Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 9, 2018, I was not present for two votes due to an unavoidable delay. If I had been present, I would have voted: On Roll Call vote 67, on Ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted Nay. On Roll Call vote 68, agreeing to H. Res. 734, I would have voted Nay.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr. Jim Johnston, president and CEO of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). Jim passed away on January 8, 2018. Jim was born in 1939 in Summerfield, MA, but was raised in the Midwest after his family moved to Iowa when he was a child. In 1956, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and after completing his military service he entered the trucking industry as an owner-operator in 1960. In 1969, Jim moved to Grain Valley, MO, during a turbulent time in the trucking industry. At that time--as it is now--trucking was dominated by small businesses. Recognizing the need to form an association that could effectively communicate the concerns of small-business truckers to lawmakers, OOIDA was established in 1973. Most of the founding members had returned to trucking full-time shortly after OOIDA was established. Jim was elected president and CEO of OOIDA in 1975, the Association's third president since its founding two years earlier. As Jim put it, he was the ``only one left and too dumb or stubborn to know when to quit.'' From its humble beginning in an office trailer chained to a light pole in Grain Valley, he grew OOIDA into the largest national organization fighting for the rights of all professional truckers. Under his leadership, OOIDA has grown to more than 160,000 members nationwide, increased its relentless advocacy efforts in Washington, DC, and offers a robust collection of unique services and programs for drivers. Jim was OOIDA's leader for more than 42 years. OOIDA was his life's work and fighting for the rights of all truckers was his life's mission. Up until only days before his passing, he remained dedicated to both. Jim leaves behind family, friends, and colleagues, but his contributions to the trucking industry will live forever.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, think back to school. You go to your teacher and say: My term paper is not done yet. Can I get an extension? Well, okay, as a reasonable teacher, you can give them an excuse maybe once. Twice, not very many. Three times, I never knew a teacher like that. Four times, no way. You are 114 days late with the budget for the government of the United States of America, which includes the military and everything else that you are carrying on about. Let's listen to Secretary Mattis talking about your continuing resolutions running the government bit by bit: Operating under a continuing resolution is unwise as can be. It makes us rigid. We cannot deal with new and revealing threats. We know our enemies are not standing still. You are bragging about funding the government for 30 days? You have not done your most basic function as a ruling majority of the House, the Senate, and the White House, and that is, to give us proper funding for the entire government. In transportation, we have lost $1.4 billion. That is 21,000 jobs. Do your job.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said this is a 4-week budget for the government, and another speaker said they have done their job. The most basic function of the majority party who controls the House, the Senate, and the White House is to write a permanent, 1-year budget for the Government of the United States. This is the fourth temporary continuing resolution. You are 113 days late. Now, what is wrong with that? Well, the Secretary of Defense says operating under a continuing resolution is about as unwise as could be. And you say you are here for the troops? Four weeks, now 18 days, maybe? It has cost the Pentagon billions. It has cost us $1.4 billion of lost transportation projects. That is 21,000 jobs. That is hundreds of projects across the country. Social Security needs new computers. They can't sign a contract to get them. Instead of accepting responsibility for your failures to pass a single appropriation bill, you are now demonizing the DREAMers. Pass a budget. Give us our appropriations--not 18 days, not 30 days-- for the rest of the fiscal year.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Division B of this bill, which has bipartisan, bicameral support of the leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. It includes H.R. 4460, the ``Disaster Recovery Reform Act'', and several other Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) bills that passed the House earlier this year. While there are many good provisions in Division B, I will focus my comments on a few provisions that I believe will have the most impact in making the United States a leader in disaster recovery. Under Division B, the Nation will be on the right track to build stronger and more resilient communities and it will encourage better behavior before and after disaster strikes. We know that for every dollar invested in mitigation to make our communities stronger before disaster strikes, the taxpayer saves $3 to $4 in future disaster costs. Section 2036 of this bill furthers the goal of investing in mitigation before disaster strikes by establishing a steady funding stream for FEMA's Predisaster Mitigation (PDM) program. Under Section 2036, the President must provide a specific amount of additional funding from the Disaster Relief Fund for the PDM program. The specific amount of additional funding is equal to six percent of the estimated amount of disaster assistance provided for each major disaster. The President will then distribute these funds in accordance with existing law, with a certain amount provided to each State and the remainder made available through a competitive grant process. Section 2036 uses language similar to language in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) authorizing FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which is mandatory funding provided post-disaster with each disaster declaration. Although Section 2036 uses the term ``may'', the intent is that FEMA will set aside funds for the PDM program, just as they do for HMGP. We have had several bipartisan conversations with FEMA confirming that FEMA understands the intent of this section and will interpret the ``may set-aside'' language included in section 2036 as mandatory. The mandatory funding for the PDM program from the Disaster Relief Fund required under this section will provide consistency to a program with a proven record of saving taxpayers money. In addition, section 2036 authorizes FEMA to withdraw and redistribute funds that remain unobligated three fiscal years after FEMA awarded the funds to the grantee. The intent of this provision is to provide FEMA with discretionary authority to move funding that is not being used to States and projects that