Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his initiative here to actually create some jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the legislation before us today is that if we allow more pollution--particularly ozone pollution, which is very detrimental to the health of asthmatics; I mean, bad for the health of everyday Americans, but particularly to the 25 million asthmatics, seniors, and others--the premise is that by polluting the air more with ozone, we will create jobs.

Now, actually, I have got to agree with the Republicans on this. They will create more jobs by polluting the air. Pulmonary specialists will be very busy. And then, oh, the inhaler manufacturers. There has been some great press about the inhaler manufacturers in the last year, where they are quadrupling and sextupling the price to price gouge people. Well, they are going to have a heyday. In fact, I believe they have endorsed this legislation.

And then we are going to have a whole new group of people working on the streets in America. It is going to be a whole new entrepreneurial class. There are actually people in Beijing doing this now. The air is so polluted in Beijing that on many days they say: Don't go outside. But, I mean, you have to go outside sometimes, you have to go to the grocery store, or you have to go to work. They now have a very large industry of street vendors who sell oxygen; so, as you are about to collapse on the street in Beijing, someone will sell you a good whiff of oxygen for whatever they charge for it. We are going to bring that industry to America. So this bill does have phenomenal potential to create a whole new bunch of jobs with oxygen street vendors and then, of course, the pulmonary specialists, the inhaler manufacturers, and others.

The President actually, as a candidate, said that he would triple the amount of money that would be spent on clean water State revolving funds; he would triple it. Now, interestingly enough, the Congressional Budget Office came out with an analysis yesterday of the President's proposed budgets over the next 10 years, which theoretically is going to increase investment and infrastructure. And they said: Actually, not so much. Actually, in fact, his cuts basically would lead to a reduction in investment in clean water and a reduction in investment in ground transportation.

So, instead of tripling the investment and putting many people to work, the President, actually, is going to cut investment in clean water in his proposed budget. Now, I know he didn't write the budget. You know, he has got this rightwing guy running the CBO--Mulvaney, founder of the Freedom Caucus. But Trump is somewhat responsible for a budget that has his name on it, even if he didn't write it, even if he didn't know what was in it, and even if he doesn't know that it contradicts promises he made as a candidate, which he is not going to deliver as President.

But, that said, I want to help the President out here. So, this bill simply delivers on the President's promise to triple the amount of investment to $25 billion.

Now, do we need it? Heck, yeah, we need it. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers' 2017 infrastructure report card, America's wastewater treatment systems got a grade of D-plus--not too good. And there is a backlog of more than $40 billion in clean water infrastructure.

The Federal Government needs to become an honest partner with our cities, counties, and others, who have needs to invest in their wastewater systems. We did it before when we cleaned up our rivers back in the sixties, seventies, and eighties with the Clean Air Act, and we need to do it again. We need the Federal partnership. We need this investment.

And the other good thing is, if we were to spend that money, according to the National Utility Contractors Association, every billion dollars--just $1 billion--invested in our Nation's water infrastructure creates, or sustains, 27,000 jobs. So do the math. The President can do math. He is a businessman. That would be 540,000 jobs if we delivered on the President's promise to make significant new investments with Federal partnership in clean water in America.

So, we can put together health, cleaning up the environment, and jobs, as opposed to the Republican bill, which deteriorates health, deteriorates the environment and protections, and won't create any jobs.

Just one quick quote here: ``The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is a perfect example of the type of program that should be reauthorized because it creates jobs while benefiting the environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment.''

That is from the Oregon Water Resources Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude as we proceed to this absurdity of saying, by deteriorating health, we will create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, on June 29th I voted in favor of H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, which increases penalties for deported criminals that return to the United States.

The bill is named after Kate Steinle, who was killed in San Francisco by a Mexican national who had seven felony convictions on his record and had been deported five times and had once again returned to the United States.

I have always argued that we need comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken immigration system. In 2013, I cosponsored the House Democratic comprehensive immigration reform bill, H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. This bill included similar provisions to Kate's Law and had broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate.

Opponents of the bill argue that the bill does not make exceptions for asylum seekers or victims of human trafficking. That is why I voted in favor of a Motion to Recommit H.R. 3004 offered by Representative Zoe Lofgren which would safeguard vulnerable victims of human trafficking that voluntarily present themselves at a port of entry. Unfortunately, it failed on a 193 to 232 vote.

