Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today at the request of Mr. John Lawrence. Before this most recent election, Mr. Lawrence wrote a book about what the Congressional Class of 1974 can teach the incoming Congressional Class. As a member of that class myself, I'm sure others will find this interview and the book it's about as interesting as I did.

The Watergate Babies

(Claire Potter and John Lawrence)

It is less than ninety days until Election. Day in the

United States, when Democrats hope to achieve one of the

biggest sweeps of Congressional seats in recent American

history. Many of these Democratic hopefuls are veterans. As

longtime political strategist Joe Trippi put it back in

March, these are candidates who are new to the electoral

arena, people who ``served the country without worrying about

who's a Democrat and who's a Republican'' and just want to

``get the damn thing done.'' And a record-breaking 40% of the

Democratic House candidates this primary season are women,

some of them veterans as well.

If the Democrats' hopes are fulfilled, will this be

unprecedented? Not really. On July 24 2018, we published an

excerpt from a book written by historian John Lawrence,

former chief of staff for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In The Class

of '74: Congress after Watergate and the Roots of

Partisanship (Johns Hopkins, 2018), Lawrence tracks this

earlier revolution, its achievements, and its flaws.

John sat down to talk to us about the book this week, and

its implications for our current political situation.

Claire Potter: John, thanks for joining us at Public

Seminar. You were trained as a professional historian, and

then went into politics, a career path that, as you noted in

this essay, mystified your advisors at Berkeley. First, I

want to ask you: how did a Ph.D. in history prepare you for a

career that eventually led you to becoming Speaker of the

House Nancy Pelosi's chief of staff?

John Lawrence: Many of the people working on Capitol Hill

in key policy and management roles have legal training or

campaign experience. Both are valuable, but don't train

people to contextualize current issues into a broader

narrative. Training in history provided that skill,

particularly research methodology and, perhaps most

significantly, writing skills. Politics is often a very

presentist business. While attorneys certainly are aware of

judicial and legal precedents, historians have the ability to

view contemporary debates through a unique prism that helps

explain the evolution and nature of complex issues.

CP: OK, now I want to turn that question around. How did

your work in politics support the writing of The Class of

'74? What did you bring to writing this book that a scholar

who has not spent 38 years working in the House of

Representatives would not have?

JL: Politics is an intensely personal business. Working in

Congress for nearly four decades enabled me to develop close

relationships with dozens of members, staff, reporters and

others whose decisions shape the making of public policy and

the design of political strategies and campaigns. These

connections enabled me to gather material for The Class of

'74 that, I have no doubt, would have been impossible for a

researcher without my experience.

Many who write about Congress without this personal

connection often miss the nuances of why legislators make

certain decisions because motivations can be tied to personal

relationships and other factors that are difficult to

quantify. I think this is why political scientists, in

particular, who frequently eschew the narrative in favor of

data analysis of voting patterns, often miss much of what

really explains how Congress, and politics more broadly,

works.

CP: Thanks. Now let's get to the book-prior to 1974, the

mood in Congress was changing, and not just because of

Watergate. Reflecting some of the disdain for authority that

was moving politics in the street, younger Representatives

were pushing back against the way the institution ran. What

were the issues?

JL: Certainly, the most significant stimulus to the

changing mood in Congress was Vietnam. The war was important

on many levels: the reassertion of congressional prerogatives

against the Imperial Presidency that developed and promoted

the war; the rise in the use of oversight to challenge

official accounts of the status of the war; the resistance to

the draft; the emergence of an investigative, aggressive

journalism that often worked collaboratively with dissidents

in Congress.

There were other issues that raised passionate concerns

among newer members of Congress too: civil rights, women's

equality, the environment, energy policy, consumer

protection, among them. Within Congress, reformers also

resented the structure of the institution. Power was lodged

largely in autonomous chairmen who did not need to be

responsive to the views of the broader membership because

their chairmanships were virtually guaranteed by the

seniority system--instituted after the 1910 revolt against

Speaker Joseph Cannon. Increasingly in the late 1960s and

early 1970s, it became evident to the younger reformers that

it was essential to challenge the awarding of chairmanships

on the basis of duration of service alone. If chairmen did

not have to be responsive to the broader membership, then the

issues that the younger, more progressive, cohort wished to

elevate could be (and often were) suppressed by more

conservative chairs.

CP: In 1974, in a far bigger sweep than was anticipated, 76

Democrats were elected to the House, 49 replacing Republican

incumbents. What set the stage for this colossal shift in

power?

JL: Longstanding disapproval of the Vietnam policy played a

significant role in encouraging reformers to run and in their

winning. So, too, did the recent oil embargo which had

elevated public anxiety and accentuated the need for a

national energy policy. By 1974, Watergate, with all of its

turmoil within the Executive Branch and Congress, as well,

helped create a demand for reform of what was viewed as a

corrupt White House. Certainly, the revelation of the Nixon

tapes and Nixon's subsequent resignation complicated the re-

election of many loyalists who had stood by the President as

the crisis deepened.

President Ford's pardon of Nixon, coming just weeks before

the election, further cemented the idea that corruption was

rampant in Washington and a housecleaning was in order.

Lastly, the continuing poor economy, and the ineffectual

response of the Ford Administration--the Whip Inflation Now

campaign--created a toxic political environment for many

Republicans: corruption, recession, energy disruptions and

price hikes. The climate was perfect for new, optimistic,

earnest young candidates like the Class of '74.

CP: Sounds like a perfect political storm. Vietnam was

obviously huge, as was inflation that would soon push the

American economy into a real crisis. What were the other

concerns these ``Watergate babies'' had in common--and what

policy problems divided them?