will use it. However, FEMA is not required to withdraw these funds from grantees and shall make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. For instance, a grantee may have commenced work on a project or is actively working on a project but the project is not at the point where funds need to be obligated. In this instance, we would not expect FEMA to withdraw the funds. In addition, while this section will apply to PDM funds awarded prior to enactment of this Division, the intent is to give grantees three fiscal years from the date of enactment of this Act to obligate these funds. Grantees with existing PDM funds are now on notice that they have three years to obligate these funds or at least be actively working on projects that will allow those funds to be obligated shortly thereafter. I have noted time and time again how nonsensical it is that the Federal Government pays to rebuild communities after a disaster to inadequate standards only to have those facilities destroyed again by a later disaster, with the Federal Government once again on the hook for the cost of rebuilding. Under this legislation, this nonsense will finally stop. Section 2037 requires communities to rebuild to the latest consensus-based, design standards and in a more resilient manner, thereby ensuring stronger, smarter facilities going forward. The cycle of repeatedly rebuilding and repairing disaster-damaged public infrastructure will end under this measure. Although FEMA must define ``resilient'' and ``resiliency'' pursuant to regulations within two years of the date of enactment of this Act, FEMA is required to adopt guidance to immediately implement the ``resiliency'' requirements of this legislation. The need for resilient construction has become even more apparent after the 2017 disaster season. FEMA must use this opportunity to invest taxpayer funds wisely while saving lives and reducing injuries. FEMA has the ability to ensure that the United States leads the way in disaster recovery and I urge FEMA to seize this moment. Accordingly, as FEMA works to develop the definition of ``resilient'' and ``resiliency'', the agency needs to ensure that it takes into account the extent to which the improved facilities: reduce deaths and injuries during and after a major disaster; sustain minimal damage allowing the facility to continue to provide the primary function and services of the facility during and after a natural hazard; prepare for and withstand all hazards that could result in a major disaster; and reduce the magnitude or duration of a disruption to the facility's primary function and services to a facility. In addition, any ``resilient'' facility should be constructed: in consideration of current and future environmental conditions based upon the best-available science, changes in demand, and extreme weather events; to reduce potential disruptions to the facility, including by building in operational redundancies, and increasing the ability of the facility to recover more rapidly; using techniques and materials that have the absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and recoverability to withstand a potentially disruptive event; to the maximum extent practicable, using durable and sustainable material; and to incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, natural and nature-based measures and energy efficiency improvements. Currently, FEMA provides HMGP funds when a State receives a disaster declaration, but HMGP funds are not provided when a State receives a Fire Management Assistance Grant to respond to wildfires on non-Federal lands. Unfortunately, wildfires destroy the landscape often causing mudslides and flooding that then result in a disaster declaration. Under Division B, States will receive HMGP funds if they have received Fire Management Assistance Grants to respond to wildfires. With HMGP funds, States will be able to restore landscapes and vegetation destroyed by wildfires and make the land less susceptible to future mudslides and floods. This legislation also clarifies that wildfire- related mitigation activities are eligible under both the PDM and HMGP programs. Together, these provisions will help prevent wildfires and related disasters and I commend our colleague from California (Mr. Ruiz) for his leadership on these issues. Division B also clarifies that earthquake-related activities are eligible for mitigation assistance. The West Coast faces the most risk from multiple and extreme earthquakes, and Oregon is long overdue for an earthquake and tsunami on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Yet, the United States' earthquake early warning system lags behind those of other nations. Clarifying for grantees that mitigation funds are available for earthquake-related activities will save lives and reduce injuries in a future disaster. Finally, important to the State of Oregon, section 2029 clarifies that for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), FEMA is not responsible for privately funded actions taken by private parties on private land. Under actions proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the entire State of Oregon would become a critical habitat, seriously impeding economic development. The proposed requirements, are so onerous, the State of Oregon, which already has strict land use regulations, would have difficulty implementing them, as they violate federal and state property rights. This provision will help ensure that FEMA implements the NFIP in a manner that is consistent from state-to-state and does not become a land use regulatory agency. I support all of these important provisions and urge their adoption.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for explaining in some detail what the impacts of this legislation are and who is going to benefit. The gentleman is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which I am the ranking member. I just want to say, we have been waiting for the trillion-dollar Trump infrastructure plan for a year now, and what we are hearing is, well, they just can't afford it. We can't afford to rebuild America's infrastructure. So let's compare the impact of a few of these tax cuts to what we could have done or could do with that money. Every tax cut means the government forgoes revenue. So let's just take the estate tax. Doubling the exemption from an $11 million to $22 million estate, that costs $100 billion. If we invested that $100 billion in infrastructure, we would create 1.5 million working family wage jobs for Americans--1.5 million jobs. Now, I suppose those people with the cuts in the estate tax, they are going to trickle something on working people, probably not jobs, though. And let's look at one of my favorites, the passthrough. We are going to help small business. Well, no, we are not really going to help small business. If you work in your small business, you are not going to get a tax break. If you are a passive investor in a so-called small business