I have always maintained that undocumented immigrants who commit a crime in the U.S. should be deported. While this bill is not perfect, Kate's Law ensures that dangerous criminals are prosecuted accordingly. I am committed to regaining control of our country's borders and have fought to restrict individuals who would do our citizens harm--both through terrorist attacks, drug smuggling, and other illicit activity-- from entering the United States.

H.R. 3004 is not a perfect bill. It now heads to the Senate, where I hope it will be improved to include exceptions for victims of trafficking and those seeking asylum, similar to the comprehensive bill in 2013, and sent back to the House for further debate.

Mr. Speaker, due to flight delays, I was unable to speak on the floor in support of my legislation.

The Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act is a bipartisan, no-cost, common sense bill that will go a long way to helping resolve some of the problems the Federal government and its haphazard policy shifts have created for three western Oregon tribes.

The bill provides fairness for the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Coquille Indian Tribe.

Provisions of this bill were passed by voice vote in both the 113th and 114th Congresses. I hope this Congress it can finally become law. The tribes have waited entirely too long to receive the fairness owed to them.

For over a hundred years federal policies have unfairly disadvantaged Indian tribes in Western Oregon. After signing many treaties with the Tribes, the United States removed them from their original homelands and put them on only two reservations--established to house potentially more than 60 tribal governments.

In 1954, Congress made things even worse. All tribes west of the Cascades lost federal recognition when the Western Oregon Termination Act became law.

Scholars called it The Termination Era, and it was terrible federal Indian policy. It was so bad, that it was formally rebuked by Congress less than 30 years later.

In the 1970's, Congress began the process of restoring the Western Oregon tribes to federal recognition and cleaning up the mess and injustice the United States had made.

In fact, I began my Congressional career as the original sponsor of the Coquille Restoration Act, now law, which restored one of Oregon's terminated tribes.

Yet even today, it remains difficult for these tibes to function as the sovereign nations they are and to govern themselves effectively.

Unlike many tribes, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribe, as well as the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, are deprived of any land held in trust.

Unlike any other tribe in the United States, the Coquille Indian Tribe must function under a legal anomaly with regard to managing its forest.

The Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act makes good on decades-old promises to restore land bases for the Coos and Cow Creek Tribes, and it puts the Coquille Indian Tribe's forest management on equal footing with those of other Indian tribes nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity. As he noted, the President has talked and tweeted incessantly about creating jobs and infrastructure investment, but, unfortunately, the only substantive proposal to come out of the White House that relates to infrastructure, infrastructure investment, and jobs is in his budget, and it actually reduces Federal investment in infrastructure, which would basically eliminate jobs.

So I mean, the bill before us today, bipartisan bill on apprenticeships is great, but you have got to apprentice for something that is real: a job in the end, construction.

America is falling apart, and, right now, we have nothing but rhetoric coming out of the White House, and now ideology. They are talking about privatizing all of the infrastructure in the United States so that you will pay tolls everywhere you go, and, you know, they call it asset recycling. They have come up with a catchy new name. That has been floated, but they haven't put any substance behind it.

So this amendment would allow the House to debate and pass H.R. 2510, Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. This bill would provide $25 billion in direct infrastructure investment over the next 5 years to address America's crumbling wastewater infrastructure and local water quality challenges.

The state of our water infrastructure, according to the American Society of Engineers' report card of 2017, is a D-plus. Meanwhile, municipalities across the country have a backlog of more than $40 billion--B, billion--in clean water infrastructure projects, and, according to the EPA, communities need close to $300 billion over the next 20 years to bring their systems into a state of good repair.

It is clear that we cannot continue to neglect the serious needs of our aging water infrastructure. As these systems fail and degrade, they pose a risk to the health and safety of our citizens and obviously the environment.

I know the President promised, during his campaign, to make clean water a priority. I agree with that. He promised to triple funding for State revolving loan fund programs to help States and local governments upgrade critical drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

Well, here is a chance to deliver on that promise. H.R. 2510 does exactly that. It triples investment in America's crumbling water infrastructure.