JL: The issues around which the Class of '74 were most

united were the internal reforms that disseminated power in

Congress. The changes they made, effectuated in December,

1974, gave heightened power to the Caucus and strengthened

the role of subcommittees on which freshmen and other

reformers enjoyed disproportionate strength, enabling them to

raise and promote issues. These changes benefitted all new

members by increasing their participatory rights, regardless

of their ideology or view on specific issues.

When the freshmen were faced with policy questions where

their constituents had particular interests, or where

constituents had strongly held views--issues like abortion,

school busing, labor law and energy--the unanimity within the

freshmen caucus proved somewhat more difficult to maintain.

However, it should be noted that overall, the freshmen not

only voted with significant consistency but they were also

among the most loyal to the Democratic leadership's

positions.

CP: 1974 was also, in some ways, the twilight of Republican

liberalism: you point out in the book that while many

Republicans shared the majority's ``goal of democratizing

House procedures,'' their ``objectives were quite

different.'' Can you describe these differences?

JL: Newer members in both parties stood to gain from

changes that extended greater participation to those with

less seniority. And Republicans in general were supportive of

reforms that not only benefitted the minority (for example,

the ability to hire more staff on committees) but members in

general. Whereas Democratic freshmen used expanded rights to

raise issues and offer amendments in committee and on the

floor to promote more progressive ideas, Republicans

increasingly became skilled at exploiting the more open rules

to force less secure Democrats into casting controversial

votes that could render them vulnerable to political

challenge.

Similarly, Republicans very successfully learned to utilize

the coverage of committee and floor proceedings by television

cameras to send messages to supporters and to raise issues

that favored GOP policies. When Democrats rescinded some

reforms that constrained the ability of Republicans to

exploit divisive issues, strategists like Newt Gingrich were

able to make a case against the majority for being heavy-

handed and unfair, which they cited as justifying a change in

control of the House.

CP: By the late 1970s, the political terrain in the United

States was quite different: what changed in the 1970s, and

how did that set the stage for the polarized politics of the

21st century?

JL: The signs of a more polarized politics were developing

quite markedly in the mid-to-late 1970s, although many date

the emergence of a revitalized conservatism to the 1980 and

the Reagan Era. Many of the key changes were driven by

demographics, especially the movement of many conservative

white voters from the Northeast and Midwest to the border and

southern states in search of jobs. Reaction to the civil

rights movement, the anti-Vietnam and student protests and

the whole litany of ``sex, drugs and rock-and-roll'' cultural

divisions all

helped fuel a revitalization of the long-dormant Republican

Party in the South, especially after the George Wallace

campaign of 1968 convinced many conservatives to bolt from

the Democratic Party.

The renewal of southern Republicans was also aided by a

highly politicized evangelicism, and cultural issues proved

crucial to the success of this strategy. Changes in federal

laws made it easier for a significant expansion of

independent campaign fundraising and grassroots mobilization

based around single issues rather than being subject to party

leaders. The election of many conservative Republicans in the

South in the late 1970s and early 1980s deprived Democrats of

the security of an invincible majority, and the heightened

competition for majority control drove money, activism and

legislative strategy into increasingly partisan directions.

While the reforms of 1974 did not ``cause'' partisanship,

the availability to raise and promote divisive issues that

was permitted by a more open and participatory Congress

inadvertently provided Republican with greater opportunities

than they would have enjoyed under a more closed system.

CP: Finally, John, we have an election in less than three

months, one in which the House seems to be, once again, up

for grabs. A key theme driving this reversal is the Trump

presidency. Some commenters see a possible Democratic House

as a check on the Trump policies that Congressional

Republicans have mostly supported; others talk about the

possibility of the new majority moving forward on

impeachment.

Are we back in 1974?

JL: The idea of a Democratic House as a check on the Trump

agenda seems to me to have the most salience. Even though the

President would retain significant authority through the use

of executive orders and other presidential powers, a

Democratic House would check legislative attacks on key

Democratic policies like the Affordable Care Act, the Clean

Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Of course, a Republican Senate would still enable Trump to

appoint people of his choosing to the federal courts and

executive agencies, but a Democratic House would have the

power of oversight and subpoenas to investigate possible

misuses of power that today go unexamined. I suspect there

would be strong resistance in a Democratic majority to moving

ahead with impeachment: here are no prospects for success in

the Senate. More importantly, there would be a clear

perception in this new freshman class that the American

people had voted for Democrats in order to pursue other

policies in the area of economics, children, the environment,

energy and corruption in government.

However, should Special Prosecutor Mueller ultimately

recommend that Congress look into presidential abuses of

authority, it would be very difficult to dampen the demands

for an impeachment inquiry.

CP: What advice would the Class of 1974 have for today's

Democratic party?

JL: If you asked those in the Class who were most

successful during their careers, I think they would likely

advise newcomers to learn how the institution works, develop

close relations with colleagues, find areas of policy on

which they would like to focus (rather than be a gadfly with

something to say on every issue.) Newcomers will want to pay

attention to building and strengthening your networks with

constituents, without whom you have no power to accomplish

your goals.

As I say in my book, ``before you save the world, you have

to save your seat.'' I also think that, at least some would

advise the freshmen of 2019 not to spend a lot of time

looking over their shoulders trying to avoid controversial

positions that some voters might dislike. Many in the Class

of '74 were surprised to have won in the first place, and

they were determined to make their impact as swiftly and

decisively as possible because they did not expect to remain

in Congress very long.

