ``low risk'' and that there is ``no viable

responsible party'' connected with the site. We recommend

replacing the ``No Viable Responsible Party'' language in

section 101(39)(D) with a prohibition on using funds to pay

for cleanup costs at a brownfields site for which the

recipient of the grant is potentially liable under the

petroleum statutes. This would parallel the language for non-

petroleum brownfields sites.

If you have any questions, please contact Judy Sheahan at

USCM, Carolyn Berndt at NLC, Julie Ufner at NACo, or Leslie

Wollack at NARC. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Tom Cochran,

CEO and Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Matthew D. Chase,

Executive Director, National Association of Counties.

Clarence E. Anthony,

CEO and Executive Director, National League of Cities.

Leslie Wollack,

Executive Director, National Association of Regional

Councils.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we had joint jurisdiction over this legislation, and, for the most part, this is a good product.

I was actually the ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee 16 years ago when the initial brownfields legislation passed and later became law. We expected that the targeted reforms and Federal grant funds in the initial law would spur redevelopment of blighted areas and be of great benefit, and we were right. It has a proven record of success, assisting States and communities in redevelopment of abandoned or underutilized properties, leveraging Federal seed money with State, local, and private dollars, and creating jobs.

Now, here is an example.

In 2013, the city of Eugene, Oregon, got a $680,000 brownfield site assessment grant to improve the environment and spur economic development. The city used this funding for the assessment of 15 specific properties and for the development of a local redevelopment plan.

One of the results of this work is that the Ninkasi Brewery--as co- chair of the House Craft Brewers Caucus, I had to bring beer into the discussion--now sits on the site of a former Eugene brownfield. In a decade, they have 100 employees, and it is sold right here in Washington, D.C., today.

This year, Eugene was selected for an additional $500,000 in brownfield site assessments. I am hoping that they can replicate the success they had with their earlier grant from the Federal Government.

I am pleased that we are considering this bill to extend the program through 2022. It will increase the funding limit from $200 to $500 per grant, authorize EPA to award multipurpose brownfields grants for projects consisting of multiple elements, and make nonprofit entities eligible for mediation assessment grants under the program. It will also allow local governments to apply for site assessment grants for properties acquired prior to the creation of the program.

Unfortunately, it falls short in two areas. The final version of this legislation that passed committee contained a provision ensuring that State and local governments that acquire brownfields properties continue to take steps to protect people from coming into contact with contamination on the property. In fact, I have a letter here from the Conference of Mayors where they say they would agree if there were two clauses: that they did not cause or contribute to the contamination and exercises due care with regard to any known contamination at the site.

Unfortunately, this bill strikes out the words ``due care,'' and with the liability exemption, there is the possibility that properties would be acquired that are dangerous for entry that wouldn't be properly fenced or secured because of removing the ``due care.'' I don't know why that had to come out, since the Conference of Mayors had supported it.

Second, nearly every stakeholder that testified before our committee stated that the current level of funding for the program is well below need, so we should be increasing the authorized and appropriated levels. Again, unfortunately, the bill under consideration today only reauthorizes flat funding levels for the program, which is, I think, a missed opportunity.

I hope, as we move forward and resolve any differences with the Senate, that we can make improvements in these areas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the Conference Report for H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018.

The agreement includes several provisions that I strongly support, including giving servicemen and women a well-deserved raise of 2.4 percent. Those who serve in uniform have made extraordinary sacrifices for our country and have earned and deserve a pay raise. The Conference Report also includes funding for Ukraine and Eastern Europe security initiatives to counter Russia's heightened military provocations and annexation of Crimea. Additionally, it includes a provision recognizing climate change as a direct threat to our national security interests.

Despite these important initiatives, I have strong concerns with the Conference Report. The agreement authorizes more than $692.1 billion, which is $74.2 billion more than the FY 2017 authorized level and $26.4 billion more than the president's request. This includes $65.7 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, an account which is not counted in the budget and is not paid for. It adds to the deficit and is used as a slush fund by the Pentagon.

Unlike every other federal agency, the Department of Defense (DOD) refuses to complete a financial audit so taxpayers know how the biggest bureaucracy in the federal government spends their money. In fact, a shocking report released last December exposed $125 billion in administrative waste that the Pentagon tried to bury from being viewed by the public.

The Conference Report also authorizes $13 billion for the F-35 program, including 90 new planes, 20 more planes than the Trump Administration requested. While I strongly support a modernized military, I have serious concerns about the growing costs of the F-35 program. The Pentagon has projected that the lifetime operating and sustainment costs for the F-35 fleet will total more than $1 trillion.

I refuse to support increased bureaucratic waste at the expense of American taxpayers and our men and women in uniform. A more accountable and transparent department would ensure taxpayer dollars are directed towards the needs of our troops and the benefits they deserve, rather than buying unnecessary weapon systems, sustaining a Cold War era military force, and giving the president a blank check to fund wars Congress hasn't authorized.

I have always advocated for maintaining Congress's constitutionally- confirmed prerogative to declare war under the War Powers Act and limiting the President's authority to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress. I strongly oppose the NDAA's continued authorization of spending for wars that are not congressionally approved. The Pentagon uses the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) to continue to justify the more than 16 years our troops have been fighting in the Middle East. In his short time in office, President Trump has already sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Niger, Syria, and elsewhere without seeking a new Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), a violation of the War Powers Act.