I was a county commissioner at a time when the Federal Government was a good partner, and, in those days, they put up 85 percent of the cost of our wastewater system. We put up the other 15. You know, this could--by renewing this legislation and a commitment to the State revolving loan fund programs and adding in a grant component for lower income areas, that could, you know, be a great step in terms of Federal partnership and creating actual jobs for the apprentices that this bill wants to create.

There is widespread support for this legislation. I include in the Record letters of endorsement from 30 separate groups.

Ohio Environmental Council,

Columbus, OH.

Hon. Garret Graves,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Grace Napolitano,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and

Environment, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Napolitano: On

behalf of the Ohio Environmental Council, I am writing to

enthusiastically support the Water Quality

Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. This bill bolsters

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) by authorizing $20

billion over five years for loans to improve wastewater

infrastructure in local communities. It also provides crucial

additional funding to help states control water pollution and

address challenges from outdated sewer systems.

The need for this bill has never been greater as the nation

faces a $40 billion backlog of clean water infrastructure

projects, with cities and towns needing $300 billion over 20

years to update their water systems. In Ohio, the American

Society of Civil Engineers found our state needs a total

$14.58 billion for wastewater improvements. The Clean Water

SRF is an essential resource to help meet this need.

The Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) program,

Ohio's Clean Water SRF, continues to provide fundamental

capacity to improve water quality for Ohio communities and

residents. The program includes several different loan

options that help both cities and rural communities prevent

water pollution. This includes funding to upgrade and replace

Home Sewage Treatment Systems (HSTS), as well as assistance

for wastewater collection and treatment, stormwater

activities, and efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution.

Interest from the WPCLF program funds the preservation and

restoration of aquatic habitat to counter the loss of natural

systems that helped maintain the health of Ohio's water

resources.

Since its inception the Clean Water SRF has provided $7.2

billion serving 621 villages, cities, counties and sewer

districts helping to curb pollution while providing quality

jobs. To ensure this program's continuing success and help

Ohio address our water infrastructure needs, I urge your

support for the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act

of 2017.

Sincerely,

Heather Taylor-Miesle,

Executive Director.

And according to the National Utility Contractors Association, every billion dollars invested in our Nation's water infrastructure creates or sustains 27,000 real jobs in the private sector. That means that the $20 billion in Federal investment in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, including H.R. 2510, would create or sustain approximately 540,000 jobs.

This is real. It is real. Real jobs for real people and real improvements in the infrastructure of this country. This would be a great step forward, and I urge that my colleagues adopt the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on June 7th and June 8th, 2017, I missed the following votes due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted:

On Roll Call Number 292, To Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, I would have voted No.

On Roll Call Number 293, On Agreeing to the Michelle Lujan Grisham Amendment to H.R. 2213, I would have voted Aye.

On Roll Call Number 294, On Final Passage of H.R. 2213, I would have voted No.

On Roll Call Number 295, On Agreeing to the Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 10, I would have voted No.

On Roll Call Number 296, On Agreeing to the Hollingsworth Amendment to H.R. 10, I would have voted No.

On Roll Call Number 297, On Agreeing to the Faso Amendment to H.R. 10, I would have voted No.

On Roll Call Number 298, On Agreeing to the Buck Amendment to H.R. 10, I would have voted No.

On Roll Call Number 299, On Final Passage of H.R. 10, I would have voted No.

Mr. Chair, In 2008, Wall Street's criminal behavior drove the economy into the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, creating the grossly unbalanced playing field that is our economy today. In response, Congress passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) in 2010. While Dodd-Frank fell short on major banking reforms, I supported it because it was better than no reforms at all.

I am appalled that House Republicans pushed through the Financial CHOICE Act, which would gut major provisions of Dodd-Frank and allow Wall Street to return to the same reckless practices that occurred before the law was passed. The Financial CHOICE Act removes the watchdog from Wall Street, opening the door to destructive trading at the expense of pension funds, value investors, and average Americans.

Additionally, those on Wall Street who broke the law and used Americans' investments as a casino should be held accountable for their deceptive actions, including jail time. Yet, to this day, no Wall Street executive has seen jail time for the damage they did on our financial system. Instead, Wall Street executives are being rewarded with powerful jobs in the Trump administration.