or passthrough entity, you get a big tax break. Now, the President says he won't benefit. He owns 500 passthrough businesses according to his financial disclosure. Each one of those will give him a massive tax break. Well, that little beauty costs $600 billion. For $600 billion, if we invested it in infrastructure, we could create 9 million jobs. These passive investors in oil and gas and real estate, how many jobs are they going to create? Again, they might hire another manservant or someone to cut the lawn or someone to wax the yacht, but it's not going to be 9 million jobs, and it isn't going to be at family wages--Davis- Bacon wages, I might say, really good wages. Let's just look at one item, the top rate. That only goes to people who earn over $500,000 a year. They are going to get a substantial break. About $130 billion it is going to cost us to give a tax break to people who earn over $500,000 a year, more of the trickle class, and that would have created 2 million family wage jobs rebuilding America's infrastructure, and not just benefiting the people who do the work. And it isn't just construction. It is design. It is engineering. It is small business. And just think of all the benefits in terms of the movement of goods and people and how it makes America more competitive. What a sad day it is when, as you pointed out very well, we are giving this money--three-quarters of it goes to corporate tax breaks, three-quarters. The last time we gave corporations a big tax cut under Bush when they repatriated almost $1 trillion, 93 percent of the money was spent on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive bonuses. I don't know what they did with the other 7 percent because those same corporations actually reduced employment. So what a false promise this is. A very, very sad day. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the American people.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it is a dark day; $3 trillion in revenue cuts, in tax breaks; three quarters of that goes to corporations under the premise that they will use that money to employ people. The last time they got this kind of a break, 93 percent of the money went to stock dividends, buybacks, and executive bonuses, and it will be no different this time--squandering America's wealth for the wealthiest among us. Eighty-three percent of the remainder goes to people who earn over $400,000 a year. They are going to trickle down on us, yet again. At the same time, there is no infrastructure package. The Trump administration, the DOT says, we just don't know where we can find the money. Well, imagine if they used a fraction of these tax giveaways for infrastructure--15,000 jobs per billion invested. We could have had $1.5 million with 3 percent of the money they just wasted on these tax cuts. Shame on them.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.J. Res. 123, a stop-gap resolution that keeps the government open for another two weeks, through December 22, 2017. Once again Republicans, who control both the House and the Senate, cannot get their work done. Instead they continue to kick the can down the road. The resolution keeps funding transportation at last year's levels rather than the higher funding levels provided by the FAST Act for 2018, meaning it cuts the mandated increases in transportation investment by more than $950 million for Federal-aid highways and almost $200 million for public transit investment. As a result, this bill withholds $1.2 billion from Federal highway, public transit, and highway safety investments--preventing States, local governments, and public transit agencies from making critical investments, letting contracts, creating good-paying jobs, and working to relieve the Nation's crippling traffic congestion. A two-week resolution gives Republicans more time to complete their massive tax scam bill, which benefits corporations and the wealthy at the cost of middle class workers, seniors, students, and our national debt. Paul Ryan has said after the bill passes, Republicans will move to cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Further, the resolution does not reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Instead, it includes a technical fix to ensure no state runs out of CHIP funding in December. If Congress does not reauthorize CHIP by December 31st, Oregon will not have enough funds to fully fund CHIP on January 1, 2018. The resolution does not include a permanent fire borrowing fix or additional disaster aid for communities devastated by wildfire or other natural disasters. Oregon suffered through one of the worst fire seasons in decades. Congress has twice provided USFS emergency funding to repay non-wildfire accounts this year. Without a permanent fire borrowing fix, USFS will continue to have to rob forest management accounts to pay for fire suppression--meaning our forests will continue to be overgrown and infested with insects and disease, powder kegs waiting to burn next year. Finally, the resolution does not include any solutions for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Roughly 800,000 law-abiding individuals are at risk of deportation otherwise. Congress must work together to ensure that individuals who were brought illegally into this country as children, through no fault of their own, are not targeted for deportation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter: The United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and National Association of Regional Councils, March 28, 2017. Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Frank J, Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, Energy and Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: On behalf of the nation's mayors, cities, counties and regions, we strongly encourage you to reauthorize and improve the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields program, which is key for both economic development and job creation In local communities across the county. Since its creation, the EPA Brownfields program has provided crucial assistance to local governments for reclaiming hazardous, polluted and underutilized properties. To date, there have been over 26,000 brownfields assessments and 1,200 brownfields cleanups nationally, which has led to over 123,000 jobs. Each of the $22 billion federal dollars that has been invested since the program was established in 2002 has leveraged approximately $16 in other investments, close to $400 billion in total. While many communities have benefited from brownfields redevelopment efforts under this program, the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates there are between 400,000 and 600,000 remaining brownfields sites throughout the United States. To build upon these past successes and assist in the cleanup, reuse and redevelopment of remaining sites, some key Improvements to the program are needed. Increase or maintain authorization amounts While we understand the