Ed Case

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Representative Gabbard, in introducing our bill to protect one of the most unique and fragile environments on Earth, our Hawai'i, from devastating invasive species. Invasive species pose an especially grave threat to Hawaii's unique ecosystems, natural resources and agricultural communities, in part due to Hawaii's unique geography. Hawai'i is the most isolated island chain and one of the most ecologically diverse places in the world. We are 2,282 miles from the Continental United States, 2,952 miles from Japan and 4,772 miles from Washington, D.C., with no other islands in close proximity. We have within our constrained borders ten of the thirteen world climate zones, with ecosystems ranging from desert to tropical, where plants and animals that found their way to Hawai'i evolved like nowhere else. A 2014 survey identified fully 9,975 endemic species in Hawai'i. These species include the Hawaiian scarlet honeycreeper, the 'i'iwi; the flowering evergreen; and the state bird of Hawai'i, the nene. However, tragically, in large part due to invasive species, Hawai'i has become the endangered species and extinction capital of the world. Hawai'i currently has 503 species listed as endangered, more than any other state and almost half of the total endangered species nationwide. Many of these species are critically endangered and face an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. Although we will never know the true number of species that have gone extinct in Hawai'i, best estimates are that in the last 200 years alone, 28 bird, 72 snail, 74 insect and 97 plant species have gone extinct. As one particularly poignant example, earlier this year the Atlantic published an article, The Last of Its Kind, which chronicled the death of George the snail. He was the last achatinella apexfulva, a species of tree snail that is endemic to the island of O'ahu. This article calls attention to the alarming fact that snails in Hawai'i are disappearing at an alarming rate, perhaps faster any animal on Earth right now, victims of various factors in part linked to invasive species. The threat to our state tree, the `ohi'a lehua, is also illustrative of our growing crisis. Used for poi boards and outrigger canoes, the 'ohi'a lehua is important to Hawaiian culture and the islands' watersheds. As the first tree to grow in new Hawai'i lava flows, 'ohi'a grows throughout the watershed creating new soil, stabilizing steep mountain ridges and comprises approximately 80 percent of Hawaii's native forests. However, rapid 'ohi'a death, or ROD, caused by an invasive fungal pathogen, kills 'ohi'a trees quickly, and threatens the stability of Hawaii's native forests. Since its discovery on the Big Island in 2014, ROD has spread to Kaua'i, Maui and O'ahu, and has killed hundreds of thousands of trees. Hawaii's unique circumstances also have given rise to one of our nation's most diverse and productive agricultural communities. With a year-round growing cycle, our crops have ranged throughout our history from the highest quality sugar and pineapple and cattle to tropical specialty crops like fruit and cut flowers in the highest demand worldwide. Yet it is exactly because these crops like our natural resources have adapted to Hawaii's uniqueness that they are the most susceptible to devastation from external species against which they have no natural defenses. Invasive species have drastically impacted agriculture in Hawai'i, threatening some of the island's most valuable crops in the state's third-largest industry. The coffee berry borer, which was discovered in Kona in 2010, now infects all ofthe coffee growing islands in Hawai'i, except Kaua'i. The coffee berry borer can cause yield losses of between 30 and 35 percent and affects the quality ofthe coffee beans, directly impacting the income of growers. Our failure to prevent coffee leaf rust from entering Hawai'i could leave one of Hawaii's most iconic industries devastated. Hawaii's third most valuable crop, the macadamia nut, is under threat from the macadamia felted coccid. Macadamia felted coccid has been found in all of Hawai'i Island's macadamia growing regions. The felted coccid reduces macadamia tree output by draining nutrients from the tree. Invasive species coupled with increased rain led to a 22 percent decline in the macadamia nut harvest this year compared to last year. Yet despite these incontrovertible and growing impacts of external species on Hawaii's natural resources and economy, existing federal law leaves Hawai'i largely defenseless against increasingly destructive invasives. Imports by air and sea, the only means of in-bound transportation to our island state, lack any effective regulation to screen out invasives. This is despite a fairly robust screening of exports from Hawai'i to the Continental United States to screen out invasives from Hawai'i viewed as harmful to mainland agriculture (invasives that, ironically, were invasives into Hawai'i to start with). I sought to crack down on this lax regime to prevent and curb invasives with my introduction in 2005 of H.R. 3468, modeled after New Zealand and other isolated jurisdictions with then like now the most stringent invasive species prevention regimes in the world. Since the introduction of that bill, the threats from invasives have only grown. Since 2005, 195 invasive species have been introduced to Hawai'i. That is in addition to the roughly 5,000 invasive species that have been introduced to Hawai'i throughout its history. Our bill, the Hawai'i Invasive Species Protection Act, will require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS), in cooperation with other federal departments and the State of Hawai'i, to conduct visual, x-ray and canine inspections, as appropriate, on person, baggage, cargo and any other article destined for direct movement to the State of Hawai'i. The inspections will search for high-risk invasive species and agricultural materials. The inspections will be conducted at airports, ports and postal sorting facilities