Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk quickly because I have got a lot of people who want to talk, and there are a lot of important things in this bill.

I want to thank the chairman--he has done an extraordinary job here-- and Chairman LoBiondo, both retiring, and we will miss them. I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Larsen.

Now, there are many provisions that are very important. I won't get to all of them here. But flight attendants, thanks to Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, are going to get a 10-hour minimum rest period. They are safety-critical professionals. In the current rules, sometimes they are only getting 4 or 5 hours a night on certain routes. That is not right. That is long overdue.

We have to see whether or not we can actually meet the standard of evacuating a plane in 90 seconds as budget carriers and others cram more and more seats in that are narrower and narrower, less and less pitch. Can we still meet those standards? We are going to find out whether we can or not.

A provision later in the bill inserted by another of my colleagues, Steve Cohen, will require the FAA, particularly if instructed by this study, to set minimum pitch width and length requirements for passenger seats.

The drones--we have 100 reports of drone sightings by pilots in controlled airspace being illegally operated every month. Sooner or later, one of those things is going to take down a jetliner with passengers on board. Until now, Congress has prohibited the FAA from regulating these drones because the model aircraft people think they are going to all be grounded. They are not going to be grounded. The FAA isn't going to go after responsible operators.

You are going have to register. You are going to have to show that you understand the rules. But the model aircraft people already do. Many of these toy people, like the one who stopped firefighting in my district in August, are breaking the law; and we are going to know and be able to identify them, find them, fine them, jail them, whatever is necessary to stop these dangerous activities. So that is an incredibly important part of the bill.

There are certification reforms. Our manufacturers have been waiting for years. We need to maintain our lead in

aerospace. We are finally getting certification reform to make their production of new equipment, modern, state-of-the-art stuff, much easier.

We are also going to require the FAA to facilitate and defend their approvals overseas. No more Chinese aviation authority blackmailing our manufacturers into giving them proprietary information so they can sell their product in China. That has got to stop. We are going to make the FAA help our manufacturers over there.

We are going to have some passenger rights here. As I already talked about, Steve Cohen with the seat pitch.

There are also consumer protections. We are going to have better identification of what is going to happen. They are going to have to post online, with mass cancelations, what they are going to do with people; permanent prohibition of cellphones in flight.

It did not, unfortunately, include a provision that Chairman LoBiondo, Drew Ferguson, and I authored to help the airline industry-- or defend the airline industry--from following the cruise line model where all the crews are going to be foreign and not subject to U.S. law with flags of convenience. That is something that yet needs to be addressed.

It does not allow an increase in the passenger facility charge, which hasn't been updated in about 20 years, and yet airports do not have sufficient bonding capacity to make the improvements we need to make the airports flow more quickly and a better experience for passengers. The airlines should join me in that instead of opposing that.

It also has disaster recovery reform in there. We are going to do more investment in predisaster mitigation, which will save massive amounts of money for taxpayers.

We are going to require stronger building codes as we rebuild. It also has some important things for the State of Oregon that relate to earthquake early warning and mitigation regarding forest fires.

Finally, we are going to take money that is being stolen from passengers. Now we have a big fight over a passenger facility charge, yet the airlines did not raise a stink when the Republican Congress diverted--raised, twice--the passenger security fee and diverted the money to nonpassenger security issues, which is delaying the deployment of new, more efficient equipment by the TSA. We are going to finally end that practice, not soon enough, but perhaps we can amend that later.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), an esteemed member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a key appropriator on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my friend and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), ranking member on the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from New York an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I already thanked my colleagues, but I also want to thank some staff, particularly some of the staff on my side of the aisle. The staff on both sides worked hard: Alex Burkett; Rachel Carr; Kathy Dedrick; Janet Erickson; David Napoliello; Luke Strimer; Mike Tien; in Rick Larsen's office, Alexandra Menardy; and special thanks, because they don't get thanked enough around here, to the people who put together legislation that actually works and do yeoman's work behind the scenes, legislative counsel Karen Anderson, Rosemary Gallagher, and Stephen Hagenbuch.

Again, this is a good bill. It shows what we can do here when we drop our partisan cloaks and work together for the good of the American people, both the flying public and the businesses that are dependent upon the aviation industry, and, also, the work we did in here on disaster mitigation, things that should have been done earlier, couldn't get done earlier.