fiscal challenges and constraints faced by the U.S. Congress, we strongly encourage you to authorize and fully fund the Brownfields program to at least previously authorized levels. The Brownfields program has a proven track record of leveraging additional investments, creating new jobs, and redeveloping new properties, while creating additional tax revenues. At current appropriation levels, EPA has had to turn away many highly qualified applicants due to a lack of funding. EPA estimates that for the past 5 years, over 1,700 requests for viable projects were not awarded money because of limited funding. EPA estimates that if they were able to provide funding to those turned away applicants, an additional 50,000 jobs would have been created along with $12 billion of leveraged funding. Additionally, President Trump has made reinvesting in America and putting people back to work as key priorities for his administration. In order to make this happen and to do so quickly, Congress should utilize existing programs, and we believe that the Brownfields program would be a strong candidate for any type of reinvestment initiative. That is why we urge Congress to increase or at least maintain the current authorization levels for EPA's brownfields program. increase overall grant funding to allow communities to cleanup more difficult sites Although many brownfield sites have been redeveloped, what remains are brownfield sites that are more difficult to redevelop due to their level of contamination or marketplace conditions. Communities would like the EPA program to be expanded to address the clean up challenges at these more complex sites. We suggest the following: Increase Cleanup Grant Amounts--Congress should recognize the complexity of the cleanup process for larger or more complicated sites by increasing the funding limit for cleanup of a single site to $1 million. Under special circumstances, EPA could waive the limit, up to $2 million per site. Establish Multi-Purpose Brownfields Grants--Congress should allow local governments to have the option to apply for multi-purpose grants that can be used for the full range of brownfields-funded activities (assessment, cleanup, reuse planning, etc.) on a community-wide basis. Applicants should be required to demonstrate a plan and the capacity for using this multi-purpose funding within a set timeline in order to qualify for such funding. Allow Funding for Reasonable Administrative Costs for Local Brownfields Programs--Congress should allow brownfields grant recipients to use a small portion (10 percent) of their grant to cover reasonable administrative costs such as rent, utilities and other costs necessary to carry out a brownfields project. brownflelds liability concerns are a disincentive for local governments Local governments face enormous challenges in brownfields redevelopment. One of the most significant challenges is the potential liability for local governments, which creates a disincentive to acquire contaminated property. We encourage Congress to revise the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERLA) to encourage and protect local communities who choose to take ownership of blighted properties for the purpose of brownfields redevelopment where the local government had no role in creating the contamination. These changes should include: Clarify Eligibility of Publicly-Owned Sites Acquired Before 2002--Congress should allow local governments to be eligible for grant funding for properties that were acquired prior to the January 11, 2002 enactment of the Brownfields Revitalization Act--when there was no required standard for ``all appropriate inquiries''--provided that the applicant did not cause or contribute to the contamination and performed ``appropriate care.'' For these sites, applicants would not have to demonstrate that they performed all appropriate inquiry. Remove Barriers to Local and State Governments in Addressing Mothballed Sites--Congress should exempt local and state governments from CERCLA liability if the government unit (a) owns a brownfields property as defined by section 101(39); (b) did not cause or contribute to contamination on the property; and (c) exercises due care with regard to any known contamination at the site. We suggest language to amend section 101(20)(D) that clarifies that properties acquired through eminent domain qualify for the CERCLA exemption for local governments involved in ``Involuntary Acquisitions.'' Alternatively, we would suggest language that establishes a simplified and clear exemption from CERCLA liability for local governments that acquire brownfields sites. Eliminate Eligibility Barriers for Petroleum Brownfields Sites--Grantees that seek to use assessment, cleanup or multi-purpose grants on sites with petroleum contamination should not be required to make the difficult demonstrations that the site is ``low risk'' and that there is ``no viable responsible party'' connected with the site. We recommend replacing the ``No Viable Responsible Party'' language in section 101(39)(D) with a prohibition on using funds to pay for cleanup costs at a brownfields site for which the recipient of the grant is potentially liable under the petroleum statutes. This would parallel the language for non- petroleum brownfields sites. If you have any questions, please contact Judy Sheahan at USCM, Carolyn Berndt at NLC, Julie Ufner at NACo, or Leslie Wollack at NARC. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tom Cochran, CEO and Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of Mayors. Matthew D. Chase, Executive Director, National Association of Counties. Clarence E. Anthony, CEO and Executive Director, National League of Cities. Leslie Wollack, Executive Director, National Association of Regional Councils.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we had joint jurisdiction over this legislation, and, for the most part, this is a good product. I was actually the ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee 16 years ago when the initial brownfields legislation passed and later became law. We expected that the targeted reforms and Federal grant funds in the initial law would spur redevelopment of blighted areas and be of great benefit, and we were right. It has a proven record of success, assisting States and communities in redevelopment of abandoned or underutilized properties, leveraging Federal seed money with State, local, and private dollars, and creating jobs. Now, here is an example. In 2013, the city of Eugene, Oregon, got a $680,000 brownfield site assessment grant to improve the environment and spur economic development. The city used this funding for the assessment of 15 specific properties and for the development of a local redevelopment plan. One of the results of this work is that the Ninkasi Brewery--as co- chair of the House Craft Brewers Caucus, I had to bring beer into the discussion--now sits on the site of a former Eugene brownfield. In a decade, they