prior to direct travel to the State of Hawai'i. Our bill further requires APHIS to work with the State of Hawai'i to develop and publish a list of the high-risk invasive species and agricultural materials for the State of Hawai'i. It pays for these inspections by increasing Agriculture Quarantine Inspection fees to cover the full cost of inspection. If we truly care about the threat that continued and escalating invasive species pose to one of the most invaluable and unique ecosystems on earth, in addition to our unique economy and way of life, then the stark reality is that this bill is what it will take. Again, it is not revolutionary when compared to other countries that have not only recognized this threat but actually done something about it. And it is certainly not revolutionary when compared to longstanding domestic restrictions on exports from Hawai'i, leading to the basic point that if these invasive species prevention requirements are good enough for the rest ofthe country and much ofthe world then they're good enough for Hawai'i. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to this House for your understanding and careful consideration of Hawaii's challenge and opportunity, and ask for our bill's expeditious passage. Thank you (Mahalo).

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, today I introduce three bills to end a century of monopolistic closed market domestic cargo shipping to and from my isolated home state of Hawai'i as well as the other island and separated jurisdictions of our country not part of the continental United States. In doing so, we will break the stranglehold on the peoples and economies of these exposed communities and their resulting sky-high costs of living which results from just a few domestic shipping companies controlling the lifeline of commerce upon which we absolutely depend. These bills all amend the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act. That federal law mandates that all cargo shipping between U.S. ports occur exclusively on U.S., not foreign, flagged vessels. Additionally, the law requires that these vessels are built in the U.S. and owned and crewed by U.S. citizens. The Jones Act was enacted in a protectionist era under the guise of preserving a strong national merchant marine. But today it is just an anachronism: most of the world's shipping is by way of an international merchant marine functioning in an open, competitive market. And those few U.S. flag cargo lines that remain have maneuvered the Jones Act to develop virtual monopolies over domestic cargo shipping to, from and within our most isolated and exposed locales--our island and offshore states and territories--that have no alternative modes of transportation such as trucking or rail. My Hawai'i is a classic example. Located almost 2,500 miles off the West Coast, we import well over 90 percent of our life necessities by ocean cargo. There are plenty of international cargo lines who could and would compete for a share of that market. Yet only two U.S. flag domestic cargo lines--Matson Navigation and Pasha Hawai'i--operate a virtual duopoly over our lifeline. While they are nominally subject to federal regulation, the fact of the matter is that cargo prices have gone in only one direction--up, fast and repeatedly, despite a surplus of international shipping--and it is indisputable that there is no downward market pressure which would otherwise result from meaningful competition. These accelerating cargo prices are not absorbed by the shipping lines, but passed through all the way down the chain, to the transporters, wholesalers, retailers, small businesses, mom-n-pops and ultimately consumers, of all of the elementals of life, from food to medical supplies, clothes, housing and virtually all other goods. The result is a crippling drag on an already-challenged economy and the very quality of life in Hawai'i. The broadest, deepest effects of the Jones Act on Hawai'i result from its impact on westbound imports from the continental United States to Hawai'i. But Hawai'i is an export location as well, in key products such as agriculture and livestock. Here the Jones Act also effectively stifles meaningful competition in getting those products to their primary markets on the U.S. Mainland. Because the producers of these products and all that rely for their own livelihood on their successful export have to eat inflated shipping costs, these export industries, which any economist knows are the ultimate key to any economy's prosperity, are also crippled. Let's take a concrete example: Hawaii's once-prosperous ranching/ cattle industry, which is so key to the economic health and the very lifestyle of so much of areas like the rural Big Island, where I was born and raised. That industry depends on getting its product, young cattle, to West Coast pens and transportation hubs in a cost-efficient manner. There are foreign cargo carriers that specialize, through custom cattle ships and overall sensitivity and adjustment to rancher timetables and needs, in such transport, but the Jones Act outright excludes them from the Hawai'i-Mainland market. As a result, Hawaii's ranchers are reduced to two crippling, cost magnifying options. The first is to ship their cargo by foreign carriers to Canada, where they have to go through a myriad of bureaucratic, cost-magnifying gyrations to get their product eventually to their U.S. markets. The second is to beg for the goodwill of the domestic carriers, to whom this is simply a hindrance rather than a major commitment, to ship directly to the West Coast. And it shows: most of the cattle are first shipped from Hawaii's Neighbor Islands, where the bulk of the cattle industry is located, to O'ahu, in small ``cow-tainers,'' where they sit for days in Honolulu Harbor awaiting the return to the Mainland of one of the massive cargo ships designed and utilized for quite another purpose. The result (besides associated higher costs) is in-harbor cattle waste disposal challenges, higher in-transit cattle mortality and lower-weight cattle delivery to