But in a must-pass bill like this, we were able to come to consensus. This is a good day for the House of Representatives--unfortunately, a somewhat rare day.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank the chairman for getting the Water Resources Development bills back on track. We had gone many years without an authorization, and the chairman made it a priority to do this every 2 years.

We also have created a new process through which we provide some direction to the Corps of Engineers on where to invest their scarce resources.

If I had my way, or maybe if we have different leadership in the next Congress, we would go back to a much simpler, explicit process where we would designate high-priority local infrastructure investment as needed in the certain areas around the United States of America to better facilitate commerce. But that is for another day.

This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. There is, however, one problem. That problem is that Ronald Reagan worked with a Democratic Congress to create a harbor maintenance trust fund funded by a miniscule ad valorem tax on the value of goods that come in from overseas and pass through our ports. Consistently, Congress has underspent those funds under both Democratic and Republican leadership.

Many years ago, I started to work with the chairman's father on this very issue. That is more than two decades ago now. We did make substantial progress in the last Congress and in this Congress.

An amendment that I offered to the water resources bill put us on a track toward spending all of the tax that is collected for harbor maintenance on harbor maintenance.

Now, I know that is kind of shocking in this town, that you would collect a tax from people and then spend it on the thing for which it is dedicated, but I think that would be right.

My proposal was adopted unanimously in the committee twice. Then Speaker Ryan, through his control of the Rules Committee, reached into the bill and extracted that amendment.

Why would they do that when we, on an average daily basis, have less than 40 percent of the authorized capacity at our 59 largest harbors?

Why would we cripple United States commerce and shipping interests? Why would we do that?

Well, so they can pretend that the deficit is a little tiny bit less. When it comes to taxes, a trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, we don't care about deficits. But when it comes to spending the harbor maintenance tax on harbor maintenance, we can skim off a few hundred million dollars every year and put it over here in an imaginary trust fund that we never spend.

So it is a bunch of BS that we are doing that. You should not be collecting taxes from the American people and then not spending money on the intended and needed purpose.

The Corps' estimate is that they need about $20 million to bring all harbors up to authorized depths in the next 10 years. If we were spending the full harbor maintenance trust fund income on an annual basis and spending down the balance that has already accumulated, we could exceed that goal and deal with other issues, such as jetty problems and the like.

The White House has come up with a brilliant and different solution. They want to reduce the harbor maintenance tax so we will never, ever bring up our ports to authorized depths.

In any case, that is the major problem with this bill.

The chairman has already mentioned a number of the attributes of this bill. There is a provision that potentially will make the Corps more efficient on dredging projects and look at multiyear as opposed to annual contracts. The Corps is getting some tools to respond to climate change--I can't believe we got that in there--sea level rise, and natural disasters.

It requires the Corps to be more transparent in how it chooses projects. As I mentioned earlier, I think Congress should be a little more direct there. Again, that is for another day.

It has provisions that are important to my district and my State, which are fully justified.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is a good, bipartisan project, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

(Mr. KENNEDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time if the gentleman has more speakers.

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

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I want to particularly congratulate the chairman on his accomplishment of resuscitating regular WRDA reauthorizations, and this, of course, will be the last time in which he will be on the floor on this particular issue.

I would also like to thank the staff, Ryan Seiger, Mike Brain; from Representative Napolitano's office, Joe Sheehy; and a special thanks to legislative counsel, whose staff tells me was absolutely fabulous on this, Kakuti Lin. And then, of course, I believe the chairman will thank his staff, but I would also extend thanks to them but not name them individually if he is going to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I voted in support of the Conference Report for H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019.

The legislation includes several provisions that I strongly support, including nearly $7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers. Specifically, this legislation provides $1.55 billion, $149 million above the 2018 enacted level, to Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund projects to ensure that critical harbor and port projects receive the funding they need. It also includes $86.5 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including $8.6 billion for mental health, $348 million for opioid treatment and prevention, and $206 million for suicide prevention programs.

Despite funding these vital programs, I have concerns with a number of provisions included in the Conference Report. This legislation authorizes more than $97 billion, including $921 million 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) has yet to complete a financial audit; taxpayers deserve to know how the biggest bureaucracy in the federal government spends their money.

Additionally, the bill 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. The bottom line is that the prison 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.