have 100 employees, and it is sold right here in Washington, D.C., today. This year, Eugene was selected for an additional $500,000 in brownfield site assessments. I am hoping that they can replicate the success they had with their earlier grant from the Federal Government. I am pleased that we are considering this bill to extend the program through 2022. It will increase the funding limit from $200 to $500 per grant, authorize EPA to award multipurpose brownfields grants for projects consisting of multiple elements, and make nonprofit entities eligible for mediation assessment grants under the program. It will also allow local governments to apply for site assessment grants for properties acquired prior to the creation of the program. Unfortunately, it falls short in two areas. The final version of this legislation that passed committee contained a provision ensuring that State and local governments that acquire brownfields properties continue to take steps to protect people from coming into contact with contamination on the property. In fact, I have a letter here from the Conference of Mayors where they say they would agree if there were two clauses: that they did not cause or contribute to the contamination and exercises due care with regard to any known contamination at the site. Unfortunately, this bill strikes out the words ``due care,'' and with the liability exemption, there is the possibility that properties would be acquired that are dangerous for entry that wouldn't be properly fenced or secured because of removing the ``due care.'' I don't know why that had to come out, since the Conference of Mayors had supported it. Second, nearly every stakeholder that testified before our committee stated that the current level of funding for the program is well below need, so we should be increasing the authorized and appropriated levels. Again, unfortunately, the bill under consideration today only reauthorizes flat funding levels for the program, which is, I think, a missed opportunity. I hope, as we move forward and resolve any differences with the Senate, that we can make improvements in these areas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the Conference Report for H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. The agreement includes several provisions that I strongly support, including giving servicemen and women a well-deserved raise of 2.4 percent. Those who serve in uniform have made extraordinary sacrifices for our country and have earned and deserve a pay raise. The Conference Report also includes funding for Ukraine and Eastern Europe security initiatives to counter Russia's heightened military provocations and annexation of Crimea. Additionally, it includes a provision recognizing climate change as a direct threat to our national security interests. Despite these important initiatives, I have strong concerns with the Conference Report. The agreement authorizes more than $692.1 billion, which is $74.2 billion more than the FY 2017 authorized level and $26.4 billion more than the president's request. This includes $65.7 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) refuses to complete a financial audit so taxpayers know how the biggest bureaucracy in the federal government spends their money. In fact, a shocking report released last December exposed $125 billion in administrative waste that the Pentagon tried to bury from being viewed by the public. The Conference Report also authorizes $13 billion for the F-35 program, including 90 new planes, 20 more planes than the Trump Administration requested. While I strongly support a modernized military, I have serious concerns about the growing costs of the F-35 program. The Pentagon has projected that the lifetime operating and sustainment costs for the F-35 fleet will total more than $1 trillion. 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, sustaining a Cold War era military force, and giving the president a blank check to fund wars Congress hasn't authorized. I have always advocated for maintaining Congress's constitutionally- confirmed prerogative to declare war under the War Powers Act and limiting the President's authority to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress. I strongly oppose 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 more than 16 years our troops have been fighting in the Middle East. In his short time in office, President Trump has already sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Niger, Syria, and elsewhere without seeking a new Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), a violation of the War Powers Act. Additionally, the Conference Report 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. Frankly, 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, well, yesterday, the Republicans unveiled their tax cuts that they purport to benefit the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. Then again, I guess it depends upon your definition of middle class. Eighty percent of the benefits flow to those who earn over $400,000 a year. Perhaps that is middle class to that side of the aisle. They repealed the alternative minimum tax. We have only seen one Trump tax return: $31 million. Eighty percent of his taxes were a result of the alternative minimum tax. That is a middle class tax cut? Oh, then slashing permanently the corporate rate to 43 percent, that is going to really benefit the middle class. They pretend somehow that is going to raise salaries. Give me a break. Then, under the guise of family farms and small businesses, small businesses and family farms, between $11 million and $22 million will no longer pay an inheritance tax. That is middle class? All of these things are going to drive up the debt by $2 trillion, which raises interest rates for everybody who has to borrow money to go to college, buy a car, or buy a house. Oh, and if you want to go to college, you can't deduct your student loan interest anymore. Adopt a kid? No, we did away with that deduction, too. This is a ruse by the public. We have to kill this turkey before Thanksgiving.