Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman did not respond to my previous inquiry. There were 53 amendments offered. The Rules Committee didn't give us en bloc authority. We need to expedite this. If people aren't here, we need to move along.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018. This is the product of many months of hard work by members of the committee and staff, and I particularly want to congratulate the chairman. This will be his last WRDA bill, but until his leadership, water resources bills had languished for, I believe, a decade. So this has been a tremendous achievement. This is a good bill. However, it could be better. In the last Congress, I offered an amendment in committee to take the harbor maintenance trust fund off budget, allow the Corps to spend the proceeds in the trust fund every year, and draw down the surplus that deals with a backlog on all of our ports. Ports affect the entire Nation, any time you have an import or an export, which covers virtually all of the States of the union. These red dots are harbors that are critical to our infrastructure. On a daily basis, our major ports are at about 35 percent of their authorized depth. 35 percent. Why is that? Well, because we don't have the money to fix them. And the jetties are falling apart. We don't have the money to fix them. Well, actually, we do have the money to fix them, but some very shortsighted people around here want to play games. They want to collect a tax from the American people--a minuscule tax, 0.0125 cents on the value of every imported good that comes through a harbor. That is, if you buy a $30,000 car, you are going to spend about $37.50 that, starting with Ronald Reagan, was dedicated to maintaining our harbors at proper depths and maintaining the jetties for these harbors, not limiting the funds just to the commercial harbors, but to small and emerging ports, which are also critical to the Nation: the fishing industry, recreation, and others. However--and this has been a bipartisan problem, starting even when Democrats have been in charge--this has been underspent on an annual basis. Today, there is $10.5 billion of taxes collected from the American people sitting idle or having been spent somewhere else. It has got a theoretical trust fund. Now, that is going to grow every year as we underspend this tax. It could grow to $20 billion within a decade. So we don't have the money to dredge the ports and we don't have the money to fix the jetties, because Congress is diverting the money. I actually worked on this with the chairman's father quite some time ago, and the chairman has been supportive of my efforts. Unfortunately, it was stripped out of that bill by the Rules Committee 2 years ago. And this year, again, the Rules Committee found that they would not allow this to go forward. So we offered it in a different form to get around their technical objections about budget caps and discretionary spending. So we offered--well, there actually is a way around that. They didn't like that either. They want to continue to steal money from the American people and divert it to be spent who knows where--somewhere else, but not on our harbors and our ports. Now, the administration actually sent to what is called their statement down to us with an SAP--and it really is a SAP; they are SAPs--a Statement of Administration Policy is what it stands for. They sent down a provision where they said: This is great that you are not allowing the Congress to spend the tax collected from the American people on the stated purpose. What? Really? Yes. That is their position. They say that the ports should have greater flexibility to spend local money on the ports. Well, they have all the flexibility in the world to spend local money on local ports. They can partner with the Corps and fund Corps activities. I did that a number of years ago in Oregon. They don't have the money, and we are depriving them of the money. But this is the Trump administration's solution. The big infrastructure package? This is going to be counted. We are going to add $3 billion to the pile of unfunded Corps projects. We have got today $96 billion of Corps projects that have been authorized by Congress that aren't funded in the foreseeable future. At the end of this debate there will be $99 billion--almost $100 billion-- quite an achievement, and the administration is applauding this. They think this is just great because it gives the local ports the capability of raising money they can't raise to spend on the improvements they can't make. Meanwhile, we are stealing money from the American people. It is a very sad day. So with that said, I will move on. There are other issues in this bill that are critical. We have $3 billion to new Chief's Reports which will go on the shelf for the indefinite future, maybe 100 years or longer. But people can go home and say: Well, I got that project, all we need to do now is get the money. Maybe a future Congress--maybe next year--we will decide to start spending the harbor maintenance tax on harbor maintenance. Who knows? It might depend upon who is in charge around here. There are other provisions in here that are critical, authorizing the national levee safety initiative, the national dam safety program-- those are pretty important things--promoting improved safety measures, and reducing the risk to life and property. There are a couple of provisions that benefit or would go for Corps projects in my district, one related to Fern Ridge Dam, and a collapsing road near the dam. A number of years ago, we had to expedite funds to fix a collapsing dam, now we have a collapsing road by the collapsing dam, and hopefully, the Corps can get to that before we have a major problem; and then delivering on a very long-ago promise to Indian tribes that were displaced by dams that were built three- quarters of a century ago. Their villages were flooded and displaced, and this would authorize the Corps to provide housing assistance to those tribes. There are other meritorious things in this bill. Again, I want to congratulate the chairman on what will be the third conservative 2-year authorization of the Water Resources Development Act. We just need to find the will and the money to fund the necessary projects. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield to my colleague from Louisiana, Garret Graves.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to a medical issue. Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 237, the Motion to Recommit H.R. 8, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 238, H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 239, the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3249, I would have voted ``yea.'