It is outrageous that Republicans want to allow the banking sector to return to ``business as usual'' with dangerous financial products and high-speed speculation. We need stronger, not weaker, financial reforms, which is why I'm taking on reckless Wall Street trading with my `Putting Main Street FIRST Act' legislation to discourage speculative trading by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on stock, bond, and derivative trades. Congress should be fighting for the interests of the American people, not Wall Street.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. The Republicans would take us back to the good old days.

Remember the good old days? Enron, the collapse of Wall Street because of millions of bad mortgages and virtual collateralized debt obligations, and other schemes that pyramided the problem to a point where it caused the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Now Goldman Sachs populates the White House. They run the Treasury. Now they want to deregulate Wall Street again with a so-called CHOICE Act.

Now, there are problems with overregulation of the community banks and small banks; they didn't cause the problem. But they want to say, ``No, let's just deregulate everybody again,'' not targeting the problem. So they are going to repeal the Volcker Rule. They are going to do away with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

No more requiring lenders to be certain that people are borrowers who can repay their loans. No, the credit card companies, the payday lenders, the debt collectors, there are no abuses there. We don't need a watchdog overlooking them.

And then, finally, they do away with something called orderly liquidation authority. Back to the good old days when firms on Wall Street were too big to fail. We can't have in place a process that would allow us to remove overpaid executives who crash their firm and to make the stockholders pay instead of the taxpayers.

That is what this bill does today. It is the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I will be unable to vote today on H.R. 2213, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act. If I would be present, I would vote against the bill.

While this bill purports to fast track the hiring of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents in order to ensure our national security, it would actually water down hiring practices and allow potential vulnerabilities in the country's largest law enforcement agency. H.R. 2213 would allow certain CBP applicants to bypass polygraph testing.

In 2010 Congress passed the Anti-Border Corruption Act, which mandated CBP applicants pass a polygraph test as part of their hiring process. This bill was an essential step after an influx of corruption cases were revealed within the agency--ranging from drug trafficking to accepting bribes. Decreasing hiring standards as proposed by H.R. 2213 would do exactly what the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 fixed.

Instead of finding common-sense ways to expedite the hiring process without compromising the integrity of the agency, H.R. 2213 irresponsibly cuts corners in an attempt to keep President Trump's campaign promises of quickly increasing border patrol agents.

I am absolutely committed to regaining control of our country's borders and have continually fought to restrict individuals who would do our citizens harm--both through terrorist attacks or drug smuggling--from entering the United States. This ill-conceived legislation does nothing to ensure increased border security.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this is the fifth time the United States House of Representatives has considered this bill.

Now, we have heard a lot of alternative facts today. Let's have some real facts.

Killing trees, well, first off, here is the extensive application. It is slightly over three pages long and it can be filed electronically, so we don't need to kill any trees.

Allegations that somehow this slows down control of mosquito abatement or Zika virus are absolutely false. Anybody can apply a pesticide in a public health situation. They have 30 days to file the paperwork online afterwards. It takes about 5 minutes. It has such technical things as your name and address, your pesticide applicator license verified with a certain State, where you are going to use the pesticide or herbicide.

Now, why would we want to know that? Or maybe, why wouldn't we want not to know that? Because that is what they are saying on that side of the aisle.

There is nothing registered with the Department of Agriculture. Yes, we have FIFRA. These pesticides and herbicides have been registered. They have labels--it can't be applied over water; it can't be applied here; it can't be applied there--and we trust the applicators to follow those rules. But when they actually use the herbicides and pesticides absent this form, this burdensome 3\1/2\-page form, we won't know.

Now, why would we care? Well, this is essentially the 20th anniversary of a massive fish kill in Jackson County, Oregon. In that incident, an operator applied an aquatic herbicide in an irrigation canal that, when it leaked into the nearby creek, killed 92,000 steelhead. Now, we kind of care about our steelhead in the Northwest, so that was a problem.

So then the Federal agency said, Well, this is kind of a problem when someone does that, 92,000 steelhead. Plus, anybody who drank the water was poisoned, et cetera, et cetera. But we don't want to know about that on that side of the aisle because Dow Chemical doesn't like it because maybe it inhibits sales of some of these chemicals that cause these sorts of problems.