So, I think the message would be, ``Don't spend a lot of

time trying to figure out if an issue or a vote plays

positively or negatively. Do what you think is right, explain

your position frankly to your constituents, and you'll be

surprised how often they support your decision.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today at the request of Mike Menning who hopes that, by sharing his story, no other family will have to go through what he and his family have.

Dropped Off the Operating Table

Dawn Menning was Dropped off the Operating Table at Intermountain

Medical Center Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT on March 3, 2017

Dawn Menning's Narrative About Injury and Pain

Let me begin by recalling what I can about the abdominal

hernia surgery and resulting incident.

At least a year prior to March 2017 I visited Dr. Kelly

Nolan about the growth in an abdominal hernia I was

observing. She noted that it would be a repair of an earlier

surgery in 1996 and would require a more invasive approach.

In early 2017 after visiting my regular health care

physician, Dr. Nancy McLaughlin, Madsen Clinic--University of

Utah, and recognizing that the hernia had indeed grown I made

the decision to go forward with the surgery.

I visited Dr. Nolan at IHC for a pre-op appointment. I

spoke to her at length about my concern about the Homozygous

Factor V Leiden blood condition that I have--the challenge

and potential for blood clotting following surgery. She asked

if I could seek advice from my regular doctor or a hematology

specialist. Since I had never seen a specialist I contacted

Dr. McLaughlin who consulted with Dr. David Kaplan at the

University of Utah Clinic. He strongly advised against using

regular anticoagulants since the surgery was going to be in

the abdomen area and the shots, Lovenox, are administered

into the belly area. He suggested the use of a pill instead.

I contacted Dr. Nolan who called me back to say she had not

used the pill and advised to use Lovenox as she had

prescribed. I purchased the Lovenox 100 mg. on February 28. I

began using the shot one time on March 2, the day before

scheduled surgery.

I was told to NOT use the Lovenox 100 mg. on March 3, the

day of surgery, but resume using it the day after for ten

days following

surgery--two shots into the belly area each day.

Now onto the day of surgery as best I can remember. I

entered surgery feeling very well and was wondering how I

would feel following. I felt I was a pretty strong, healthy

70-year-old woman.

I waited for quite awhile in the hall prior to surgery and

noted that the attendant reached for a green flat toboggan

like piece of equipment that I assumed was placed under a

patient for transport. It had handles on the side as I

remember. I even thought, well, I suppose that's how I will

be transported from the gurney on which I was lying to the

operating table.

The anesthesiologist came into the hall to introduce

himself and assured me that they would monitor that I was

asleep during the surgery.

Finally I was wheeled in. They asked if I felt comfortable

moving myself onto the table and I assured them that I was

able. I do not remember what was or if there was anything

under my body.

Very soon I was off into another world.

The next thing I knew I was wheeled out of the operating

room by a female attendant and greeted by my husband who was

very alarmed. His first words were something like--I am so

glad you are alive or something close to that. I asked him

what in the world he meant. He said, ``Well, did you know

that you were dropped to the floor while being moved to the

gurney?'' I actually thought he was joking and said the same.

Marion responded with, ``No, I am not joking! They came out

and told me that while they were moving you the gurney was

not properly locked and you fell to the floor. The

anesthesiologist tried to brake the fall by extending his leg

and even hyperextended his knee.'' He said Dr. Nolan had come

to tell him and said they had examined me and found no

evidence of injury but would be sure to examine me further

before discharge.

I was wheeled back to the room and did not lose

consciousness again. Very soon I was pretty stable and the

attendant suggested that I could get dressed and leave as

soon as I wished. She recommended that Marion attend me in

dressing and take a look if there were any bruises or

evidence of injury. There was no one else of hospital

personnel who took a look at my backside or the incisions.

Dr. Nolan told me at my post-operative exam that she had come

to see me but I had already left for home. (It would seem

that in the case of the fall she would have been there soon

to see how I was doing.)

We arrived at the hospital in the morning and less than

five hours I was back home.

I had been prescribed pain medication (Norco 5 mg 1 to 2

tablets every four to six hours as needed) and used it as

prescribed.

I resumed the use of the Lovenox 100 mg two times a day for

five days. Since I would not have enough 10 more doses on

March 8.

The weekend was rough--I experienced much pain and

discomfort. I was not able to get up off the couch and was

thankful for a bar next to out toilet. Getting into bed

required the help of Marion, lifting my legs into bed and

even helping me to get up off the bed and turning.

By Monday morning the pain was increasing--rising into my

right side rib cage area. By then bruising in the abdominal

area had grown far beyond the incision area.

We called Dr. Nolan's office and were invited to come to

the office for examination. She checked my incision noting

that it was no oozing and agreed to order x-rays. She checked

the x-ray and said there was no evidence of cracked ribs and

said I should try to cut back on the pain medication as I was

able, perhaps using some Ibuprofen in between doses of Norco

since it has a high risk of addiction and dependence and a

side effect is constipation which is always a challenge for

me. Dr. Nolan also explained that she had not seen exactly

what had happened since she was doing charting off to the

side and didn't see anything until she heard a commotion and

saw I was on the floor. She did not offer details of number

of people but did retell us that the anesthesiologist had

hyperextended his knee.

I resumed my recovery at home. My husband made a visit to

the hospital to inquire about the fall. He did not receive

too much information but invited the Risk Management Staff to

at least offer an apology and visit me at home.

The rest of the week went pretty much the same although in

addition to the bruising my abdomen area was swelling and

tender. The bruising had spread out, down and up.

