Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of the University of Oregon Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE) program. This AmeriCorps program is administered through the University of Oregon's Institute for Policy Research and Engagement and is dedicated to improving economic, social, and environmental conditions in rural Oregon communities. Since its inception in 1994, more than 600 RARE members have served all 36 counties and more than half of the cities in Oregon, providing much needed capacity and expertise to rural communities. In the past 25 years, RARE members have completed more than 2,000 assessments, plans, and reports for local communities, written more than 700 grants, raised over $6 million for communities, and recruited more than 10,000 community volunteers who served more than 8.6 million hours. In the last five years alone, communities in my congressional district have benefitted from 37 projects and partnerships coordinated by the RARE AmeriCorps Program. This year, 31 RARE members are working across the State of Oregon to develop and implement community planning, community and economic development, natural resource planning, and community food security/ food systems projects. Current projects in my district include a RARE member working with the City of Florence Public Art Committee to select and install two large-scale public art pieces in the Urban Renewal District. There is also a two-year project with the Oregon Coast Visitors Association focused on community-driven initiatives for outdoor recreation, signature events, and culinary and agritourism- related opportunities on the southern Oregon coast. I am proud to note that RARE AmeriCorps Program partnerships include federal and state agencies and notable non-profit foundations and organizations. The key partners are the Corporation for National & Community Service (AmeriCorps), the University of Oregon, the Ford Family Foundation, the Oregon Food Bank, Travel Oregon, Oregon Main Street, Energy Trust of Oregon, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. It is my pleasure to congratulate the RARE AmeriCorps Program on 25 years of service to rural communities in Oregon and to thank RARE for its many vital contributions. I have no doubt these first 25 years of success will serve as the inspiration for the next twenty-five.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Representative Malinowski for bringing this forward. Again, I have long expressed concern about the cozy relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia across a number of Presidencies, both Democrat and Republican. For years, we have turned a blind eye toward their human rights abuses at home, their repression of women, and their export of radical Wahhabism, destabilizing the Middle East, Pakistan, and, now, up into the Balkans. It is long past time for the United States to take action, but Trump has taken the U.S. blind eye toward Saudi abuses to a new extreme. He and Pompeo have cozied up to Mohammad bin Salman, who was, according to U.S. intelligence agencies, European intelligence agencies, and, now, a report from the United States, involved in the brutal murder of a U.S. resident, a noted journalist because he had the temerity to write articles critical of His Highness MBS. And what does Trump do? He goes to Saudi Arabia. He does the sword dance. He calls them up on the phone and cozies up to them day after day after day. This legislation here in the House will help to begin to right the wrongs of the past, right the wrongs of this administration, and to send a strong message to the Saudis that what they are doing in Yemen is not acceptable, what they are doing throughout the Middle East and other parts of the world, exporting radical Wahhabism and destabilizing, murder is not acceptable. None of these things are acceptable. The President wants to arm them. We need to disarm this relationship and hold them accountable.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, last Friday I voted in support of H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. While I have consistently opposed this legislation in previous years and still have concerns about a number of provisions included in this year's legislation--including yet another spending increase to an already bloated Pentagon budget--this legislation also contains numerous policy priorities that I strongly support and which have not been included in recent Republican-led NDAAs. First, this legislation grants our men and women in uniform a well- deserved pay raise of 3.1 percent--the largest pay raise for our troops since the last Democratic House majority in 2010. Those who serve in uniform continue to make extraordinary sacrifices for our country and the very least we can do is grant them a pay raise. I am pleased that this legislation also includes numerous provisions that require the Department of Defense (DoD) to address the existential threat of climate change, including updating military construction standards to promote energy and climate resilience. It also requires DoD to report on its progress towards meeting the goal of 25 percent renewable energy for military facilities by 2025. Additionally, I am pleased that this legislation prevents the president from diverting defense funding to pay for an unnecessary border wall, prohibits funding for the deployment of dangerous low- yield nuclear weapons, nullifies President Trump's discriminatory military transgender ban, and helps protect our veterans from being taken advantage of by predatory, for-profit colleges. Moreover, it ends the unfair Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)/Indemnity Compensation (DIC) offset--also known as the ``widow's tax''--which currently reduces spouse survivor benefits by an average of $1,250 per month. I am also strongly supportive of the inclusion of twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave for all federal employees. This legislation also includes several provisions to strengthen our national security, including requiring the DoD to enhance our election security, countering Russian aggression and election interference, enhancing security cooperation with our allies in Europe and Asia, and protecting against the increasing risk of cyber attacks. I have always advocated for strengthening Congress's constitutional authority to declare war and limiting the president's authority to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress. That's why I voted in support of amendments to prevent the president from using unauthorized force against Iran, to prohibit U.S. support to and participation in the Saudi-led coalition's military operations in Yemen, and to repeal the long-outdated 2002 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) in Iraq. I am proud that these amendments passed with bipartisan support. This year I have once again introduced legislation to amend the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and reassert Congress's constitutional war powers. I have also consistently supported legislation to repeal the 2001 AUMF, which the Pentagon uses to continue to justify the 18 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, which in my view is a violation of the War Powers Resolution. Furthermore, I am pleased that this legislation accelerates closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility by prohibiting new detainees and allowing transfer of detainees to secure facilities in the United States. This unnecessary facility costs almost $450 million each year to house 40 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, eroding relationships with our allies, undermining U.S. missions abroad, and putting U.S. citizens and our troops at risk of retaliation. However, I believe this legislation could have made responsible cuts to our defense budget without jeopardizing the safety of our troops or undermining our national security. For years, Congress has continued to increase the Pentagon's budget despite overwhelming evidence of its waste and abuse of taxpayer money. This year's legislation--with its outrageous top line defense budget of $733 billion--is yet another example of Congress's habit of increasing the defense budget every year. I have long supported a financial audit of the Pentagon. Unlike every other federal agency, the DoD has yet to pass a financial audit. In November 2018, the Pentagon spectacularly failed its first full audit, which highlighted numerous examples of waste and abuse. While I am pleased that this year's NDAA requires an annual audit of the DoD in order to help identify waste, it is ridiculous to provide the Pentagon a massive spending increase--as this bill does--when the Pentagon cannot even account for how it spends taxpayer money. In particular, I have always opposed the DoD's Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) account, a fiscally irresponsible fund that is not counted in the budget, recklessly adds to our mounting debt, and has no congressional oversight. OCO is a Pentagon slush fund that gives a blank check to fund endless wars that Congress hasn't authorized. That's why I co-led an amendment to cut OCO funding in the bill by approximately 25 percent. I am disappointed that this amendment failed to pass. The bottom line is that fiscal responsibility and accountability at the Pentagon would allow for funds to be better spent supporting the needs of our troops, meeting our obligations to veterans, and ensuring our legitimate defense needs are prioritized. I strongly encourage my Senate colleagues to keep the strong provisions included in the House NDAA and not water the bill down.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, as thousands take part in vigils across Oregon, the U.S., and the globe, I rise today in strong opposition to the Trump administration's inhumane detention policies. These policies and practices have led to families being ripped apart, children dying, and a shameful chapter written in our nation's history. That's why I voted for the House-passed bill which had strong health and safety requirements for care of unaccompanied minor children, tightened restrictions on detention shelters, created accountability for contractors violating essential standards at detention shelters, and more. Instead, the Republican-controlled Senate stripped these essential reforms from the bill. Congress ultimately passed the weak and flawed Senate version. I voted against this toothless legislation. If we don't address this crisis head-on with proper oversight standards and commitment to holding this administration accountable, nothing will change and people will continue to suffer. That is unacceptable. Make no mistake, we can't solve the problems at our border if we don't address the reasons that so many individuals are fleeing their home countries. The Trump administration's plan to cut aid to countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras will only make the situation worse, likely increasing violence and government dysfunction. Instead, we should be investing in a plan similar to the Marshall Plan after World War II to restore safety, stability, and promote economic opportunities in Central America. We must act--now--to get serious about reforming our broken immigration system by passing bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. This is the only course of action that will allow us to protect these vulnerable individuals while also producing real, long-term solutions to our immigration crisis.