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I will vote against H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. The legislation includes several provisions that I strongly support, including giving servicemen and women a well-deserved raise of 2.6 percent. Those who serve in uniform have made extraordinary sacrifices for our country and have earned and deserve a pay raise. It also includes funding for Ukraine and Eastern Europe security initiatives to counter Russia's heightened military provocations and annexation of Crimea. Despite these important initiatives, I have strong concerns with H.R. 5515. This legislation authorizes more than $708 billion, including $69 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, an account which is not counted in the budget and is not paid for. It adds to the deficit and is used as a slush fund by the Pentagon. Unlike every other federal agency, the Department of Defense (DOD) has yet to complete a financial audit; taxpayers deserve to know how the biggest bureaucracy in the federal government spends their money. In fact, a shocking report released in December 2016 exposed $125 billion in waste that the Pentagon tried to hide from the public. I refuse to support increased bureaucratic waste at the expense of American taxpayers and our men and women in uniform. A more accountable and transparent department would ensure taxpayer dollars are directed towards the needs of our troops and the benefits they deserve, rather than buying unnecessary weapon systems and giving the president a blank check to fund wars Congress hasn't authorized. I have always advocated for maintaining Congress's constitutionally- continued prerogative to declare war under the War Powers Act and limiting the President's authority to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress. I strongly oppose the NDAA's continued authorization of spending for wars that are not congressionally approved. The Pentagon uses the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) to continue to justify the 17 years our troops have been fighting in the Middle East. President Trump has already sent troops to Syria, Yemen and elsewhere without seeking a new AUMF, a violation of the War Powers Act. Additionally, the bill prohibits the closing of Guantanamo Bay, which costs more than $100 million each year to house 41 prisoners and has been used as a top recruiting tool by terrorists. The prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a black eye for the United States, has eroded relationships with our allies, undermined U.S. missions abroad, and put U.S. citizens and our troops at risk of retaliation. Congress can make responsible cuts to our defense budget without jeopardizing the safety of our troops or undermining our national security. Fiscal responsibility and accountability at the Pentagon would allow for funds to be better spent supporting the basic needs of our troops, meeting our obligations to veterans of past wars, and ensuring our true defense needs are prioritized.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it is Infrastructure Week. You can tell from all of the activity across the country: all of the rebuilding of the 140,000 bridges that need repair or replacement; the 40 percent of the national highway system that has failed to the point where we have to rebuild the whole thing, not just resurface it; and the $100 billion backlog in transit. It is all--well, actually, none of that is happening. In fact, despite the President being right here and talking about a $1.5 trillion plan--wow, a big surprise, up by $500 billion--during the State of the Union, the net result of what this President and this administration have done is actually to reduce spending on infrastructure and put forward a paper plan that would say you are on your own. It is called devolution; that is, we are going to say to the States and the territories: It is your obligation to build a national coordinated transportation infrastructure. This is a grand new idea from some of the rightwing think tanks: Make the States do it. How is that going to work? Well, actually, it is not a new idea. We tried it once before. Actually, we tried it by default until we had the Eisenhower plan, a Republican President, to build a national highway system. This was the net result of devolution: Kansas, Oklahoma; you build it, we will build it. Well, Kansas built it. What is this? Oh, that is the State line. This is Oklahoma: Sorry, we don't have the money to build and continue that beautiful new freeway--1956. For 3 years, cars crashed through a wooden barrier they built at the end at the State line into Amos Sweitzer's farm field until we had a national transportation plan, from a Republican President, funded by a user fee, a gas tax, to build out the system nationwide. And then it was Ronald Reagan who said: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We can't just have highways. We need to have transit to serve our Nation's largest cities and our hubs. So we added transit into this. That is all well and good. We built a system that was the envy of the world 40 years ago, 30 years ago, maybe even 25 years ago. Since then, it has been crumbling with neglect. We haven't raised the Federal gas tax since 1993: 140,000 bridges need repair or replacement; $100 billion backlog in transit, just to build out to a state of good repair for what we have and not even give people new transit options to get out of the congestion and the traffic. We are wasting billions of dollars a year, wasting fuel from people sitting in gridlock all around the country. They are damaging their cars through potholes, and they don't have the transit options that were promised to them. So what is going on? Well, it seems like the Republicans love to talk about it. Oh, they just love to talk about infrastructure. Everybody loves to talk about it--we are going to fill those potholes; we are going to build those bridges; we are going to take care of you--but they refuse to fund it. That is the bottom line. We need to fund an ambitious new national infrastructure plan: transit, roads, bridges, highways, harbors and ports, wastewater, clean water, and the list goes on and on and on. You can't be a great nation if your people are mired in gridlock, if your roads are potholed, if your harbors are silted in, if your jetties are failing, if your wastewater systems are 50 years old and can't take any new capacity and actually are polluting our rivers, and clean water is not available to people in some of the largest cities in the United States of America. Where is the Federal partner? There