On March 8 by recommendation of the Dr. Nolan I purchased a

pain medication that would assist the transition from

narcotic medications to less strong medications--Triamino 20

mg. I tried using this but was longing for the Norco since

the pain was so intense.

During the night on Thursday, March 9 I had so much pain

and the pain medication was not helping. We went to the ER at

IMC. They noted intense pain, tender to the touch on my

abdomen. They started me on an IV for fluids. I begged for a

stronger pain medication but did not receive if for several

hours.

They did chest x-rays. An ultrasound and I don't remember

what else--but the ultrasound clearly showed that I had a

large hematoma in the abdomen area! This was obviously the

cause of the increased pain--the pressure on the incision and

the mesh that was used was causing intense pain.

Twelve hours after arriving I was admitted to a room. They

finally started me on an IV pain medication. After just a few

hours they said I could be discharged and they would give me

a stronger pain medication to take home. I declined insisting

that I wanted to be sure I was ahead of the pain before going

home. They also discontinued the use of the Lovenox shots.

The explanation was that since I had developed a hematoma the

blood thinner could interfere with my body's ability to

absorb the blood in that area. They explained that since

blood in a hematoma is very sticky it wasn't possible to

drain the collection but it would be a long process for my

body to deal with this. I was told to NOT use Ibuprofen since

that is a mild anticoagulant.

I returned home on March 11. I was given Norco 7.5 mg--a

stronger dose--one tablet every 4-6 hours. I was eager after

four hours!

The next week is kind of a blur--time passed with a perch

on the couch, in our bed (continued needing help to lift my

legs) and a few visitors.

On Monday, March 13 we had a visit from IHC. They brought a

lovely bouquet of flowers and were very sympatric but oh, so

careful about what had actually happened. They were evasive

about how many people were present.

That week I tried to resume some sort of ``normalcy'' to my

life. I went out for short periods of time. I was able to

move a little easier and didn't need assistance for getting

in and out of bed. However, the pain never left me.

Now onto March 23--I went to visit my primary doctor, Nancy

McLaughlin, to report what had happened. She was very alarmed

and concerned about the resulting blood problem. I reported a

very poor urinary stream and she assured me that this could

all be the result of weakened muscle tone and should improve

in time.

Time moved on and I even tried unsuccessfully to resume

water aerobics that I enjoy. The pain was too much.

On May 3 I visited Dr. McLaughlin again. She noted

abdominal pain and pain in my right buttock. She spoke to me

again about the H/O hypercoagulable state. She was also

pleased that I was scheduled to visit a hematology

specialist.

On May 4 I visited Dr. David Kaplin, Hematology. He noted

the evidence of a rectus sheath hematoma, sequel and

Homozygous Factor V mutation. He was careful how to cast

blame but said he certainly would not have recommended the

Lovenox shots since they thin the blood and area administered

right into the area close to the incisions. He said there are

articles speaking of the ill effects of using this

anticoagulant for abdominal surgeries. When I asked him--

could this have been caused by the fall he answered--caused,

yes perhaps but surely exasperated by the presence of blood

thinners. He said in a court of law would he be willing to

say one or the other was the cause? No, but surely both

played a part. I went home with more information than I had

come with.

Life went on--the pain was not gone. The swelling had

reduced but the muscle tone in my abdomen was very poor. I

tried resuming some exercise but experienced pain if I pushed

a bit to hard.

The pain in my right buttock improved through

recommendations from a physical therapist friend to do a set

of exercises in our home.

I can honestly say that I had pain, a kind of pulling

muscle pain, well into July 2017. I was cautious with lifting

and reaching. Sudden twisting caused a jolt. My stomach area

remained sensitive.

Today--I do have occasional pain in my abdomen area but I

have no way of determining if that is from the surgery and

invasion of four incision point and the one small incision

where the mesh was inserted OR the residual effects of the

hematoma.

In looking back it appears to me as if there were a

succession of errors that caused my pain and suffering.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to note the passing of my constituent in Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, Mr. Clyde Larson, of Hermantown. Mr. Larson was a pillar of the railroad labor community in Duluth, the Arrowhead, and throughout our state.

Across Northern Minnesota, we are all so very proud of the men and women who operate the BNSF, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific and short-line railways. The railroad workers of America--epitomized by Clyde Larson and so many thousands of others like him--help form the foundation of our Nation's economy. Whether they are moving passengers, iron ore and steel, grain, chemicals, forest product or intermodal goods, railroad train crews work around the clock under all weather conditions. They are silent sentinels protecting the public while serving industries and operating their trains across the land.

Clyde was 62 years of age when he passed unexpectedly. Born to Dexter and Wanda Larson, master bakers and small business owners from Fridley, Minnesota, the Larson family later moved to Hermantown, where Clyde graduated from high school in 1972 and met his bride, Anne Tessier, in 1977.

After high school and vocational training, Clyde went to work for Burlington Northern Railroad (BN), and then the mighty Duluth Masabi and Iron Range Railway (DM&IR) where he worked as a conductor until being severely injured in the early 1990's. During his railroad career, Clyde was elected Local Chairman for the United Transportation Union and rose by democratic election to the position of UTU General Chairman for the DM&IR.

General Chairman Larson helped countless railroad workers and protected one of the most valuable and lucrative steel-road contracts in the United States. Brother Larson presided over the DM&IR's Carnage pension contributions to steel-road workers, in addition to ensuring each member's rights under the United States Railroad Retirement pension and disability system. Thanks to his work ethic and devotion to his UTU members, thousands of active and retired railroad workers across northern Minnesota have lived independent lives, supported our Main Street economies, and helped to make Minnesota a better place in which to live, work, and do business.