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Can you say ``slush fund''? OCO is basically a slush fund. The idea was, oh, we went to war--more than a decade ago--and we couldn't anticipate the expenses, so Congress passed an overseas contingency account. It is not very well supervised by Congress, and as you heard earlier, the Pentagon can't even account for the funds that go in there. But now, here we are. We can certainly anticipate what is going on next year and the year after with the Pentagon. Why isn't it going through the regular process within the Pentagon budget and with full scrutiny by the United States Congress and, God forbid, maybe even auditable? Imagine that. The only agency of the Federal Government which is unable to pass an audit is the Pentagon. About a decade ago, I got an amendment on the floor to require an audit, but it got taken out in a conference committee. What are they afraid of in accounting for the dollars they get? And this is the least accountable of all the dollars they get. This is a modest reduction, and it would restore funding to the 2019 levels. You should vote for this amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, this is an extraordinary move to suddenly turn trains into liquid natural gas pipelines. Of course, liquid natural gas is not transported by pipeline. It brittlizes metal, and this would be a new and innovative way of moving liquified natural gas. Now, there are a few problems with this. We had the Administrator into the committee last week. It is going to be moved in DOT 113 tank cars. I said: Are those puncture-proof? He said: No, they are not puncture-proof. I said: Well, what happens? He said: Oh, we carry volatiles all the time. I said: You don't carry anything like liquified natural gas. There is something called the BLEVE; it is a boiling liquified explosive vapor explosion. So the BLEVE has an unbelievable blast impact. And this is just one rail car. These will be six trains a day going through the most populated parts of Florida, 100 cars in each train. Envision this: Here is Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This is the blast zone. And that is just one--one--of these tank cars. It is likely it will cause a chain reaction and explosion. It is going to be about as powerful as Hiroshima if it goes off. Now, this maybe will get someone's attention. This is the Brightline high-speed rail line. That is where they are going to run six trains a day with 100 cars of liquified natural gas--never, ever been done before; except in small containers, never been done before. And, oh, by the way, within the blast zone is Mar-a-Lago. Are they going to allow the trains to run while the President is there? All you need is someone with a .50 caliber to shoot a hole in one of those tank cars and you are going to have one humongous explosion that goes beyond Mar-a-Lago. So what is the foolishness? The Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Agency has not evaluated this. They are the ones who are supposed to do this. They haven't finished imposing laws that we put in place in 2011 for the safe movement of hazardous goods, but now they are rushing this through. The administration says, oh, no, we want this permit done in 12 months. Well, maybe the President doesn't know he is in a blast zone. Maybe he wouldn't be ordering it be done in 12 months if he knew it was within the blast zone. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, this is a ridiculous issue, to put it mildly. This administration has taken two totally contradictory positions on this. Prior to this administration, if you had a TIFIA loan, you were responsible for paying it back with local funds. It was counted as a local match. It is their obligation. They have to pay it back. They have to pay the loan fees. They have to pay for everything that is involved. Then, in the first year of this administration, they said it is local. It counts as a match. Oh, wait a minute, a year ago, they changed their mind. Exactly 1 year apart: June 29, 2017, TIFIA loans will be considered a local match; June 29, 2018, they will not be considered a local match. They will be considered as Federal money, ineligible. What happened in between? I don't know. I think it had something to do with the Portal Bridge in New Jersey and the Gateway Program, and President Trump being in a dispute with the Democratic leader of the Senate. This is about politics, plain and simple, rotten politics, for critical infrastructure that this country needs. If a jurisdiction borrows money--they borrowed it, they have to pay it back--that doesn't count. If they go to a bank and borrow it and pay higher interest rates, putting more burden on local taxpayers, that is okay. But if they got it from the Feds--by the way, the Feds make money on TIFIA loans. It is one of the most amazing programs. We make money on it. There has only been like one default in the history of the program. These are good loans. They have to pay it back, so why wouldn't it count? Politics, plain and simple. This is trying to return to politics, as opposed to common sense, following preexisting practices and the letter of the law. By the way, this is just clarifying existing law because of a bizarre interpretation written by the Trump DOT a year ago this June.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, again, in closing, I think it would be wise to actually conduct a study before this is permitted. That is not the intention of this administration, and that is why I offer this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds. Again, this has potential for massive explosions. This has not been done before. This is not natural gas. It is liquefied natural gas, 600 times as dense, and, if punctured, this is the blast zone. I hope the President is watching. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I certainly wasn't referring to my colleague, who I know is here in good faith on his own terms. The point is, on June 29, 2017, the DOT stated that TIFIA loans will not be considered Federal funds for the purposes of evaluating how much local share an applicant brings to the table. What changed in that year? All years prior, that was allowed. In 2017, suddenly, they changed their mind. That is what I am talking about, rotten politics.