Now, we have data now because of these forms, and we know about areas

that are impaired. In my State, which is like the clean, green State, 825 miles of rivers and streams and 10,000 acres of lakes and ponds in the State of Oregon are impaired by pesticide contamination. That is something we should do something about. People are drinking that water; they are swimming in that water; their kids are bathing in that water. I think that is a problem.

But we don't want to know about that. This is just a horrible restraint on pesticide applications.

Now, we heard a lot of other hooey here. It is like: This is so difficult; it is so difficult to do. I was talking to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. He said, well, farmers don't want to file those forms. If they hired a pesticide applicator, that person could file the form for them.

Or, yeah, maybe they are going to have to file the 3-page form if it involves the waters of the United States of America. If it doesn't involve the waters, you don't have to file it. So this is really an incredible thing.

Now, we have taken this up numerous times. It was the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act in the 109th Congress--the same bill, exactly the same bill.

Then in the 112th and the 113th Congresses, it was the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. It still didn't work. It didn't become law then.

Well, wait a minute. Let's pass it on to public fears. Last Congress, it was called the Zika Vector Control Act in the 114th Congress. We just heard a lot of hooey about how this will inhibit killing mosquitoes, which, of course, is absolutely not true.

But now we are back to here. So the Zika Control Act and the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act are now back to the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.

Now, in the past 6 years, since this paperwork was required, or electronic work, do you know how many pesticide applicators have faced significant impacts because of these protections? None. Zero.

Do you know how many applicators have raised problems with the Clean Water Act pesticide general permit to EPA? None. Zero.

In fact, I specifically asked this question of the EPA's head of water at a Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee hearing. No specific instances where the clean water permit was causing problems or impacts on pesticide application. Yet here we are again, one more time, under the guise of reducing this horrible regulatory burden: name, address, phone number, what did you apply? Where are you registered to apply these sorts of permits? That is useful information.

I had a couple more instances in Oregon.

Tiller, Oregon, again, right in the same area where the steelhead were killed. That same creek was contaminated with atrazine in 2014. Local residents who drank the water complained, and they also complained of the overspray. Then, in 2013, a helicopter in Curry County, Oregon, oversprayed residents.

Now, if they didn't have to file these forms, we wouldn't know who did it, when they did it, and what the chemical was. I guess that is kind of what the Republicans want. If someone oversprays your property and sprays stuff on you: ``Geez, I don't know. That was one of those black helicopters. We don't know where it came from, or who that was. We don't know what they dumped on you. Sorry.'' That is burdensome paperwork. We wouldn't want to require that kind of burdensome paperwork.

So that is why we are here again today for the fifth time with the fifth remaining rationale for what we are doing here today, and it still fails the smell test.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the passing of a Capitol Hill icon, Joseph S. Miller, described by The Oregonian in 1987 as the dean of lobbyists in the nation's capital who specialized in Pacific Northwest issues. Joe was a seminal figure in Northwest politics and became well-known in Washington, D.C. His career spanned over 70

years, and he earned a reputation for having great political insight and courage.

Joe was a respected journalist and came from the infamous Class of 1943 at the University of Oregon, which included Les Anderson, Jeff Kitchens, Aaron U. Jones, and Bill Roth, Jr. After serving in the Army in the Aleutian Islands during World War II, he wrote for Northwest newspapers. He covered drama, literature, labor, politics, sports, and music. One weekend, he covered a heavyweight fight, a college football game, and the Seattle Symphony. The next day he ran into the president of the symphony, who said, ``Joe, last night I thought I went to a symphony concert, but when I read your review this morning I knew I'd been to a title fight instead.'' Gradually, politics and labor issues became Joe's focus.

In 1958, Joe moved his wife Rosalie Daggy Miller and their two daughters from Seattle to Washington, D.C., to become the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He helped elect many Democratic senators, including Senators Ed Muskie, Gaylord Nelson, Bill Proxmire, and Frank Church. Later he advised the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The Washington Post once called him the Democrats' answer to Madison Avenue. Senator Dick Neuberger said of Joe that he ``would never base a campaign on personal malice or an appeal to a hate element. His politics are never bitter.''

Joe had an almost encyclopedic memory for details and always told it like it was. These talents usually served him well as he represented clients such as the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, United Steelworkers of America, American Association of Railroads, Port of Portland, Western Forest Industries Association, and Association of Oregon and California Land Grant Counties.