Upon the CN Railway's takeover of the DM&IR in 2009, Clyde went to work for the UTU Designated Legal Counsel firm of Hunegs, LeNeave, and Kvas, where he served and protected all railroad craft workers. Clyde worked as an expert investigator, consultant, and advocate for railroad families when they were most vulnerable. Through his work to improve safety in the railroad work place, Clyde, along with his Union Brothers and Sisters, have made America's railroads a safer place to in which to work and prosper.

In true Minnesota tradition, Clyde honored justice, common decency, and maintained civility at all times. With a dry wit and cutting sense of humor, Clyde championed fair treatment for workers and railroad families. He was tremendously generous with his own time and resources to help all of those with less. Having known Clyde Larson as a husband, father, grandfather, brother, friend, mentor, and member of the St. Lawrence Church of Duluth, Moose Lodge, United Transportation Union, and Railroad Retiree's Association, the greater Duluth and Arrowhead community moves forward as richer Americans.

Clyde Larson is survived by his loving wife Anne, sons Scott, Eric, and Corey, with their wives Jen, Lindsey and Jean, his grandchildren Dexter and Gustafson, parents Dexter and Joanne Larson, and siblings Joel, Mikkel, Karen, and Kathy, along with their spouses and extended families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this critically important bipartisan reauthorization of the Career and Technical Education Act.

I want to especially commend Chairwoman Foxx; Ranking Member Scott; and, of course, the real hard workers on this deal, Mr. Krishnamoorthi and Mr. Thompson; and all the original cosponsors, staff, and people who support this legislation.

Time and again, when I visit with owners and managers of manufacturing facilities in my northern Minnesota district, I am told two things. The first is that the employees they have hired who participated in the Career and Technical Education Act are among the very best that they have in their employment. The second point that they make is that they need more CTE-trained employees. All up and down the line, from healthcare, to construction, information technology, aviation, transportation, you name it, the list goes on, and the jobs are waiting.

This bill adds important new provisions to expand and update CTE, so that they can be filled. It gives States more flexibility to focus on the jobs and careers in high demand in their regions. Employers and communities get the tools that they need to develop stronger partnerships and to engage students and grow our local economies. And students get the tools that they need to compete and succeed in 21st century jobs and the economy.

That is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker. It is about more good- paying jobs. It is about great opportunities for students to learn and develop valuable skills, to develop more dynamic growth for an economy in need of the best, most-skilled workers that America can provide.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this critical and important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Emmer for yielding.

The lady, for whom I have enormous respect, has failed to mention the fact that this or any other project anywhere in the country, let alone the State of Minnesota, would be, nevertheless, subject to endless reviews by the Environmental Protection Agency, some of which take up to 10 and 12 years. So it is not as though we are approving a mining project here. It is going to have to undergo rigorous review.

As my colleagues from Minnesota know, I was an original sponsor of the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness legislation. I am very proud of that fact.

I want everybody to know here that, at the time, we made a solid commitment to preserve and to protect some 1.1 million acres out of the Superior National Forest for the BWCA, to protect it from all manmade harm and damage to the environment. But we also made a commitment to reserve the remainder of the Superior National Forest for mixed-use purposes and specifically cited recreation an forestry.

The U.S. Forest Service described mining as a desirable-use purpose. In fact, that was the forestry service at that time.

Our word is our bond in this business. This amendment will uphold that hard-fought compromise. The simple truth is that we have been mining on the Iron Range for 130 years, yet we have the cleanest water in the State of Minnesota and perhaps the country. We are going to do everything we can to make sure that we keep it that way.

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

Mr. Chair, as cochairman with Frank LoBiondo in our bipartisan Congressional Lung Cancer Caucus, and Frank LoBiondo is a cosponsor of this amendment, I want to begin by expressing our appreciation for making this amendment in order and our additional appreciation for Chairman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for the tremendous work that they do, and the great respect we also have for the ranking member and the chairman of the committee, who I see here today, Rodney Frelinghuysen.

Simply stated, this measure would add $6 million to lung cancer research under the Defense Health Program.

In so doing, we would be increasing this amount for this important and worthwhile research from $14 million back to the original $20 million figure that had been appropriated back in 2009.

In that regard, it is worth noting that were we to factor this for inflation, we would have to be asking for $23.5 million to match the buying power of $20 million that this would bring us up to today.

To put my amendment in perspective, a recent study at Walter Reed Medical Center found that treating lung cancer in active military soldiers and veterans every year costs roughly $564 million, treating our veterans.

According to that same study, our veterans are 75 percent more likely to develop some form of lung cancer than those people who do not serve in our military.

Clearly, with some additional research to find cures and better treatments for this, there are not only enormous dollars to be saved, but more importantly, lives to be saved. That's an important message to our veterans in how we value their service and the risks, the great risks, that they take in serving and in protecting us.

So I hope my colleagues would agree that a modest increase in cancer research funding to the $20 million figure next year is more than reasonable. It's a sound and necessary investment in public dollars, and an important message to the men and women who serve in our military.

And make no mistake, those extra funds would make an enormous difference in battling lung cancer, which, by the way, takes more lives than all of the other cancers combined. So it is a disease that obviously, as I said, affects our military, but it kills 159,000 people every year.

As many of you know, my daughter, Katherine, was diagnosed with a very advanced stage IV lung cancer some 3 years ago. I thank all of my colleagues for their prayers. I would also be remiss if I didn't say thank you to the many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not a day goes by but one of you haven't expressed your concern, asked about her well-being, and told me of your continued prayers and hopes for success. And I am here to tell you she is doing well. We have great hope for her in the future, in no small measure due to the prayers, the careful thoughts, and the advances in research, so many of which are coming down the road, in offering her and so many others so much hope.