Additionally, the Conference Report prohibits the closing of Guantanamo Bay, which costs more than $100 million each year to house 41 prisoners and has been used as a top recruiting tool by terrorists. Frankly, the prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a black eye for the United States, has eroded relationships with our allies, undermined U.S. missions abroad, and put U.S. citizens and our troops at risk of retaliation.

Congress can make responsible cuts to our defense budget without jeopardizing the safety of our troops or undermining our national security. Fiscal responsibility and accountability at the Pentagon would allow for funds to be better spent supporting the basic needs of our troops, meeting our obligations to veterans of past wars, and ensuring our true defense needs are prioritized.

Mr. Speaker, well, yesterday, the Republicans unveiled their tax cuts that they purport to benefit the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. Then again, I

guess it depends upon your definition of middle class.

Eighty percent of the benefits flow to those who earn over $400,000 a year. Perhaps that is middle class to that side of the aisle.

They repealed the alternative minimum tax. We have only seen one Trump tax return: $31 million. Eighty percent of his taxes were a result of the alternative minimum tax. That is a middle class tax cut?

Oh, then slashing permanently the corporate rate to 43 percent, that is going to really benefit the middle class. They pretend somehow that is going to raise salaries. Give me a break.

Then, under the guise of family farms and small businesses, small businesses and family farms, between $11 million and $22 million will no longer pay an inheritance tax. That is middle class?

All of these things are going to drive up the debt by $2 trillion, which raises interest rates for everybody who has to borrow money to go to college, buy a car, or buy a house.

Oh, and if you want to go to college, you can't deduct your student loan interest anymore.

Adopt a kid? No, we did away with that deduction, too.

This is a ruse by the public. We have to kill this turkey before Thanksgiving.

Mr. Chairman, I remember, 13 years ago, after another spate of catastrophic fires in the Western United States, we came together in a truly bipartisan fashion and passed something called the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. It authorized up to 20 million acres to be treated to remove

hazard fuels in what is called the WUI, the wildland-urban interface, and in threats to municipal water supplies. We also authorized $760 million a year.

Well, it has been 13 years. We authorized 20 million acres of work. What has been done? 2\1/2\ million.

Is it because of litigation, lawsuits, or, you know, obstruction? No. It is because of this body, the United States Congress, which is refusing to put up the money to do the work.

In my State alone, there are 1.8 million acres waiting for treatment. They have gone through all environmental reviews. There is no potential for litigation or any other blocking, but they don't have the money.

Does this bill fix that? No. We are addressing problems that don't exist in terms of addressing the wildfire problem.

This is really, you know, kind of a lost opportunity, a missed opportunity. Yes, it does a partial fix of the wildfire borrowing, which devastates the Forest Service every year. I appreciate that. But the fact is, we have got 44 million homes that are now at risk in terms of wildland-urban interface, and we have only treated 2\1/2\ million acres because this Congress isn't putting up the money.

And this year, yet again, they are proposing like one-half of what we authorized. What does one-half get you? It gets you half the acreage.

So if we had appropriated at the levels we authorized over the last 13 years, they would have treated 5 or 6 million acres. Again, they weren't blocked by litigation. They weren't blocked by appeals. The HFRA Act became virtually noncontroversial because it didn't do away with judicial review, which this bill will do on a certain number of projects in each region every year.

I wish that this was a bipartisan approach, it isn't, and I cannot support the legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment introduced by myself, Greg Walden, and Kurt Schrader.

Section 913 of the bill requires all public lands managed by the BLM and

five western Oregon districts to be managed under the O&C California Lands Act of 1937. These are statutorily unique lands. They are all contained in the State of Oregon. There are 2.6 million acres in 18 Oregon western counties.

The O&C Act directs the BLM to manage those lands for multiple uses, including sustainable timber harvest, reforestation, protection of watersheds. As Federal lands, counties with O&C acres are unable to collect taxes. The Federal Government realized that put a tremendous burden on the counties, and the revenues are shared 50 percent with the counties and 50 percent with the Federal Government. These are critical revenues for my counties, and we have been trying to enhance management on those lands to help both with employment and with those revenues.

Without this provision, the bill would seem to open up wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, the national trail system, and other statutorily protected areas. It will also protect the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area on Oregon's coast.

So I would ask--I believe that was an oversight in the drafting of the bill since similar protections are provided on Forest Service lands for statutorily reserved areas, and I would urge Members to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support, and I do thank him for the conversation we had about a number of concerns that I had with the bill, and this addresses one, and the Schrader amendment addressed another.

There are still other concerns. I am hopeful, we have twice passed management bills out of the House, and I did support last Congress' version introduced by the gentleman, 1 of 19 Democrats, I believe at that time, and I am hopeful that, in discussions with the Senate, we move back in the direction of the bill that we passed in the House 2 years ago.

However, the Senate totally stiffed us on that legislation, and I fear that moving the bill to a number of the provisions in this bill, which go further than in the last bill, will make it less likely that the Senate will negotiate. But, I mean, who knows what works with the Senate. So I wish the gentleman well in those discussions.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.