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman referred to trucks. Actually, we are talking about very small quantities in special containers, not massive rail tank cars holding these amounts. Another thing is that there is no known company. You can't contact them. There is no publicly available contact information, no headquarters, but they have petitioned and they are going through a special permit process with--the gentleman says there is going to be public review and input--sure--to move six trains a day with 100 cars in each one, essentially, a liquid pipeline through these heavily populated areas. We saw what happened at Lac-Megantic up in Canada with just crude oil in tank cars killing dozens of people, obliterating a town. This is 10 times more powerful than that. Yet the gentleman from Florida is advocating that this should happen in Florida, and the people living all along the Brightline--Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, the President at Mar-a-Lago--just shouldn't worry their sweet little heads about it: It won't be a target of terrorists; there won't be an accident; it is never going to happen. Well, we have heard that before. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, there were a number of concerns raised about Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers (CCC) during debate over my amendment to the LHHS Appropriations bill, and I would like to respond to those directly. Contrary to the assertion that the transfer of operations of all U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Job Corps CCCs to the Department of Labor (DOL) will ``allow more students to engage with the program,'' this move would have forced the immediate closure of nine centers across eight states, quite literally closing off DOL's ability to serve thousands of at-risk youth across the country, while also negatively impacting the rural communities these CCCs are built around and reducing the Forest Service's capacity as both wildfire and hurricane seasons get underway. During debate, it was also asserted that CCCs produce ``phenomenally bad results.'' Of the nine centers that were slated for closure, seven of them were in top half of Job Corps centers for Performance Year 2017, the most recent program year data is available for. In the state of North Carolina, where at least two CCCs were slated for closure, the Lyndon B. Johnson Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, the Oconaluftee Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, and the Schenck Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center rank 76th, 18th, and 4th respectively out of all 126 Job Corps sites. Schenck finished Program Year 2017 as the country's top performing Job Corps center. While not a CCC, the Kittrell Job Corps Center currently ranks sixth overall, meaning North Carolina has three of the top 20 Job Corps centers. Concerns over the safety and security of Job Corps sites were also consistently mentioned. In highlighting these concerns, no distinction was made between CCCs and regular Job Corps sites. In Program Year 2017, CCCs served more than 14 percent of Job Corps' total residential students and accounted for 13.5 percent of total reported incidents of violence at Job Corps centers across the country. This clearly shows that CCCs are not disproportionately violent compared to other Job Corps centers. It is important to note that the high-profile crimes that occurred several years ago did not occur on a Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center site. As was testified at a hearing last Congress, the reality is that the mortality rate for Job Corps center students in recent program years was about 4.7 per 100,000. The national mortality rate for individuals ages 16 to 24 during that same time period was 70.88 per 100,000, more than 15 times higher. Students at Job Corps centers are also 19 times less likely to die of a drug overdoes than youth their age outside ofthe program. That being said, I agree that we must do everything we can to minimize violence at Job Corps centers. In the wake of tragic events in 2015, the National Job Corps Association (NJCA) submitted policy recommendations to DOL in order to improve safety and security. Some of these recommendations have been implemented while others have not. I believe Congress can work together to ensure that CCCs maximize safety while recruiting and retaining a high number of students. Thankfully, the Trump Administration reversed its decision to end the CCC program. CCCs are an important part of the Forest Service's mission, they play an essential role in the health and safety of Oregon's forests, and they provide critical opportunities for at-risk youth. I will continue to push back against any future attacks and look forward to working with those who want to further strengthen this successful program.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of the unsung heroes of public service in Oregon. Mr. John J. Baker has ably served the people of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Transportation for over thirty years. A transportation economist with a deep background in the Federal-aid Highway Program and its formulas, Mr. Baker's work has benefitted major transportation projects and communities across the entire state of Oregon. Mr. Baker's creative work with federal funding formulas helped support many legislative decisions that resulted in millions in additional federal funding for Oregon. Similarly, his intimate knowledge of federal transportation grants and the federal grant making process has helped bring untold millions in grant funding to the state and to local governments in Oregon. I relied on his expertise on a number of occasions to ensure that Oregon, with more than half of its land owned by the federal