So I hope we can give many others that same great hope through these additional research dollars.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful the House recently passed H.R.1026, the North Country National Scenic Trail Route Adjustment Act under suspension of the rules by voice vote. My office received a number of letters in support of H.R. 1026 I am including. in the Record.

Specifically, we received letters from the North Country Trail Association, the American Hiking Society, and the Partnership for the National Trails System.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to timely action in the U.S. Senate to ensure enactment of this bipartisan, commonsense measure before the end of the 115th Congress.

Partnership for the

National Trails System,

Madison, WI, June 1, 2018.

Re H.R. 1026.

Dear Member of Congress: We urge your support for the

passage of H.R. 1026, the North Country National Scenic Trail

Route Adjustment Act, which is scheduled for a floor vote in

the House on June 5th.

We ask this on behalf of:

Local communities in northeastern Minnesota and Vermont

directly affected by this bill, in order that they enjoy the

many economic, recreational and quality of life benefits

through this designation of a National Scenic Trail passing

through their communities.

The North Country Trail community--now representing over

50,000 hikers, trail builders and trail maintainers--who have

worked tirelessly for over 15 years to finally see this

legislation passed.

The hundreds of thousands of American families who use the

North Country National Scenic Trail to enjoy the many health,

recreational, and family values benefits of hiking on a

National Trail, and being connected with others who call

America's northern heartlands home.

The millions of Americans who annually are refreshed,

invigorated, educated, and inspired thru their journeys on

our 30 National Scenic and Historic Trails throughout

America.

This simple bill corrects an oversight perpetuated in the

original 1980 authorization of the North Country National

Scenic Trail, adjusts its authorized mileage to the more

accurate number and saves money by replacing the far more

costly original route in Minnesota that required traversing

wetlands with world class trail that is mostly already

constructed.

In honor of this 50th Anniversary Year of the National

Trails System our community of trail makers and trail users

requests your support of H.R. 1026 to fully realize the

public benefit envisioned by Congress for the North Country

National Scenic Trail. We hope we can count on you.

Sincerely,

Gary Werner,

Executive Director.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur. I wish the whole country could be here to watch how hard you have worked, not just tonight, but throughout the year to bring this important legislation before us. It would give them great hope and faith in the process, and I commend both of you, your committee members, and your staff for the work that you are doing here.

Madam Chair, I will be brief. My amendment would add $1 million to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' aquatic nuisance control program. In effect, it would double the annual funding to $2 million for the important and critical research that is needed to combat some 1,500 terribly destructive invasive species in our lakes and waterways, including six new invasive species of foreign zooplankton that were just discovered in Lake Superior. I am not sure where it came from and what kind of damage it will do.

A little quick history here: I am only going to take a couple of minutes. My amendment to the 2014 water resources bill added fish and other aquatic creatures to the official definition of invasive species, a definition that had been previously reserved only to plants. So that opened the door for us to have a way to combat these aquatic species.

And in so doing, the Congress gave the Army Corps the authority to do the research to eradicate invasive species like Asian carp, zebra mussels, and so many hundreds of others that are causing so much damage to sport and commercial fishing, to shipping, navigation, and to harbor maintenance.

The aquatic nuisance control program is supposed to be leading the way with cutting-edge research, and it is doing a good job. But the fact is, it is terribly underfunded, leaving little resources to address the influx of the aquatic species.

As a result, the aquatic invasives like zebra mussels have infested more than 130 lakes in my own State and thousands of lakes across the country. To give you an idea of how fast these zebra mussels, for example, spread, a female zebra mussel can produce a half a million offspring each year.

And the simple truth is, the zebra mussels are just choking off all kinds of snails and clam and other native fishes--even bird species. In fact, they killed over 10,000 loons in Lake Erie alone because they ate something that had zebra mussels in them, and the zebra mussels had a botulism that killed 10,000 loons. That is how devastating these things can be.

For outdoor recreation, our people are getting their feet cut and getting all kinds of injuries by stepping on these zebra mussels. Thousands of good jobs and slowdowns of our economy are caused, delaying ships as they are painstakingly having to remove these zebra mussels. They are just one of more than 1,500 invasive species.

So I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment so the Army Corps can get to work cleaning up our lakes and waterways and putting an end to the invasive species that are causing so much costly damage and destruction to our lakes and waterways.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Cynthia Grindy of Duluth, Minnesota, an award-winning mentor, counselor and master educator, as she prepares to retire at the end of this academic year from Duluth Public Schools after more than three decades of dedicated service.

As a former teacher, I fully appreciate the tireless work educators like Mrs. Grindy perform in schools across the Nation every day. A great teacher can inspire children to do things they never thought possible.

Mrs. Grindy began her career at Murray Middle School in St. Paul after graduating from the University of Minnesota. There, she taught mathematics to middle school students and went on to earn a master's degree in education, also from the University of Minnesota. Moving to Duluth with her husband, Steven, she joined the teaching staff of Woodland Middle School in 1986, then East High School in 1992, and made such a difference in the lives of so many.

Mrs. Grindy's exceptional teaching gained statewide recognition in 2006 when she was a core member of the Duluth East staff that won then Senator and now Governor Mark Dayton's Award for Excellence in Education. Just a year earlier, she had been named Minnesota's American Star in Teaching by the U.S. Department of Education.