Mr. Speaker, today I will vote present on H.R. 6691. I support the premise of this legislation and agree that action needs to be taken after the Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year. However, in their finding the Court cautioned that careful consideration should be exercised before any new or expanded criminal definitions are finalized. This bill does not meet that test.

In April, the Supreme Court ruled that the current definition of ``crimes of violence'' was unconstitutionally vague and needed to be clarified. I support efforts to rectify this issue and make certain we are prosecuting criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Yet since the Court's ruling, Republicans have taken no steps to meaningfully consider what this new definition should be. Instead, they rushed the bill to the floor without a hearing, markup or time for proper review.

I agree clarification is needed to ensure we are able to prosecute those who are guilty and uphold our laws as they are intended. However, rushing through a hasty definition of crimes of violence is dangerous and irresponsible. The definition is used in a number of federal criminal offenses beyond just the Immigration and Nationality Act. For instance, it also applies when determining whether a juvenile may be prosecuted as an adult in federal court.

There is simply too much potential for unintended consequences to rush through a definition written impulsively and without proper review. I would rather the House carefully consider what an appropriate definition should include, in order to properly balance the rights of Americans with the need to fully enforce our laws and protect our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jennifer L. Homendy, who recently

left the staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure after more than 14 years of service as the Democratic Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. I had the privilege of working with Jennifer throughout her entire time with the Committee, but most closely since 2015 when I took over as Ranking Member.

Jennifer was born in New Britain, Connecticut, but later moved with her family to the Washington Metro area. For Jennifer, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure was more than just a place to work; it was a second family. Her father, Sante Esposito, served as the Democratic Chief Counsel to the Committee from 1981 to 1998. Through both her father and mother, Jennifer learned the importance of public service at a young age.

As a student at Pennsylvania State University, Jennifer got her first real experience in government interning in Senator Arlen Spector's Harrisburg office. After graduation, she worked for the National Federation of Independent Business and the American Iron and Steel Institute before spending seven years working for transportation labor--first with the Transportation Trades Department and then the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

She left the Teamsters in 2004 to join the Democratic staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where she developed unrivaled expertise in issues surrounding the railroad industry and its employees, the safety and security of transporting hazardous materials, and the safety of oil and gas pipelines.

Jennifer is a passionate and tireless advocate for transportation safety, which is why it is extremely fitting that Jennifer left the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to become a Board Member at the National Transportation Safety Board. During her tenure as Staff Director, Jennifer guided major pieces of rail, pipeline, and hazmat safety legislation through the legislative process, including: the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Specials Programs Improvement Act of 2004; the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users; the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006; the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008; the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA); the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011; and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) in 2015. Throughout her tenure on the Committee, she was an unwavering defender of the Nation's passenger railroad, Amtrak, and the need for swift implementation of positive train control.

When she is not at work trying to improve the safety of our transportation system, Jennifer spends her time running and training for marathons and triathlons. She is also a devoted mother who spends many weekends traveling with her daughter Alexandra (Lexi) to Irish dance competitions across the country.

I want to thank Jennifer for her many years of service to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We will miss her, but look forward to working with her in her new role at the NTSB. I wish Jennifer, her husband Mike, and daughter Lexi all the best in the years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you look at how transportation funds are administered to the Tribes, first off, it is a pathetic and inadequate amount of money, given the infrastructure problems that the Tribes have. But then, that is true of infrastructure, writ large, across the United States of America.

Secondly, we think it was 1860 or 1870, the Tribes do not directly receive these funds. There are various Federal agencies involved, and sometimes State agencies involved, in the disbursal of those funds and the approval of the projects under those funds.

This legislation was part of the FAST Act, which would give Tribal self-governance. They would be able to administer their own funds without anybody taking off administrative costs, without bureaucratic delay, and set their own priorities on their own lands. I sponsored this into the FAST Act. It was unanimously accepted at the time.

Now, we thought, when we passed the FAST Act that 3 years would be long enough for the Department of Transportation to consult with the Tribes. We set up a committee to come to consensus on the rules for self-governance. Well, unfortunately, it was slowed down because of the Presidential election. After the Presidential election, this committee did not meet for the entire year of 2017. And then, this year, essentially, DOT had some meetings, but then presented sort of a take- it-or-leave-it to the Tribes, which the Tribes find unacceptable.