government, receives a fair share of the Federal Lands Access Program (known as FLAP) so we can continue to enjoy access to our amazing natural wonders. In 2012, the Obama Administration proposed replacing the existing Forest Highways Program with the new FLAP. My office turned to Mr. Baker to provide the analysis needed to ensure that the new program worked as intended, to ensure that Oregon and western states with huge tracts of federal lands would not be disadvantaged, and helped me safeguard program funding for States with the greatest needs. This summer, Oregon's first Transportation Asset Management Plan will be finalized thanks to Mr. Baker's steady guiding influence. With his deep professional connection to federal transportation policy and funding, it is only fitting that Mr. Baker be recognized here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives for his remarkable career. The Oregon Department of Transportation will suffer an irreplaceable departure this month when Mr. Baker retires. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Oregonians in thanking John Baker for his long and dedicated service to the people of Oregon. My home state is an immeasurably better place because of Mr. Baker's contributions. Simply put, Oregon would not be Oregon without people like John Baker.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to preserve the Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, CCC, program. Last month the Trump administration, in a shortsighted manner, announced plans to permanently close nine of the centers and hand the remaining 16 facilities over to private contractors by the end of the year. This is an incredibly successful program. They have a unique mandate within Job Corps to help conserve, develop, manage public natural resources and areas and to respond to natural disasters. The 25 CCCs operate in 17 national forests and grasslands across 16 States and train thousands of at-risk youth every year. Many of these young adults, being at risk, come from rural communities, and these programs provide them with cutting-edge vocational training and pathways out of poverty in addition to providing critical opportunities to struggling rural areas. Beyond this, CCCs provide essential capacity for the Forest Service to fulfill its mission. During the height of the 2017 fire season, 1,200 students provided 450,000 hours of wildfire support, and after Hurricane Harvey, the students provided 5,000 hours of support to impacted communities. This is wrong for our rural communities, wrong for the Forest Service, and it is wrong to abandon at-risk youth by killing this program. Now is the wrong time to be reducing capacity. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, may I ask for the remaining time on either side.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds. I doubt the gentlewoman has ever visited one of these programs. I have, numerous times. I have seen the hotshot teams. These kids are so proud. They were on a bad path, and now they are on a good path. So, if you want to talk about at-risk youth, if you want to end up having them get on drugs and go to jail, kill the program. If you don't kill the program, we are going to save these kids' lives and make them into productive citizens. On the plane one day, I sat next to a guy just coming back from one in Idaho. He had learned to cook there. He got his certificate. He was offered four jobs when he came back. Before that, he was a dead-end kid with no high school degree. These programs have great results for these youth. Do not be cruel and kill it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, climate change is an existential threat to all of humanity, and it is essential that we start acting--now--to stop and reverse the destructive effects of climate change. In 2017, Oregon State University Professor Dr. William Ripple published ``World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice,'' which has been endorsed by more than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries. He outlined the irrefutable proof of the damage climate change has caused over the last twenty-five years. He also provided effective steps we can take to combat climate change. I urge my colleagues to read his report and take action before it is too late. The Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice (By William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Mauro Galetti, Thomas M. Newsome, Mohammed Alamgir, Eileen Crist, Mahmoud I. Mahmoud, William F. Laurance, and 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries.) [Affiliations: Global Trophic Cascades Program, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Departamento de Ecologia, 13506-900 Rio Claro, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.(Burwood Campus). Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia. Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong, Chittagong 4331, Bangladesh. Department of Science and Technology in Society, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA 24061. ICT/Geographic Information Systems Unit, National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA), PMB 145, CBD, Garki, Abuja, Nigeria. Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, and College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland 4878, Australia.] Twenty-five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1,500 scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences, penned the 1992 ``Scientists' Warning to Humanity'' (see supplemental material). These scientists called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction and cautioned ``a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.'' In their manifesto, they showed that humans were on a collision course with the natural world. They expressed concern about current, impending, or potential damage on planet Earth involving ozone depletion, freshwater availability, marine fishery collapses, ocean dead zones, forest loss, biodiversity destruction, climate change, and continued human population growth. They proclaimed that fundamental changes are urgently needed to avoid the consequences our present course would bring. The authors of the 1992 declaration feared humanity was pushing the Earth's ecosystems beyond their capacity to support the web of life. They described how we are fast approaching the many limits of what the planet can tolerate without substantial and irreversible harm. They pleaded that we stabilize the human population, describing how our large numbers--swelled by another 2 billion people since 1992, a 35% increase--exert stresses on the Earth that can overwhelm other efforts to realize a sustainable future (Crist et al. 2017). They implored that we cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and phase out fossil fuels, staunch deforestation, and reverse the trend of collapsing biodiversity. On the 25th anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human response by exploring available time-series data. Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges and, alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse (Figure 1, supplemental table S1). Especially troubling is the probability of catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels (Hansen et al. 2013), deforestation (Malhi et al. 2008), and agricultural production, particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption (Ripple et al. 2014). Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century. Humanity is now being given a second notice as illustrated by these alarming trends (Figure 1). We are jeopardizing our future by not reigning in our intense but highly uneven material consumption and by not perceiving continued rapid population growth as a primary driver behind many ecological and even societal threats (Crist et al. 2017). By failing to adequately promote family planning, implement carbon taxes, incentivize renewable energy, and set aside substantial swaths of habitat in well-protected reserves, humanity is not taking the urgent steps needed to safeguard our imperiled biosphere. As most political leaders respond to pressure; scientists, media influencers, and lay citizens must insist that their governments take immediate action, as a moral imperative to current and future generations of human and other life. With a groundswell of organized grassroots efforts, dogged opposition can be overwhelmed and political leaders compelled to do the right thing. It is also time to re-examine and change our individual behaviours, including limiting our own reproduction (to replacement level, at most) and drastically diminishing our consumption of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources. The rapid global decline in ozone-depleting substances shows that we can make positive change when we act decisively. We have also made advancements in reducing extreme poverty and hunger. Other notable progress (which does not yet show up in the global datasets in Figure 1) includes: the rapid decline in fertility rates in some regions attributable to investments in girls' and women's education, the promising decline in the rate of deforestation in parts of the Amazon (which might still be reversed), and the rapid growth in the renewable-energy sector. We have learned much since 1992, but the advancement of urgently needed changes in environmental policy and human behavior is still far from sufficient. Sustainability transitions come about in diverse ways and all require civil-society pressure and evidence-based advocacy, political leadership, and a solid understanding of policy instruments, markets and other drivers. A dozen examples of diverse and effective steps humanity can take to transition to sustainability include: 1) prioritizing the enactment of connected reserves for a significant proportion of the world's terrestrial and marine habitats, 2) maintaining nature's ecosystem services by halting conversion of forests, grasslands, and other native habitats; 3) rewilding regions with native species, especially apex predators, to repair damaged ecosystems; 4) developing and adopting adequate policy instruments to redress the current poaching crisis and the exploitation and trade of threatened species; 5) reducing food waste through education and better infrastructure; 6) promoting dietary shift towards mostly plant-based foods; 7) further reducing fertility rates by ensuring women have access to education, family-planning services, especially where such resources are still lacking; 8) increasing outdoor nature education for children; 9) developing progressive tax incentives for reducing overconsumption; 10) reducing the consumption rate of raw commodities by banning planned obsolescence of goods; 11) devising and promoting new green technologies and massively adopting renewable energy sources; and 12) estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long-term while rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal. To prevent widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity loss, humanity must practice a more environmentally sustainable alternative to business-as-usual. This prescription was well articulated by the world's leading scientists twenty-five years ago, but in most respects, we have not heeded their warning. It is about to be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out. We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that the Earth with all its life is our only home.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, on June 3, 2019, I missed Roll Call Number 234, On Approving the Journal, due to a longstanding prior commitment. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, on May 20, 2019, my vote on Roll Call vote 219 was inadvertently not recorded. If it had been, I would have voted Yes.