During her tenure, Mrs. Grindy advised student-led service and spirit organizations, including the Key Club and the Association. She taught Honors Chemistry, Introductory Chemistry, and Physics. In fact, countless Duluth East alumni have remarked that they had Mrs. Grindy to thank for making their college chemistry courses a relative breeze. It is telling that although she expected a great deal of her students, she was--and continues to be--beloved by them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in recognizing Cynthia Grindy for her years of service on behalf of the students she inspired and the community she anchored. Her passion for teaching has inspired her students to strive for the best and never stop learning.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership on this important legislation, subcommittee Chairwoman Napolitano and the other members of the committee and the staff as well.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is pretty straightforward. It simply expresses a sense of the Congress that the construction of a new lock at the Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, is vital to our national economy, to our national security, and to our vital infrastructure.

Why? Well, really briefly, that lock is a gateway for the Port of Duluth and all of the commerce out of Lake Superior. That is the iron ore; that is the corn; that is the soybeans; that is the forest products, all of which are essential to our national security, our national economy.

I would just cite one thing. Homeland Security did a study. They found that 13 percent of the Nation's gross national product goes through those locks, which is why we have military protection there; because if those locks fail from a military attack or if they fail from obsolescence, which we are in danger of having occur, it would throw the country into a great depression.

So let me just conclude by saying that these locks and the rebuilding of them are vital to our national security, our national economy, and our vital important infrastructure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Bishop for his thoughtful

consideration of this legislation and his very apt, clear, and concise explanation of what it does. I also want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Grijalva, and thank the bipartisan sponsorship for this legislation adjusting, expanding, and finishing off this great North Country National Scenic Trail.

As Chairman Bishop explained, it starts up here at Sakakawea State Park and then travels all the way through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Superior National Forest through Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania, all the way up to beautiful Lake Champlain and will connect with the great Appalachian Trail, which my family and I have enjoyed hiking on as well in years past.

So I want to now note with gratitude the fact that virtually all--I am not sure everyone--but most all of the Members, Democrats and Republicans, whose district this trail goes through are cosponsors on the legislation. It enjoys wonderfully good bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, there are millions of people in this country who really enjoy hiking and the camaraderie, the exercise, and all the good things that go along with that. So with this in mind, Chairman Bishop has already explained the fact that it gets us through this 100 miles of bog. Hats off to the State and local officials and the private landowners. All have agreed to do this without any cost to the public and without any exercise of eminent domain.

Also hats off to the volunteers who enjoy so much of this hiking. I have actually worked on some of the trails myself. Of course, coming out of the sawmill and the pallet construction business, why, I feel pretty good with an ax, a hatchet, and a chain saw, so I have been out myself and volunteered my services to expand these trails.

So with that in mind, I want to thank my good friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for his work, help, and support in bringing this trail all the way up to that beautiful Lake Champlain and then connecting it with the great Appalachian Trail as well.

I think it is important to note that this legislation is not just about trails. It is about good jobs, and it is about good economic development. The fact is that there are millions of Americans who are out here hiking on these trails all the time. They get hungry and they get thirsty. They want to stop somewhere, have a refreshment, have a bite to eat, and support all the local restaurants.

Secondly, hiking causes some exertion, which is why it is good exercise. So they get a little tired along the way, and they want to stop and spend a night or two in local hotels along the way. Of course, they also need some additional equipment or repairs or a new pair of shoes.

The American Hiking Society has determined that, applying the multiplier effect here, this reaches and results in about $196 billion a year and supports about 768,000 jobs. I explained here how that happens.

So along with the good-paying jobs, there is this enormous health factor. Experts are telling us now that our youth have a nature deficit in their thinking. In fancy terms it means the kids just don't get out enough anymore. One study indicated that each day the average kid spends 7 minutes outdoors and 7 hours in front of a computer or a TV screen. So we need to get our kids outdoors so they can learn the values and appreciation of the great outdoors. They are probably not going to get a chance to spend any time at Walden Pond, but we can get them out and exercising.

So it is a good bill for economic health; it is a good bill for business and economic development. I want to again thank the chairman for his support in his committee for this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strip all funding authorizations for the overseas contingency operations fund for fiscal year 2019, saving the American taxpayers $69 billion, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The overseas contingency fund has been called out by many, myself included, and including Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives, that this OCO budget is nothing but a slush fund for the purpose of circumventing the Budget Control Act in order to fund these endless wars of choice and the so-called nation-building that has been so costly to our country and our people in blood and in treasury.

As a result of the Cost of War Act, sponsored by our good friend John Lewis in 2016, we now have a more elaborate and adequate picture of how much these endless wars are costing us.

You will see from the chart that I have here that we are now involved in conflicts in 76 different countries all over the world. That is right. Forty-six percent of the countries in the world are involved in one kind of a conflict or another, and we have gotten ourselves involved in those.

Twenty-two of them happen to be in the Middle East, in Africa, where I have a little background to qualify myself on this. I lived in the Middle East. I have studied the language. I have got a fairly good idea what has been happening and what is going on there. So what I would like you to do is to just bear with me and look at the numbers as a result of that cost of war resolution.

Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University estimated we spent $5.6 trillion on these so-called wars of choice, that we have an additional $7.9 trillion going forward just on the interest paying for those costly wars, and that we have $2 trillion going forward to take care of the veterans.

That is right, the men and women who stood up to serve and protect us. They suffered irreparable damage. They lost arms. They lost legs. They had irreparable damage to their bodies and minds and spirits. Twenty-three of them are committing suicide every day. This totals up to be a little over $15 trillion.