Now, unfortunately, the Tribes can't prolong the negotiations unless we change the law, because the law set a deadline of December 2018. And because of the way that bureaucratic rulemaking process works, DOT would have to put out their rule in August while we are out of town and without having reached any consensus or having had any meaningful conversation with the Tribes under the rules for which they should be able to administer their own funds for their own projects.

So this bill is quite simple. It extends the deadline so that DOT won't rush out a rule that is opposed by the Tribes, which, obviously, destroys the entire intent of this legislation. This

would provide an additional year. And, hopefully, with some prodding, and maybe a different Congress next year, we can get DOT's attention and get them to meaningfully consult with the sovereign nations, with the Tribes, to come up with a bill that is agreed to both by the Department of Transportation and the Tribes.

Mr. Speaker, this is quite simple. It has broad bipartisan support. I am not aware of any opposition. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, both for his leadership on these issues, and for the time. And I also would congratulate Chairman Young and others, particularly Suzanne Bonamici, from my State, who has taken a real leadership role on the issue of marine debris.

We are choking the oceans to death. The lifeblood of our planet, the lungs of our planet, it is becoming a giant garbage dump. The Pacific Gyre can be seen from space. It is a massive gyre in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and we have to begin to deal seriously with these issues.

It was just this week in the New York Times, photographs of the Dominican Republic, known for its pristine beaches, which had giant bulldozers on the beach trying to eat through about an 8-foot tall pile of plastic debris on the beaches. So this threatens the marine environment and all that which is dependent upon it, the creatures that live there, and those of us who harvest from that. And it is threatening tourism and recreation. Obviously, this has to be dealt with.

I will say, this is good legislation, but it is a pathetic amount of money. The amount of money that Congress is putting out to deal with something that is threatening the very oceans that surround us probably isn't adequate to clean up the little--I live on a boat down there inside Hains Point--probably that little section of water inside Hains Point down by Fort McNair. I don't even think $10 million could clean that up, let alone the oceans. So we need to get a little more serious about this and really put up additional funds.

So that is very important legislation. Title II is something about which I am very passionate. The worst maritime disaster since 1983, and obviously, there is a lot of blame to go around on that disaster. But one of the factors was that ship was not fit. It had been certified by an independent party which is called, under the law, a recognized organization, as fit to go to sea.

Now, why would that happen? Well, because the recognized organizations get paid by the shipping companies. Now, I am not going to hire you if you tell me my ship isn't fit to go to sea, which is what they should have been telling TOTE. They didn't tell them because, hey, we want more of your business. We will go out and certify some more of your unfit ships and kill more people. This has got to end.

The Coast Guard is also at fault. They were not providing enough oversight to these recognized organizations, and had let their own marine safety division, under this privatization scheme, deteriorate to the point where they couldn't even keep up with the paperwork.

So this bill is going to begin to rectify those issues and revitalize the Coast Guard maritime safety organization, and also, bring new scrutiny on these recognized organizations so they don't kill any more people and send unfit ships to sea.

Finally, the legislation, the third part of this is, I think, a tremendous accomplishment by the Ranking Member, John Garamendi, which is his Blue Tech center and Blue Oceans. The Coast Guard has, unfortunately--again, we have underfunded the Coast Guard, so Congress is at fault for many of these things; maritime safety and the lack of initiative of the Coast Guard in terms of adopting new 21st century technologies to better perform their mission and make the sea-lane safer and better understand what is going on in the oceans around us.

So, maybe we will get, someday, to name the Blue Tech Center after Mr. Garamendi, but not until he is long gone, so he is not in a hurry for that.

So anyway, I want to congratulate him, and congratulate others who have been involved, and thank Chairman Shuster for moving this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, I was on a congressional trip with the Judiciary Committee into the Balkan region. A number of the countries there, living in the shadow of Russia and, also, the aggression of the Serbian allies of the Russians were very concerned about their security and their future.

Russia has, obviously, invaded Crimea, is supporting rebels in Ukraine, and is deeply involved in Syria to support the dictator there.

Now, in this last week, our President went to Europe, and he went to a meeting of our closest allies and NATO, which these countries on the periphery of Russia feel is critical to their defense. And he seems to--or did--deliberately so dissent and insult our two longest and strongest allies in NATO: Germany and England.