market. That's what happens when you try to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. More broadly, there is much evidence about the direct impact of the Jones Act on shipping prices to noncontiguous areas. At a basic level, the everyday goods that we rely on in Hawai'i cost much more than on the Mainland, a difference which largely cannot be attributed to anything other than shipping costs. Yesterday, there was a 30 percent difference in the price of a gallon of milk at Safeway grocery stores in Honolulu and Long Beach, California. My constituents pay $6.39 for a gallon of whole milk and those in Long Beach, one of the major ports where Hawaii's good come from, pay $4.49. Really, shipping that gallon of milk to Hawai'i from California is 30 percent of the total cost of the product in Hawai'i? In 2012, the Federal Reserve Bank ofNew York studied Puerto Rico's economy and found that ``the high cost of shipping is a substantial burden on the Island's productivity.'' The New York Fed found that, ``[i]t costs an estimated $3,063 to ship a twenty-foot container of household and commercial goods from the East Coast of the United States to Puerto Rico; the same shipment costs $1,504 to nearby Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) and $1,687 to Kingston (Jamaica)--destinations that are not subject to Jones Act restrictions.'' There is only one reason why costs are double to ship from the continental United States to a domestic port in Puerto Rico as compared to foreign ports in the Dominican Republic and Jamaica: there is international competition on the latter routes, none on the domestic route and the shipping companies take full advantage of that lack of competition. The three bills I introduce today say: enough is enough. If you, the continental U.S., wants to continue the Jones Act as to shipping between your locations, that's your business. But don't penalize us island and other noncontiguous locations by throwing us to the monopoly wolves you've created. The first bill, the Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act, exempts all noncontiguous U.S. locations, including Hawai'i, from the Jones Act. The second, the Noncontiguous Shipping Reasonable Rate Act, benchmarks the definition of a ``reasonable rate'' that Jones Act shipping can charge to within ten percent of analogous international shipping rates. And the third, the Noncontiguous Shipping Competition Act, prevents monopolies or duopolies in noncontiguous Jones Act shipping. Essentially, the bills are intended to lay out options for providing relief for our U.S. noncontiguous areas. We can resolve the issue in many ways, but we must change the status quo which has had such a deep, broad and negative impact on my state and the other jurisdictions beholden to the Jones Act. The Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act would allow the noncontiguous jurisdictions to be serviced by non-Jones Act vessels and increase, or in some cases create any, competition in these critical shipping lanes. Again, this is a small portion of the total national Jones Act shipping where it is particularly destructive in application. Let me address directly the argument offered up by the domestic shippers in defense of the Jones Act: that it contains important labor and environmental protections that would be lost upon repeal. My bill would retain these important protections. Specifically, it provides that all foreign shippers operating under the bill's Jones Act exemptions must comply with the same labor, environmental, tax, documentation, U.S. locus and other laws as are applicable to non-U.S. flag ships and shippers transiting U.S. waters today. The Noncontiguous Shipping Reasonable Rate Act would define a ``reasonable rate'' for the noncontiguous domestic ocean trade as no more than ten percent above the rate set by a comparable international rate recognized by the Federal Maritime Commission. Currently, the Surface Transportation Board technically has the authority to adjudicate and set precedent on what a ``reasonable rate'' is for Jones Act shipping, but it has almost never been used and never to a clear conclusion on what is a reasonable rate. My bill would define reasonable to remove uncertainty. Current Jones Act shipping rates vary widely and there is no central compilation of these rates. The ten percent benchmark would allow for variance but also ensure that Americans in our noncontiguous areas are not forced to pay exorbitant rates way above shipping rates which would otherwise be provided through international competition were the Jones Act not applicable. The Noncontiguous Shipping Competition Act would exempt shipping routes to noncontiguous jurisdictions from the Jones Act requirements if a monopoly or duopoly exists on those routes. The Jones Act has resulted in the blossoming of monopolies and duopolies in our noncontiguous jurisdictions. To ensure that these communities, which are the most reliant in the country on shipping to receive necessities, are not held hostage to these dominant companies, my bill would give Jones Act exemptions to routes that are not serviced by at least three companies with separate ownership. In short, if a domestic route is in fact in a competitive environment, the Jones Act is less of a problem, but if there is no competition, then the route should be opened up to international competition by rescinding the Jones Act. Madam Speaker, these long-overdue bills are of the utmost importance to the localities which have long borne the unfair brunt of the Jones Act. It is often difficult to pierce the veil of longstanding custom and understanding to see the real negative impacts of a law and what should instead be. It is even more difficult to change a law which provides a federally-created and endorsed monopoly under which no competition exists to hold down prices. Yet clearly the time for these measures is overdue. I urge their passage.