A life-long Democrat, Joe had great friendships and professional relationships with many Republicans. As he once said, ``We would hash out issues all day long, but when 5 o'clock came, we were all on the same side.'' Joe and his second wife, Erna Wahl Miller, personal secretary to Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson, were valued friends and hosts to many in their home on Capitol Hill until Erna's death in 2004.

In 2008, Joe's memoir, The Wicked Wine of Democracy, was published by the University of Washington Press. The book is a candid look at politics from the 1950s onward. Joe wanted to call his memoir When Politics Was Fun, but the UW Press, publishing the book as a potential political-science text, had other ideas.

For over 40 years, Joe met for lunch every Friday at the Irish Times on Capitol Hill with a drop-in group of old and new friends. He respected ``the wit and wisdom of his Friday lunch gang,'' which represented a wide range of political thought. Joe's ability to listen to other points of view and to find common ground kept his voice relevant and in demand throughout his life.

Joe was a great believer in the ``American Political Way'' and said, ``We have overcome many challenges over two centuries and have always emerged a stronger and more democratic nation as a result.''

Thanks to Joe Miller for his dedication and contributions to the political process. His positive outlook and ability to adapt to changing times, even in his 90s, will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize University of Oregon Assistant Vice President and University Registrar Sue Eveland who is retiring after fourteen years of service to the university.

Ms. Eveland has been an invaluable member of the UO community since she was first hired in 2001 and subsequently with her appointment as the Interim University Registrar in 2008 and later University Registrar.

During this time, Ms. Eveland also served as President of both the Pacific Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (PACRAO) and the Oregon Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (OrACRAO), demonstrating her commitment not only to University of Oregon faculty, students and staff, but also to her colleagues nationwide. Prior to her career at the University of Oregon, Ms. Eveland spent 17 years at Iowa State University, serving in various roles in the Offices of Admissions and the Registrar.

Colleagues report that Ms. Eveland has shown herself to be innovative and effective, bringing opportunities for staff development, growth and collaboration into each of her roles. Alongside her team at the UO, she was able to implement online grading, online course evaluations, an online graduation application and a schedule builder, among other efficiencies. Her work has continually simplified and improved the lives of the students she serves. Her colleagues say she encourages her staff to keep perspective, remain positive, be creative and have fun.

Sue Eveland retires from the University of Oregon having dedicated nearly two decades to improving services for students. I join with the University of Oregon in recognizing Sue Eveland for her contributions to higher education, and I congratulate her for her many years of exemplary service.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called American Health Care Act is up today.

If you are over age 50, insurance companies can charge you five times the normal rate. This couple, 64 years old, $30,000-a-year income, $1,700 for a policy now. After this great bill passes, this big beautiful bill, $15,000 a year for health care out of a $30,000 income.

Now, how the heck does that work?

In the next 3 years, 24 million Americans will lose coverage. Among them, 153,000 in my district on the Oregon health plan so-called extended Medicaid. But that wasn't bad enough to get this bill through the House. The rightwing demanded more, so they have done away with the preexisting condition exclusion.

Now they say: Oh, no, it is still in there, but the insurance company can charge you whatever they want. You have cancer? Oh, that will be $100,000 a year for your policy. Oh, but don't worry, don't worry, they are going to have a risk pool.

A few Members with weak knees went down to the White House to get a deal with the dealmaker, Trump, $8 billion. A lot of money for people with

preexisting conditions. Unfortunately, there are 130 million American adults with preexisting conditions, as described by the insurance industry. Over 5 years, that will be $1 per month per person. That is going to buy a hell of a lot of health care; right?

Mr. Speaker, so 100 days. Candidate Trump made much about, you know, the pernicious influence of peddlers in Washington, D.C., the revolving door between high-level government political appointees and lobby firms. He called D.C. a swamp again and again and again, and he promised to drain it. So how is he doing?

He was going to have a 5-year ban, if you worked for him in an eye- level position, 5-year ban from becoming a lobbyist. Of course, there was already an existing provision, ethics provision that forbids lobbyists from joining agencies that lobbied in the prior 2 years. So let's check in.

Number 1, Chad Wolf, lower right. He has been named chief of staff for the Transportation Security Administration. For the last 2 years, he has lobbied the TSA to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new carry-on luggage screening device. Now, as chief of staff, he is in the position to decide whether or not that agency will purchase the device as it is being tested and evaluated for use.