He seemed to be facilitating the Russian agenda there: Let's weaken NATO. Let's cause dissent in Europe.

But that couldn't be. He is the President of the United States. Of course he wouldn't be doing that. No. He was just being a businessman and trying to extract bigger payments out of them. He didn't mean to weaken or threaten the future of the alliance.

Then yesterday, in a sort of very bizarre moment, he meets alone with a professional KGB agent-dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin. We don't know what went on in that room. Maybe they watched videotapes. I don't know. But the President came out again and, this time, directly attacked the United States of America.

How could this be? He said that he does not believe that our intelligence agencies--his hand-picked head of the DNI, Dan Coats, told him the Russians had interfered and proved to him the Russians had interfered in our election. He said that once about a year ago.

But then he comes out with Vladimir Putin and says: Well, I asked him about it. He says they didn't do it. You know, there's two sides to this. We did it. They did it. Who knows. Whatever. It doesn't matter.

Our basic institutions, our democracy, has been attacked by Russia, and Dan Coats says they are going to do it again in this election year.

What can explain this bizarre behavior on the part of the President of the United States?

I couldn't figure it out, so I went to my bookshelf and I said: Hmm, I'll look around my bookshelf. Maybe I'll find something.

I found two books. It is my recommended reading list to explain President Trump and some of what is going on in America today. The first would be ``The Manchurian Candidate.'' The second would be the dystopian novel, George Orwell's ``1984.'' Read them and weep.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the gentlewoman from Nevada from the committee of jurisdiction on this issue.

During the markup of the National Flood Insurance Program, a number of us suggested that perhaps there is a way to help this bankrupt program save substantial funds. Right now, the program is $20 billion in debt, and we have a temporary extension from the March omnibus that expires in July.

The issue is that 2 percent of the properties in America have accounted for 24 percent of the spending by the National Flood Insurance Program. More than 30,000 of them have flooded five times each and been rebuilt by the

bankrupt Federal Flood Insurance Program. Some have flooded more than 30 times.

This is insanity, that we would keep rebuilding in these flood-prone areas, rebuilding, rebuilding, rebuilding, and piling up debt and raising the insurance premiums for everybody else on the program who presents way less risk.

So we decided that a way to go would be to provide a significant incentive to these people, and the incentive would be that they would have an agreed-upon contract with FEMA to purchase their property at preflood market value, and they would also get a discount on their Federal flood insurance. So they get the discount on the insurance and have entered into an agreement to sell the property to FEMA at the full market price. FEMA would remove the structures, and it would be turned into open space that would continue to flood repeatedly, but we wouldn't have to pay anything to rebuild it.

We proposed that. The House Republicans said, oh, they thought it would be too expensive. We don't know if it would be too expensive. It is 2 percent and 24 percent of the costs. I don't think it is going to be more expensive. I think it is going to save a heck of a lot of money.

So this bill would have the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, study this proposal and set up a pilot program to see if, indeed, it would facilitate cost savings and avoid the repeated rebuilding of flood-prone structures and have willing takers on the other side.

The other real incentive is that, if someone has finally tired of it the fifth time their house was flooded and they want out, that process now takes 2 to 5 years and involves a whole lot of negotiations over value, preflood value, and all that sort of thing. Here you get an agreed-upon preflood value; you get a discount on your flood insurance; and you just walk away. FEMA will take care of the rest, the removal of the rubble and turning that into open space.

So I think this would be one thing we need to do to help the Federal Flood Insurance Program, which is critical. Thirty-four thousand people in my State have it. I have had Federal insurance; I don't have it anymore. But this is a critical program for many, many people who are only very, very occasionally going to be flooded, but they can't get a mortgage unless they have flood insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend this bill strongly to my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for many people to understand how important water is in the West, what a precious resource it is in the West, and how complicated the issues regarding water are.

In the case of the Bureau of Reclamation, 140,000 Western farmers, one in five who get irrigation water, get it through 8,000 miles of canals through the Bureau of Reclamation. 500 dams run by the Bureau of Reclamation ensure flood control for tens of thousands of Westerners-- millions, actually--and it also provides water for residential, municipal, and industrial use, serving 31 million people.

This is not something to be lightly tampered with with the privatization agenda of this administration. Now remember, we were going to have on the State of the Union day a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan. Where is it? It doesn't exist. In fact, they haven't put forward one penny. In fact, they have proposed to cut funding for infrastructure in the President's budget.