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce my bill to protect one of the most unique and fragile environments on Earth, my Hawaii, from devastating invasive species. Isolated Hawaii has one of the highest number and rate of endemic species anywhere. Invasive species have wreaked havoc on our natural environment as well as Hawaii agriculture. In the last 200 years alone, countless plant and animal species have gone extinct, in large part because of invasives. Leading countries have required strict invasive prevention measures. Even the continental United States requires inspections of goods from Hawaii to prevent the introduction of species that may damage mainland crops. Yet, Hawaii's prevention regime is weak. My bill simply says that if these invasive species prevention requirements are good enough for the rest of the country and much of the world, then they are good enough for Hawaii.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials on H.R. 729.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, today I am truly honored to bring to the floor a bipartisan bill championed by many colleagues from throughout the country and many individuals and organizations passionately committed to our oceans, lakes, and coastlines and to the ecosystems, communities, and economies that depend on them. I especially want to recognize my colleagues who introduced and advocated the measures that are incorporated in this bill: Representatives Kilmer, Huffman, Wittman, Quigley, Pallone, Pingree, Norton, Carbajal, Ruppersberger, and Young. This bill consolidates 10 bipartisan bills, cosponsored by a total of 24 of my minority colleagues, that tackle the crisis and challenge of our time: climate change. Climate change, of course, knows no partisan, country, or other manmade boundaries. It indiscriminately threatens us all, but it is especially insidious as it applies to our world's oceans, lakes, and coastlines. Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a special report on ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate, making crystal clear that our oceans and coasts are under mortal threat. Over 40 percent of Americans live in coastal counties right on our oceans and lakes. These communities not only account for nearly half of our U.S. gross domestic product, but they are on the front lines of climate change and need resources today to help prepare for and respond to the effects of climate change, including flooding, sea level rise, severe weather, coastal erosion, and changing water conditions that affect ecosystems and fish populations. They need help, and as we help them, we help all of us. We know from a generation of data now that every dollar invested in predisaster mitigation saves at least $6 in recovery costs. H.R. 729 includes bipartisan measures that will do this in four ways. First, it will improve coastal resilience and economic enhancement by making several important updates to the Coastal Zone Management Act, a then-revolutionary law from 1972 to establish a partnership between the Federal Government and coastal and Great Lakes States. It will also help communities implement climate-resilient living shoreline projects that use natural materials to protect communities and ecosystems instead of hard or armored walls and infrastructure that we know are less effective. Second, it will reinforce fish habitat conservation and fisheries research. It will also authorize steady funding for the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct science and research activities to support fishery management in the Great Lakes and to restore the loss of basic fishery science capabilities and accelerate implementation of new technology. Third, recognizing that responsible management of the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes relies on robust data, this bill will reauthorize the integrated coastal and ocean observation system and, for the first time, formally authorize the digital coast partnership, both of which are led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Finally, H.R. 729 will update the National Sea Grant College Program to ensure the United States has a strong marine and coastal science and policy workforce so that we can continue to develop smart policy solutions in the future. This bipartisan bill is supported by a plethora of diverse organizations across our country, including the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Project, the American Sportfishing Association, and Ocean Conservancy. It won't, in and of itself, solve climate change. That takes a much larger, more focused, and deliberate international effort. But it will move our Federal policy into the present and the future as to what risks arise for our oceans, lakes, and coasts and their communities, and this bill is an imperative step in the difficult process we face. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues' support, and I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC, December 6, 2019. Chairman Raul M. Grijalva, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Grijalva: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 2405, the ``National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2019,'' which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources on April 30, 2019. In the interest of expedience in the consideration of H.R. 2405 the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will waive formal consideration of the bill. This is, however, not a waiver of future jurisdictional claims by the Science Committee over the subject matter contained in H.R. 2405 or similar legislation. Thank you for agreeing to include our exchange of letters in the Congressional Record. Thank you for your cooperation on this legislation. Sincerely, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer), who is the introducer of the bill in chief.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

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

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

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

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the chair of the Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife.