Now, how could that be? Well, President Trump eliminated that ethics provision that you couldn't lobby, join an agency which you have been lobbying for 2 years; so hence, number 1, Chad Wolf.

Number 2, Michael Catanzaro. He is the top White House energy adviser. He worked last year as a lobbyist for energy companies, oil, gas, and coal, and was lobbying to stop or overturn the Obama attempts to deal with climate change, including the Clean Power Plan and various other things, but he is now the top White House adviser.

Okay. Well, we are not doing so good so far. Well, how about the 5- year prohibition? That is pretty stiff. None of these guys are going to leave their lucrative lobby jobs and come and work as a public servant at those low salaries if they can't go back to lobbying, right, so that has got to be cleaning up the swamp. Whoops. Oh, no, not so much.

Marcus Peacock, senior White House budget adviser, he is leaving the Trump administration to join the Business Roundtable, 77 days after he started working for President Trump. He is going to lead the policy group on key issues relating to the Trump agenda, including taxes, infrastructure, regulatory reform, and he signed the pledge saying that for 5 years he would not lobby this administration, but he got a waiver, just a little waiver. So much for the 5-year restriction.

Anybody who wants to leave the Trump administration just goes and gets a waiver, and they go right back to lobbying for him. So the revolving door is spinning faster and faster.

But how about the President saying no one should benefit from this kind of public service. Well, Elijah Cummings and I have raised concerns about the lease of the Trump Hotel here, which says specifically that no government official shall benefit. No elected official of the United States of America shall benefit from this lease. But President Trump says that that is not a problem, and the new temporary appointee of head of the GSA says it is not a problem. He is not benefiting. The money is going into trust, and the trust can only use the money to improve the properties or pay down the debt. So, therefore, he doesn't benefit. Huh?

But then we had a really kind of strange incident this week where the State Department posted ads for Mar-a-Lago on an official government website, ostensibly because they just wanted to show people the winter White House. Of course, they, you know, were showing the rooms and all that. I don't think they had the rates posted. You still had to call. They took it down after people complained about it.

So we are not doing so good on the drain the swamp stuff. But I want to help the President here. I introduced a bill at the beginning of this Congress, the DRAIN the SWAMP Act. Maybe he doesn't know these things are going on. Maybe he doesn't know this guy Peacock got a waiver. Maybe he doesn't know that these people were lobbying these agencies, and he really does want to drain the swamp.

So I am hoping he will endorse a bill I have introduced, the DRAIN the SWAMP Act, which--instead of having a signed agreement, which can be waived by some random bureaucrat at the White House in secret--would actually put into statute a 5-year ban on returning to lobbying after you have been a high-level political appointee in this or any future administration.

Now, that would really drain the swamp. So the question is: Is the President just going to pretend the swamp doesn't exist anymore, or would he like to put some teeth in a law that would actually help us drain the swamp and stop this pernicious revolving door and influence peddling that he was so offended by as a candidate but seems to be turning a blind eye to as President of the United States?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1117 to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to submit a report on how it will improve field staff transition.

As the gentleman from Pennsylvania has explained, there has been a good deal of confusion with high turnover, repetitive and lost paperwork, and inconsistent guidance.

FEMA has implemented several new technologies to manage its full-time employees, but they have not made similar efforts for field and temporary disaster response personnel. It is time for FEMA to do so.

This bill requires FEMA to submit a report on how it plans to address the disaster workforce issues, their continuing inconsistent guidance, and keeping appropriate records.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

FEMA provides public assistance funds after a disaster or emergency to State, tribal, and local governments and some private nonprofits. These funds reimburse communities and other entities for activities such as debris removal costs, emergency protective measures, and the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged facilities.

Currently, for projects under--however they chose that number-- $122,100--I am surprised they didn't add on 10 cents--reimburses grantees based on cost estimates rather than actual costs. This bill would require FEMA to increase this threshold to $500,000. This would be temporary authority, expiring on September 30, 2021. We would require that this be closely tracked. There is a strong indication that this will actually expedite reimbursement, ultimately save funds, and will not subject these projects to abuse.

I am hopeful that my colleagues will support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.