But they want to come up with little things so that they can say, oh, look, we are promoting infrastructure here. We are going to sell off Federal assets to who knows who--private entities, foreign entities, anybody who wants them.

Remember Enron and energy deregulation? The next big thing was going to be water. That is what they were going to get into. They were going to control and manipulate water supplies to drive up the prices.

Well, this bill offers the prospect of someone like an Enron to get hold of public assets today--Bureau of Reclamation, a Federal asset-- and its water resources. And then what happens? Well, that is an awfully big question mark. What would happen after a private entity takes over what was formerly being run in the public interest with allocation among competing users?

We might just have a new competition. If anybody remembers that movie--I can't remember the name right now about Los Angeles and Owens Valley and all of the shenanigans they did--``Chinatown.'' That is it. We could have a 21st century version of ``Chinatown'' involving private interests, or municipal interests, or foreign interests getting control of our water.

The gentleman from Colorado says, oh, no. Congress can act after this administration has arbitrarily entered into an agreement to sell off public assets, water assets, the Bureau of Reclamation, Congress can act to stop it. Anybody heard of the United States Senate?

Tell me, what are you going to get them to do in 90 days? Could you wake them from their nap? I don't think so. I mean, yeah, maybe in the House--particularly if the Democrats were in charge--we could stop some really bad privatization proposals by the Trump administration of these precious water resources in the Western United States. We could do it within 90 days. Heck, we can do it in quick time. Not the Senate. It is subject to a filibuster, so any one person could block Congress from acting.

So that is not a safeguard. That is about the flimsiest, phoniest, and most transparent of non-safeguard safeguard I have ever seen.

So why would we trust this administration with the most precious asset that many of us have in the Western United States--particularly this year, it has been so dry--which is our water resources, and then when the winters come, our flood-control resources? Why would we want private entities to control those things? You want us to shut the floodgates and stop your house from--well, that is going to cost you if you want us to retain that water up here, because that wasn't in our plan. So if you want some flood control, that will cost you X.

Oh, your fields have gone dry and you want us to do some release from the full reservoir that we control? It is our water. Well, that is going to cost you. It is going to cost you a lot, because it isn't going to rain for another 2 months, if you want to save your crops. This is a colossally bad idea and it should die here today.

Mr. Chair, today, I will vote against H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019.

The legislation includes several provisions that I strongly support, including giving servicemen and women a well-deserved raise of 2.6 percent. Those who serve in uniform have made extraordinary sacrifices for our country and have earned and deserve a pay raise. It also includes funding for Ukraine and Eastern Europe security initiatives to counter Russia's heightened military provocations and annexation of Crimea.

Despite these important initiatives, I have strong concerns with H.R. 6157. This legislation authorizes more than $674 billion, including $68 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) has yet to complete a financial audit; taxpayers deserve to know how the biggest bureaucracy in the federal government spends their money. In fact, a shocking report released in December 2016 exposed $125 billion in waste that the Pentagon tried to hide from the public.

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 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 this legislation's continued funding for armed conflicts and wars that are not congressionally approved. The Pentagon uses the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) to continue to justify the 17 years our troops have been fighting in the Middle East. President Trump has sent troops to Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere without seeking a new AUMF, a violation of the War Powers Act.

Additionally, the bill 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. 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. Chairman, for many, this is an emotional debate. I would concede the point that this is not a silver bullet.

What we are talking about in particular are a few species of salmon that are on the verge of extinction, and whether or not this bill passes will determine their future. It already extirpated a run at Ballard Locks.

We have a place in Oregon called Willamette Falls, 120 miles from the mouth of the Columbia River. Historically, there have been no sea lions there. There have been no changes in that structure in 100 years.

Yet, the passage of wild salmon, which was normally 5,000 to 8,000, has dropped down to 500 because of the predation with 40 sea lions hanging out, munching, basically, at the fish ladder.

Here is where sea lions are at. The optimal population is between this red line and this blue line. They actually have exceeded that blue line, which means they have recently exceeded and now are maybe dropping back to the maximum sustainable population.

We are talking about a few hundred problem animals, which then teach other animals where they can get a free lunch. That is really the key here. This is based in science. We have a probability of 89 percent of extinction of the Willamette winter steelhead that go over Willamette Falls because of the sea lions that hang out there.