I don't have time in my 5 minutes to go through it, but I could tell you in detail how we have been on every side of every one of these conflicts at one time or another, and it is time to put an end to it. We have so many unmet domestic needs in this country.

You all know, as Members of Congress, we need more money for infrastructure. We need more money for education. We need more money for healthcare. We need more money for mental health. We need more money for this and that, and indeed we do, but the money is not there.

That is the answer all the time: No, we don't have money to spend at the National Institutes of Health or anyplace else.

Why? Well, show me your budget. Show me your budget, and I will show you your priorities. $15 trillion has gone into the endless wars of choice, making ourselves the policemen of the world, so-called nation- building of the world.

Well, let's think about it. For one of those trillion we could have graduated every kid in America from college debt free. Don't tell me we can't afford to do that.

For another one of those trillion dollars, there is another trillion for infrastructure. Don't tell me we don't have the money to do that.

For another one of those trillion dollars maybe we find a cure for cancer or diabetes or Alzheimer's or the mental health treatment that is needed throughout this country. And guess what? We would still have $12 trillion left.

Give America a tax break. Put some money down toward deficit reduction. Maybe take care of some of the other unmet human needs in this country. That is what this is all about.

Are we going to be standing here 10 years from now? We just elected two Presidents in a row that got elected because they were going to stop these wars in the Middle East, these endless wars of choice. You can quarrel with my numbers if you like, but President Trump just came out and said Afghanistan and Iraq, alone, cost $7 trillion.

It is hard to get these numbers out, but thanks to John Lewis and the Cost of War Act, we are getting a look at it.

My friends, two things: one, there are a lot of things in life you would like to do and you can't afford, and that is the case here. It is going to bankrupt this country. Two, there are things you do that create more problems than they solve, and that is the same with these endless wars of choice. It is time to put an end to it.

We hear Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives all over the country. They are in unanimous agreement. Two Presidents got elected because they were going to get us out of these wars, and the wars continue. The only way we are going to stop them is to stop funding them, and that is what my amendment is all about.

Please support it, and please pass it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues of the simple truth that process matters. If the process fails, the outcome fails. That is exactly what has happened with this farm bill.

Instead of following regular order, as we have done in the past--and I was there personally to be a part of it and witness it--by taking this kind of legislation up through the subcommittees with open rules, giving all the members an opportunity to offer their amendments and their ideas and consider them and have the opportunity to write this bill through the subcommittees, instead, it has come from behind closed doors for the simple purpose of partisan positioning.

In fact, members of the committee weren't even allowed to see this bill for weeks leading up to the consideration, nor were stakeholders and affected parties given the opportunity to review and express their thoughts. The result is a missed opportunity and an abandonment of a bipartisan, collaborative tradition that has worked so well for the farmers and the consumers in this country. It is a mean-spirited, bad bill--the result of a failed process--and it should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Larry Sillanpa, of Duluth, Minnesota who will be retiring from the Labor World Newspaper after 29 years as Editor and Manager. Over the years Larry has proven himself to be a tireless advocate for working people and an incredibly dedicated and successful Editor, never missing a deadline in 668 issues printed. His dedicated service to The Labor World, the oldest Labor paper in Minnesota and one of the oldest in the country, helped guide the publication through uncertain times for print media and grow to reach even more readers across the Northland.

Larry's career as a newspaper man began at the age of seven with his first job delivering newspapers for the Duluth Herald and News Tribune at the rate of a quarter for a days' work. He worked many paper routes in his younger years throughout West Duluth and the Central Hillside neighborhood.

Over the next few decades, Larry worked for many of the pillars of Duluth's economy and community such as, the Duluth School District, the Norshor Theatre, the State of Minnesota, the U.S. Steel Plant in Morgan Park, and sailed on the Great Lakes for Republic Steel. He also attended the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD), and wrote for the UMD Statesman.

Today, after 29 years as Editor of the Labor World, he has become one of those pillars of the Duluth community. Also, a proud lifelong Duluthian, Larry has lived on the same plot of land in northern Minnesota for 44 years. He and his wife Jennifer built their home on the same land after their marriage in 1994.

Throughout his career Larry has been an incredible advocate for workers and the Labor Movement. He has doggedly taken politicians and corporations to task for neglecting their obligations to the people who make our economy work, and highlighted all the efforts by working people to build a better life for the working class. Under his leadership he brought the paper from the age of type setting to the age of computers and carefully oversaw the reach of the Labor World grow as it increased in circulation by 65 percent.

I ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in recognizing Larry Sillanpa for his years of service to the Labor Movement and northern Minnesota. I thank Larry for keeping the Labor World newspaper alive and leaving it in a position to thrive into the future. Although he's finally giving up his paper route, his printed word will live on forever.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to a distinguished member of the Duluth community, Beverly Goldfine, who will soon be celebrating her 90th birthday. Beverly is an activist, volunteer, and mother who made it her mission early on in life to support and improve the Duluth community she loves so much.

Beverly has been active in many Duluth area organizations which help those in need

such as the Townview Improvement Corporation and the Duluth-Superior Community Foundation. She made it her goal to help Duluthians find a place to call home regardless of their income. Additionally, her husband and she established the Beverly and Erwin Goldfine Scholarship for Academic Excellence to help students at the University of Minnesota Duluth reach their full potential.

It is an honor to recognize Beverly's many accomplishments and contributions to the community she loves so much. There is no doubt her activism and selfless efforts to help those in need have improved the lives of countless people. I ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in wishing Beverly a very happy 90th birthday. What an incredible milestone.