is no Federal partner with the Republicans in charge. Let the States do it. Let's devolve this obligation to the States. That is their solution: The States should pay for it. Well, it didn't work in the fifties. How the heck is that going to work in the 21st century? Even if one State decides now to increase capacity to move freight-- say California wants to move all of the freight that comes into Los Angeles out of California to the rest of the Nation where it is going and bring the goods in to export from there, how is that going to work when you get to the Nevada State line and there is a two-lane road--or no road--on the other side? This is an abject failure, and it is time for Congress to act. If the Republicans won't act, maybe we need to replace them with a party that will act to rebuild America and make us competitive in the world for the 21st century, not devolution. We need a Federal partnership. We need Federal investment. We need a coordinated 21st century national transportation system.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1285, the Senate companion to my bipartisan bill, H.R. 3225, the Oregon Tribal Economic Development Act. Last year a federally-recognized tribe in my District, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw, alerted me that it was unable to obtain a commercial mortgage to purchase a storage unit facility. A local financial institution was concerned that under the arcane Indian Non-Intercourse Act (INIA), it was afraid it would not be able to repossess the property should the tribe be unable to make mortgage payments. Many of my colleagues are not familiar with the INIA, with good reason. The law is over 180 years old, and prohibits a tribe from buying, selling or leasing land. Under the law, Congress, not the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is required to approve every potential transaction. Typically, the INIA has not prevented tribes from buying, selling or leasing land. However, some financial institutions, as in the case in my District, have interpreted it to mean that Congress act. Over the years, Congress has appropriately passed laws excluding individual tribes from the INIA. First, the INIA is completely unworkable. Congress has a hard enough time passing legislation, for better or worse, that affects thousands or millions of Americans. It is not remotely possible we could pass a law every time a tribe requests to buy, sell or lease property. Additionally, the INIA is a road block to a tribe's economic development. For hundreds of years, terrible federal Indian policy decimated tribes through displacement, disease, and discrimination. In my District, the INIA made it impossible for the Tribe to function as the sovereign nation it is to benefit its members. S. 1285 would clarify that INIA does not apply to five Oregon tribes, and only in the case of fee land. Land held in trust is not affected by this bill. It is bipartisan, and does not cost the government a dime. It is past time to ensure Oregon tribes are allowed to engage in real property transactions without the threat of a 180 year-old law standing in the way.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I think we can agree on one thing. The status quo is not acceptable. Dispersed around the country in wet pools, in insecure casks--right. We need to deal with that. This is not the perfect solution, and it is destined to fail in the Senate. Why do we commission blue ribbon commissions of experts--are we the experts?--and then ignore their advice? They made four major points: the solution must be adaptive, it must be staged, it must be consent- based, and it must be transparent. This bill assumes we are going into Yucca Mountain, which has been proven to be geologically unstable and unsuitable. Therefore, this amendment should be adopted. The bill should fail.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here, and the problem actually is the Department of Transportation. They launched a new carrier monitoring system known as CSA to make data available, but they have yet to establish a test and apply that data. So even though the data is available, the Republicans have adopted amendments--other Republicans who are here today--that prohibit DOT from finalizing a safety fitness determination rule. So there is data out there, but there is no bright line test. The best relief that we could provide would be to force DOT, in the very near future, to issue a safety fitness ruling as soon as possible and also raise the minimum insurance requirement--$750,000, it has been that since 1980. It doesn't cover much in a truck accident. We want to have people be able to get legal recourse and compensation, but we also don't want to give the brokers an impossible task, which is what they have now: How do they choose someone who meets the safety fitness requirements that the administration has yet to promulgate and Congress is preventing them from promulgating? Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman pointed out, Essential Air Service, to ensure that all Americans have access to something that is critical to economic development and, basically, livability for many smaller isolated communities, is paid for out of the trust fund. The trust fund is composed of fees paid by the airlines, by passengers, and by foreign airlines overflying the United States of America. This doesn't add to the debt, unlike this tax bill we passed. I know that the six largest banks in America saw a $4 billion windfall in tax cuts in one-quarter. It is projected they will have a $20 billion windfall by the end of the year. We are going to borrow $20 billion to give to profitable banks, including Wells Fargo, that just paid a $1 billion fine. Now they are getting the money back because we gave them a tax break. But he is concerned about the debt and the deficit, so we have got to screw the small communities in America and take away their air service. I think there are better ways to deal with our debt and deficit, and this doesn't add to it because it is paid for out of the trust fund. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and strongly support the motion to recommit. This is a historic bill, the FAA bill. I want to thank my staff: Kathy Dedrick; Alex Burkett; Rachel Carr; Michael Tien; Luke Strimer; Janet Erickson; David Napoliello; Helena Zyblikewycz; Auke Mahar- Piersma; Ward McCarragher, who has moved on; Alexa Old Crow; and Jamie Harrell. I want to congratulate the outgoing chair, Frank LoBiondo. It is his last major bill in Congress, and Frank was great to work with. I hope he has a great life after Congress.