They have tried everything: sonic guns, harassment, removal. They took them 300 miles away. They swim pretty good; they are back in 5 days. And they tell other sea lions along the way: Hey, come on, follow me. I know a great place to go.

If we were to remove just a few of these problem sea lions, it is very likely that it will be a long time before another set of sea lions learns to go 120 miles up the river to the Willamette Falls.

Mr. Chair, so the conditions are that these would have to be problem sea lions that have been marked; they have been removed; they have been harassed; they have come back; and they have to be 112 miles up the river. This is not a normal condition, that sea creatures are 112 miles up a freshwater river.

There are critical areas on the Columbia, up by the dams, up by the Willamette Falls, and in some of the tributaries, which are the most productive salmon grounds in the country where they are starting to hang out. And they are eating almost exclusively salmon, steelhead, and now sturgeon, which are also a threatened species.

As my colleague from Oregon said, NOAA will review the permit. We will have public comment. They will have a task force to review the application and make recommendations or modifications.

There will be a NEPA review. That was one of the critical elements. It was a problem with the earlier bill, and a number of us insisted upon a NEPA review. NOAA will approve or deny the permit with conditions, and that will be monitored on an annual basis.

Again, the argument that, well, other sea lions are just going to take their place, has not been proven by science. In fact, there are only a couple of hundred that are these problem creatures and are going upstream. Ultimately, others will follow them and become habituated. If we can remove the worst of the problem ones, then perhaps we won't drop down. In fact, the recent estimates are we are down to a 6 percent chance of survival--this is a little out of date--of the winter steelhead because of this year's predation.

There is another chart. I don't have it here. It shows, yes, the structures were built 100 years ago. That impeded the winter steelhead. There has been a fish ladder. Locks were built there for navigation. That hasn't changed in 100 years. So the populations were healthy at 5,000 to 8,000. Suddenly, now we are down to 512.

Something is happening. It is the sea lions.

Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 2018, I was on personal medical leave and not present for the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: on Roll Call Vote 265, on Passage of H.R. 5788, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act, I would have voted Aye; on Roll Call Vote 266, on Passage of H.R. 5735, the THRIVE Act, I would have voted Present; on Roll Call Vote 267, on Agreeing to the Thornbury Amendment, I would have voted No; and on Roll Call Vote 268, on Passage H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, I would have voted No.

Mr. Chair, as the co-chair of the Northwest Energy Caucus, I was pleased to be a cosponsor of the Newhouse amendment.

Included in President Trump's Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019 budget requests were proposals to sell off transmission assets of the Power Marketing Administrations, including the Bonneville Power Administration. Previous presidents, of both parties, have proposed the same. The theory behind selling the assets is the U.S. gets a one-time influx of cash with no harm to ratepayers.

I recognize these proposals for what they are: budget gimmicks that will only serve to drive up energy costs for Oregon and other Northwest residents and businesses. It's important to note that BPA costs the federal government nothing; it is entirely funded by Pacific Northwest ratepayers. Any money BPA borrows from the U.S. treasury is repaid, with interest.

By law, BPA is required to sell power at cost. No private company would buy BPA's assets unless it was assured it would make a profit, which would translate into higher electricity costs.

Additionally, BPA serves millions of rural customers, and maintaining transmission infrastructure is costly. There is no guarantee that a private company would invest in less profitable lines that serve rural areas, harming rural communities. In fact, it could lead to serious neglect or complete abandonment of the lines.

In May, President Trump thankfully listened to Northwest lawmakers and scrapped his FY19 proposal. This amendment would ensure that no funds could be spent to reconsider the idea

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018. This is the product of many months of hard work by members of the committee and staff, and I particularly want to congratulate the chairman. This will be his last WRDA bill, but until his leadership, water resources bills had languished for, I believe, a decade. So this has been a tremendous achievement.

This is a good bill. However, it could be better. In the last Congress, I offered an amendment in committee to take the harbor maintenance trust fund off budget, allow the Corps to spend the proceeds in the trust fund every year, and draw down the surplus that deals with a backlog on all of our ports.