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

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham), a valued member of our Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the chair of the full Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, first of all, I thank the members of my majority who rose in favor of this bill as well as the few members of the minority who did as well. And I again thank the 24 Republicans who supported a portion of this bill that is at least a start on the challenge of our time: climate change and the impacts on our oceans, on our coastlines, and on our lakes. The ranking member complains on several fronts. The first front he complains on is that this is just an illusion, that this is just moving the ball nowhere at all. I completely reject that. I completely reject the notion that strengthening our Federal programs that are directly related to resiliency of our coastlines, that are directly related to good science applied to our oceans and lakes, that are directly related to finding good, solid public-private partnerships to address the incredible negative impacts of climate change and other causes on our oceans and coastlines is not moving the ball forward. In fact, I would suggest that the illusion we are talking about is the illusion that the ranking member cares at all about these issues because, if you look at the record of addressing these issues under the Republican majority, that record is zero. They have not moved any balls forward whatsoever. And further, pardon me for distrusting the current administration, because the ranking member complains that NOAA and other Federal agencies are already exercising flexibility on many of these programs-- fine. Administrative flexibility is one thing, and all power to good people and NOAA who are trying to do the right thing, but that is different from a congressional mandate to do something. The reason for the concern is staring us in the face. Every year of this administration, there have been proposed disastrous budget cuts to NOAA and other ocean-related programs. For the current fiscal year, 2020, a cut of 18 percent was restored by the House majority: cuts to eliminate or severely decrease funding to our critical ocean and coastal programs, Sea Grant, coastal zone management, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, hydrographic surveys and ocean observing, climate change research, programs that manage coral reefs and marine mammals and sea turtles, and many more. So pardon me if we are distrustful of this administration or of future administrations on severely restricting the flexibility that these programs have to administer critical needs for not only our country, but our world. Pardon me, but it is a congressional mandate in these areas that is really necessary. The ranking member and his colleagues complain that we are not advancing climate change by a step. If they want to advance climate change with us, then join us in a major climate change initiative; join us in returning to the Paris climate accord; join us across the board. The ranking member complains that no due consideration was given to these many bills. In fact, these bills were heard; they were discussed; and, with the exception of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), there were no Republican amendments offered to any of these bills. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern) complains that we should not spend more on our oceans, lakes, and coastal cities; we should not anticipate disaster mitigation. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) argues that, in fact, there is not a positive cost benefit in these programs and their funding going forward. The citation for that information is the National Institute of Building Sciences, based on 23 years' worth of data from FEMA, the Economic Development Administration, and HUD. Investments upfront for the impacts of climate change and other man- made causation to our oceans and lakes and coastlines is, in fact, a major return to not only our communities, but to all parts of our country. The gentleman complains, and the minority would have you believe, that this is a mandatory increase of over $1 billion in Federal funding. It is not. It is discretionary, in large part, to the Appropriations Committee. So, as we go into the amendment process, I appreciate my colleagues' support, and I truly hope that this can be a bipartisan bill. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 748, I offer amendments en bloc under the rule.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, again, in the interests of an incredibly good bipartisan bill and moving this bill forward, I offer this en bloc amendment, which is a package of a number of amendments offered by colleagues that all seek to further improve the resilience of our coastlines and of our Great Lakes. I applaud the sponsors of these amendments for their thoughtful engagement on this issue and for acting to ensure that families in their districts are safe and healthy, with productive jobs and clean environments. We are working to create a more sustainable, healthy planet, and this package of bills and these amendments will move us in the right direction. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), my colleague.