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment introduced by myself, Greg Walden, and Kurt Schrader. Section 913 of the bill requires all public lands managed by the BLM and five western Oregon districts to be managed under the O&C California Lands Act of 1937. These are statutorily unique lands. They are all contained in the State of Oregon. There are 2.6 million acres in 18 Oregon western counties. The O&C Act directs the BLM to manage those lands for multiple uses, including sustainable timber harvest, reforestation, protection of watersheds. As Federal lands, counties with O&C acres are unable to collect taxes. The Federal Government realized that put a tremendous burden on the counties, and the revenues are shared 50 percent with the counties and 50 percent with the Federal Government. These are critical revenues for my counties, and we have been trying to enhance management on those lands to help both with employment and with those revenues. Without this provision, the bill would seem to open up wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, the national trail system, and other statutorily protected areas. It will also protect the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area on Oregon's coast. So I would ask--I believe that was an oversight in the drafting of the bill since similar protections are provided on Forest Service lands for statutorily reserved areas, and I would urge Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support, and I do thank him for the conversation we had about a number of concerns that I had with the bill, and this addresses one, and the Schrader amendment addressed another. There are still other concerns. I am hopeful, we have twice passed management bills out of the House, and I did support last Congress' version introduced by the gentleman, 1 of 19 Democrats, I believe at that time, and I am hopeful that, in discussions with the Senate, we move back in the direction of the bill that we passed in the House 2 years ago. However, the Senate totally stiffed us on that legislation, and I fear that moving the bill to a number of the provisions in this bill, which go further than in the last bill, will make it less likely that the Senate will negotiate. But, I mean, who knows what works with the Senate. So I wish the gentleman well in those discussions. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I remember, 13 years ago, after another spate of catastrophic fires in the Western United States, we came together in a truly bipartisan fashion and passed something called the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. It authorized up to 20 million acres to be treated to remove hazard fuels in what is called the WUI, the wildland-urban interface, and in threats to municipal water supplies. We also authorized $760 million a year. Well, it has been 13 years. We authorized 20 million acres of work. What has been done? 2\1/2\ million. Is it because of litigation, lawsuits, or, you know, obstruction? No. It is because of this body, the United States Congress, which is refusing to put up the money to do the work. In my State alone, there are 1.8 million acres waiting for treatment. They have gone through all environmental reviews. There is no potential for litigation or any other blocking, but they don't have the money. Does this bill fix that? No. We are addressing problems that don't exist in terms of addressing the wildfire problem. This is really, you know, kind of a lost opportunity, a missed opportunity. Yes, it does a partial fix of the wildfire borrowing, which devastates the Forest Service every year. I appreciate that. But the fact is, we have got 44 million homes that are now at risk in terms of wildland-urban interface, and we have only treated 2\1/2\ million acres because this Congress isn't putting up the money. And this year, yet again, they are proposing like one-half of what we authorized. What does one-half get you? It gets you half the acreage. So if we had appropriated at the levels we authorized over the last 13 years, they would have treated 5 or 6 million acres. Again, they weren't blocked by litigation. They weren't blocked by appeals. The HFRA Act became virtually noncontroversial because it didn't do away with judicial review, which this bill will do on a certain number of projects in each region every year. I wish that this was a bipartisan approach, it isn't, and I cannot support the legislation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, last weekend I was shocked to read the statements of the Republican chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, Senator Corker. He said that, ``Trump has put us on the path to World War III.'' This makes it essential that Congress assert its full powers under the Constitution of the United States. In reaction to Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia and the aftermath, Congress passed something called the War Powers Act. Unfortunately, there was a dispute between the two bodies, and, ultimately, the Senate prevailed and watered down the bill. Instead of saying, ``Before the President engages our troops in hostilities, that he or she must come to the Congress,'' instead, the bill ultimately adopted saying, ``48 hours after the President has engaged our troops in hostilities, he or she must report to the Congress and then seek subsequent authorization, or the troops would be withdrawn after 60 days.'' I have introduced legislation in this and preceding Congresses to fix that. That clearly does not represent the constitutional powers of the United States Congress. The Constitution is absolutely clear. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Once war is declared, the President, under the Constitution, is the Commander in Chief and would act with one voice to conduct the war and coordinate military efforts. So my bill would say--do away with the allowance of 48 hours and say: Before engaging U.S. troops and military in hostilities, that the President must first come to the Congress and seek a declaration of war. I think it is absolutely essential that this Congress act on this legislation and make it clear to the President of the United States that he does not have the authority to wake up one morning and tweet of an attack against another country and engage these people in an escalation that may end, as Senator Corker says, in World War III. This is a very dangerous time for our country. It is time for this separate and equal branch of the government to assert its full authority to rein in any and all dangerous activities by this President.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with many of the gentleman's concerns and comments regarding the lack of a real legislative process here. The bill could be better. But nonetheless, like the ranking member, I will be supporting the legislation despite those concerns because it is absolutely urgent. I have a totally dysfunctional management at the VA hospital in Roseburg, Oregon. A number of years ago, a whistleblower came to me and said that substandard care was being provided. We asked the Office of Inspector General to look into it. They whitewashed it, and then it came out in the Senate testimony that the Office of Special Counsel had found that this doctor had been penalized as a whistleblower because he was pointing to substandard care. I asked for another investigation and ultimately found, yes, indeed, substandard care was being provided by the head surgeon. He was suspended from his duties but is still the head surgeon. Now he has run another very accomplished doctor, under very dubious circumstances, out of my Eugene clinic. This is a surgeon who served 29 years, honorably, in the military, 10 years at my regional hospital with rave reviews, and, after 30 days at my new VA clinic in Eugene, was dismissed in the most