Ports affect the entire Nation, any time you have an import or an export, which covers virtually all of the States of the union. These red dots are harbors that are critical to our infrastructure. On a daily basis, our major ports are at about 35 percent of their authorized depth. 35 percent. Why is that? Well, because we don't have the money to fix them. And the jetties are falling apart. We don't have the money to fix them.

Well, actually, we do have the money to fix them, but some very shortsighted people around here want to play games. They want to collect a tax from the American people--a minuscule tax, 0.0125 cents on the value of every imported good that comes through a harbor. That is, if you buy a $30,000 car, you are going to spend about $37.50 that, starting with Ronald Reagan, was dedicated to maintaining our harbors at proper depths and maintaining the jetties for these harbors, not limiting the funds just to the commercial harbors, but to small and emerging ports, which are also critical to the Nation: the fishing industry, recreation, and others.

However--and this has been a bipartisan problem, starting even when Democrats have been in charge--this has been underspent on an annual basis. Today, there is $10.5 billion of taxes collected from the American people sitting idle or having been spent somewhere else. It has got a theoretical trust fund.

Now, that is going to grow every year as we underspend this tax. It could grow to $20 billion within a decade. So we don't have the money to dredge the ports and we don't have the money to fix the jetties, because Congress is diverting the money. I actually worked on this with the chairman's father quite some time ago, and the chairman has been supportive of my efforts.

Unfortunately, it was stripped out of that bill by the Rules Committee 2 years ago. And this year, again, the Rules Committee found that they would not allow this to go forward. So we offered it in a different form to get around their technical objections about budget caps and discretionary spending.

So we offered--well, there actually is a way around that. They didn't like that either. They want to continue to steal money from the American people and divert it to be spent who knows where--somewhere else, but not on our harbors and our ports.

Now, the administration actually sent to what is called their statement down to us with an SAP--and it really is a SAP; they are SAPs--a Statement of Administration Policy is what it stands for. They sent down a provision where they said: This is great that you are not allowing the Congress to spend the tax collected from the American people on the stated purpose.

What? Really? Yes. That is their position. They say that the ports should have greater flexibility to spend local money on the ports.

Well, they have all the flexibility in the world to spend local money on local ports. They can partner with the Corps and fund Corps activities. I did that a number of years ago in Oregon. They don't have the money, and we are depriving them of the money.

But this is the Trump administration's solution. The big infrastructure package? This is going to be counted. We are going to add $3 billion to the pile of unfunded Corps projects.

We have got today $96 billion of Corps projects that have been authorized by Congress that aren't funded in the foreseeable future. At the end of this debate there will be $99 billion--almost $100 billion-- quite an achievement, and the administration is applauding this. They think this is just great because it gives the local ports the capability of raising money they can't raise to spend on the improvements they can't make.

Meanwhile, we are stealing money from the American people. It is a very sad day. So with that said, I will move on. There are other issues in this bill that are critical.

We have $3 billion to new Chief's Reports which will go on the shelf for the indefinite future, maybe 100 years or longer. But people can go home and say: Well, I got that project, all we need to do now is get the money.

Maybe a future Congress--maybe next year--we will decide to start spending the harbor maintenance tax on harbor maintenance. Who knows? It might depend upon who is in charge around here.

There are other provisions in here that are critical, authorizing the national levee safety initiative, the national dam safety program-- those are pretty important things--promoting improved safety measures, and reducing the risk to life and property.

There are a couple of provisions that benefit or would go for Corps projects in my district, one related to Fern Ridge Dam, and a collapsing road near the dam. A number of years ago, we had to expedite funds to fix a collapsing dam, now we have a collapsing road by the collapsing dam, and hopefully, the Corps can get to that before we have a major problem; and then delivering on a very long-ago promise to

Indian tribes that were displaced by dams that were built three- quarters of a century ago. Their villages were flooded and displaced, and this would authorize the Corps to provide housing assistance to those tribes.

There are other meritorious things in this bill. Again, I want to congratulate the chairman on what will be the third conservative 2-year authorization of the Water Resources Development Act. We just need to find the will and the money to fund the necessary projects.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

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

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I support the amendment.

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

I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chair, wouldn't it be in order just to move along? If people aren't responsible enough to be here, they don't get to offer the amendment.

The gentleman did not respond to my previous inquiry.

There were 53 amendments offered. The Rules Committee didn't give us en bloc authority. We need to expedite this. If people aren't here, we need to move along.