unusual way with no allegations put forward. Mr. Speaker, again, it seems that we are having issues here when the quality is substandard that this one person is able to basically just get rid of the folks who are raising concerns about the care of veterans. Again, this shouldn't happen. Mr. Speaker, I include in the record two letters regarding the dismissed doctor. October 17, 2017. Dear Mr. DeFazio: I am a contracted physician in the emergency department at the Roseburg VA. I have been working at this facility since 2010. During that time I have truly enjoyed providing care for the veterans. However, I have significant concerns regarding the administration and inefficiencies in healthcare, in the VA system. Unfortunately, it seems that advancement of careers and the fluffing of numbers supersede patient care. Despite the build up of these concerns over the years, I have recently became aware of an action that compels me to go beyond the normal chain of command. One of the surgeons working at the Eugene campus--still under the Roseburg administration--was fired recently under very concerning circumstances. Dr. Scott Russi was working at the Eugene VA for less than 1 month when he was pushed out and fired. I know Dr. Russi from the private sector. In addition to working at the Roseburg VA, I have worked for the last ten years at Sacred Heart RiverBend--a trauma, stroke, and cardiac center--and one of the largest hospitals in the state. I worked alongside Dr. Russi for many years at RiverBend and I found him to be not only extremely competent and hardworking, but always very professional. I was sad to see him leave RiverBend, but I was encouraged that he would be working in the VA system as I felt he would significantly improve the quality of care for the veterans. I find it very disheartening that a group of administrative physicians, who rarely practice medicine, are able to strike down such a promising figure simply because they seem to have felt threatened by him. I know there are many people who are upset by this firing and who have concerns about this system in general. I have tried many times to discuss my concerns with people in the administration and have been met with, at best, excuses and, at worst, threats. It is clear to me as somewhat of an outsider and observer (as I am not actually a VA employee) that physicians who are dedicated to patient care and most skilled are threatening to the administration. These physicians are often ostracized and pushed out--and when they can't be pushed out, false rumors are spread about them. I have considered stepping away from the VA system due to these continuing frustrations. It is disheartening to see these veterans treated with such carelessness. However, I feel that someone has to stay and actually care for them, but, if I stay, I also want to try to make the system a better place for them. For many, this is their only health care. I wish this was as exaggerated as it may sound, but unfortunately this is only a small piece of a huge problem. If you are interested in more details, I am more than happy to discuss this further. In general, I keep my head down and do what I think is best, but this presents itself as a moment when speaking out is necessary and right. Thank you, Charlotte Ransom, MD.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, since this has come out, I have had dozens of calls from nurses and doctors and other workers in the VA system in my region--in Eugene, Springfield, and southern Oregon, down to Roseburg, at those two facilities--because of this mismanagement. They say that the care is not up to standards, just like this particular physician was not providing modern care when he did colonoscopies. We need--vitally need--this legislation and the strongest protection for whistleblowers. This isn't about protecting bad managers. It is about promoting qualified and keeping qualified employees, which we are having a hard time doing in my area. It is about providing the best care to our veterans, and that isn't going to happen if people can be intimidated or just shown the door when they raise concerns.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Curt Haensel, Senior Counsel of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. For the past 30 years, Curt has served as Legislative Counsel to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In that time, Curt has worked to assist the Committee under eight different Committee Chairmen, half a dozen Ranking Members, and hundreds of our Committee colleagues. He formally began working with the Committee in 1989 and one of the first bills he worked on was H.R. 598, which banned smoking on commercial airlines. At the Committee markup, Curt drafted dozens of amendments as the smokers and their advocates worked to fill the amendment tree, as they tried to kill the bill by endless amendment. The back row of the dais filled with cigarette smoke as the Committee slowly worked its will and ultimately banned smoking on airlines. After this baptism by fire, Curt went on to work on every single surface transportation, aviation, water resources, and environmental law that this Committee has enacted. He took our ideas, and working with our staffs, used his gifted legislative craftsmanship to shape our transportation future. ISTEA, TEA 21, SAFETEA-LU, and the FAST Act; Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Acts; WRDA after WRDA; and dozens of other Acts all bear his stamp. One of Curt's great achievements was his work, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, on the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which enhanced aviation and surface transportation security and created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). After months of negotiation and as the Thanksgiving break approached, House and Senate Committee staffs and House Legislative Counsel spent 20-hour days drafting the agreement. The Committee Chairmen and Ranking Members finally resolved the remaining critical issues on a Thursday afternoon. House and Senate Leaders wanted the agreement passed the following day, Friday, before the House and Senate adjourned for Thanksgiving. As Committee staffs and Legislative Counsels Curt Haensel and Dave Mendelsohn finished drafting the conference agreement around 4:30 a.m., the Office of Legislative Counsel computers failed and the computer files of the agreement were completely lost. The Committees faced the prospect that Congress may not be able to pass the legislation before the Thanksgiving break There was a genuine fear that, over the break, the hard-fought agreement could fall apart. Instead, Curt and his colleagues, after a walk around the block to clear their heads, recreated the text from memory and, later that day, both the House and Senate passed the agreement. Two days later, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law and the U.S. Department of Transportation began immediately implementing it to make our country safer. This little-known story is but one example of Curt's contributions to the House of Representatives and the American people. Curt will continue to serve in his new role. He is joining the Office of Legislative Counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), where he will help develop DOD's request for the National Defense Authorization Act each year. I am hopeful that this new opportunity provides Curt more time to spend with his wife, Meg, and their two kids, Ada and Peter, and hopefully watching his beloved Wisconsin Badgers and spending longer vacations on Lake Michigan's shores. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will truly miss his expertise, wise counsel, and friendship. I join all of my colleagues on the Committee in wishing Curt all the best in his new endeavor.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize 45 Oregon veterans who are visiting our nation's capital this Saturday, October 7, as part ofthe South Willamette Valley Honor Flight. These brave individuals risked their lives to protect and defend the United States and are now here to visit those monuments and memorials they helped inspire. The veterans on this honor flight are as follows: World War II--Bud Barnes, Army; Don Copenhagen, Army; Bud Garrett, Navy; Ed Hemmingson, Merchant Marines; Wally High, Navy; Arlie Holte, Army; Bob LeBlanc, Navy; Ray Maggard, Navy; Carl Mason, Navy; Ralph Morse, Marine Corps; Curt Wiese, Navy; Stan Wilson, Marine Corps. Korean War--Larry Adair, Army; Gene Amundson, Army; Paulie Bokn, Army; Jim Broughton, Navy; Stan Clark, Air Force; Joe Couture, Air Force; John Dobson, Navy; Carl Gripenburg, Army; Marshall Heflin, Air Force; Don Hinkle, Navy; Terry Howard, Army; William Macauley, Air Force; Dorrance Mattson, Air Force; Ed Stelting, Army; Ida Stemple, Navy; Charlie Stoakes, Army; Ed Sullivan, Air Force; Jay Surgeon, Navy; Ron Swanson, Air Force; Maurice Thorne, Air Force; Les Warner, Army. Vietnam War--Kham Bounnavong, Army; Paul Fiegener, Army; Joe Grace, Army; Ken Henderson, Army; Mike Kisinger, Navy; Dick Mann, Army; Tim Mulhern, Marine Corps; Bob Pieper, Air Force; Ralph Wendt, Army; Bob Whitehead, Navy. It is my privilege to include their names in the Record and my sincere hope that you'll join me in recognizing them for their extraordinary service.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in light of the tragic and horrific events this Sunday, I believe our focus should be on bipartisan efforts to investigate the causes and lessen the potential for gun violence in America. That is why I am calling on Speaker Ryan to name a select committee to address these issues. Additionally, I believe the Republican leadership should formally withdraw their so-called sportsman's package, which has many objectionable provisions. Furthermore, we need to bring to the floor a vote on comprehensive background check legislation that includes closing the gun show loophole and individual internet sale loophole. There is overwhelming support in the public and this Congress for those actions. I would like to see what the investigation reveals and whether a suppressor would have allowed this monster to create more carnage. However, we do know he used something called a bump stock, which I never heard of before. Anything that converts a semiautomatic weapon into something that is virtually a fully automatic weapon, which is outlawed, should not be sold. The bump stocks and any other devices like that should be banned.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget proposal. As the ranking member on the Transportation Committee, I want to focus in a little bit on what they do to transportation. We heard great promises from President Trump of a trillion dollars in new investment. Nothing has come from the White House. The first substantive action on transportation in this Congress is going to be the Republicans in the House of Representatives cutting transportation funding by $254 billion. That is right. No trillion dollars of new spending. We are going to spend $254 billion less. They are going to eliminate all long-route trains, isolating rural America. They are going to lose essential air service in rural America. And, by the way, the Republicans want to toll your interstate. So if you live in rural America, you can get in your car to go somewhere, but now you are going to have to pay to use the highway you already paid for. Secondly, it eliminates critical funding for our urban areas, the economic engines of this country. It eliminates TIGER grants for freight and multimodal projects. It eliminates new investment in transit, new start projects. It eliminates all investments in high- speed rail and eliminates specific funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Republicans just hate bicycles. It also goes on--and this is totally amazing--seriously, you are going to cut funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Haven't you been watching television? I think they are already out of money. You are going to cut funding? We want to do away with those programs that might mitigate the disaster of future floods and hurricanes. You are going to cut grants for firefighters. Then, that is not enough. We are going to roll back Davis-Bacon protections for people who work on federally funded projects. We are going to roll back Buy American? Really? So it is ``Buy Chinese'' in the Republican budget. Buy Chinese. They want to devolve the obligation to fund Federal highways to the States. I have got news for you: we have tried that.

Mr. DeFAZIO. This is Kansas and Oklahoma. This is Kansas before we had the Eisenhower--by the way, a Republican--National Highway Program. They built their turnpike. Oklahoma said they would build theirs. They didn't. They were out of money. They didn't build it until they got an 80 percent Federal match. So let's go back to the good, old days. We are going to devolve the obligations of putting together a 21st century transportation system in this country, knitting our country together, getting rid of congestion, moving people and goods more efficiently, but we are going to do it on a State-by-State basis. That is nuts. I just can't believe this. Then, there is another little trick. The chairman of my committee wants to privatize the airspace in the United States and reduce the ticket tax that pays for air traffic control. That would be a $10 billion windfall to the airline industry, because they will raise prices. Then they are going to charge you a head fee to get on the plane. Even better, it creates $100 billion of new deficit. So this nifty little thing here contains a reserve fund of $100 billion to try and make up for the fact and hide the fact that they are cutting $100 billion of taxes that pay for the current system. How are you going to pay for the next system? The airlines will determine that, not Congress.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name from H.R. 367.