Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Back to the harbor maintenance trust fund issues and the allocations to the Corps, the bill sets targets, which I fully agree with, that a higher percentage of the harbor maintenance tax should be allocated every year to O&M programs. As I mentioned earlier, there is already a $2.5 billion backlog for operations and maintenance, so we are dealing with that by mandating that a higher percentage be spent every year. Unfortunately, if we don't free up the harbor maintenance trust fund, there is only one place that money can come from: new construction. So I am all for the O&M, and I am all for these increases. But by stripping the harbor maintenance trust fund provision out of the bill and continuing to divert $400 to $500 million a year of the tax to the maw of the Federal Government, they are creating an untenable position for the Corps. They are already saddled with a $64 billion backlog on construction. They are saddled with a $2.5 billion backlog on operations and maintenance. We are telling them you have to spend more on operations and maintenance. Well, with the discretionary budget caps, that can come out of only one place, and that is the construction projects. Whether it is going to come out of Port Everglades or Charleston Harbor or Brazos Island Harbor, I don't know; but the Corps is going to have to make those decisions because they aren't going to be getting these additional funds that they would have gotten had we freed up this money and created a real trust fund. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned earlier, and it will be mentioned again later, that there is no funding for Flint in this bill. Now, the simple answer would be, well, that is not jurisdictional, it is Energy and Commerce Committee. The Senate, by a near unanimous vote, put funding to help Flint and other cities which have serious health problems with their water systems with a partnership with the Federal Government like we used to do. Historically, in these bills, the committee has included water infrastructure projects. But during the committee consideration, Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas attempted to put in language that would help with Flint, and it was ruled to not be germane to the bill, although historically this is under section 219, Corps has authorization for projects such as this. Donna Edwards from Maryland brought forward an amendment again on clean water. The crisis in Flint is beyond belief. But there are many, many other systems around the country that are far from meeting Federal water quality standards, and many of these are communities that lack the resources themselves to deal with it. The Federal Government used to partner significantly on water and wastewater projects. The Federal Government has pretty much walked away from that responsibility. There is an amendment right now, right up there, over there in the powerful Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is meeting. It is a committee that enforces the rules or waives the rules, whatever they are in the mood to do. They could allow an amendment to this bill. They could be debating it right now that would provide some assistance to Flint and other communities. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has offered an amendment that is fully offset so it doesn't increase the budget deficit, and we will see how that comes out. But many on this side are reluctant to move forward. Last week, I was pleased to hear Speaker Ryan say that Flint should be taken care of in the Water Resources Development bill. The majority leader has said the same thing. The question is: Will they do that in the bill coming out of the House so that we don't have to be wondering whether or not it is going to come out of a conference committee? So that is yet to be seen. But I think a lot of votes on this side, in addition to the concerns I have raised earlier, are pending upon the resolution of whether or not funding for Flint is included in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman--he has stated they are authorized. On this side, there is some confusion. Have these gone through a study and then the chief has submitted a report to us? Is that what we are doing is ratifying a Chief's Report, which is the process to be followed in this bill so as not to have earmarks? Or are these at an earlier stage, where they haven't had a Chief's Report, and, therefore, we are now about to authorize projects that are specific without following the procedures that everyone else has had to go through? I understand what has happened is a tragedy there, but there are other places where there have been floods and other people might want to say: Well, gee, we don't have a report yet either, but we want to authorize something right now. Can the gentleman tell me, do we have the Chief's Report, or is what has been authorized just a study which isn't yet completed?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the advocacy of the gentlewoman. She has been incredibly persistent since she earmarked this project back in 2004 before the Republicans banned earmarks. Of course, then it was a $220 million project. Now it is an $810 million project. The Federal share has gone from $110 million to over $500 million, and included in the total cost are the basketball courts, the splash pool, and all that, but it is coming out of the local share. No, that is not the way this is supposed to work. If this is a Corps project, the only things which the Corps is authorized to do would be in the calculated total cost, and then a percentage of that goes to the local jurisdiction. In this case, they are counting the contributions of the local developers as part of the local cost share. So, essentially, it is coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. I include in the Record a letter from the Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Taxpayers Union. September 27, 2016. Dear Representative: While less expensive and problematic than the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act (S. 2848), we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2016.'' Instead of much needed reform, this legislation piles billions of dollars in additional water projects on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' plate. The legislation also makes policy changes that will be costly to taxpayers. The largest challenge facing the Corps of Engineers water resources program is the lack of a prioritization system for allocating the limited available tax dollars. The legislation directs the executive branch to better explain its budgeting decisions, but this should not serve as an abdication of congressional authority. Congress should develop the criteria and metrics to prioritize Corps projects in the three primary mission areas (navigation, flood/storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration). The executive branch should be required to allocate funds in the budget request in a transparent manner through merit, competitive, or formula systems developed by Congress. Lawmakers could then conduct oversight, hold the administration accountable, and adjust the systems, criteria, and metrics as needed. H.R. 5303 fails to include such a prioritization system. It does many other things, however. Between committee consideration and the floor, the bill grew by over $6 billion. A provision from the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 dedicating maintenance dredging funds to emerging ports is made permanent. It doesn't make sense to invest in a port that is continually ``emerging.'' It also extends set-asides for ``donor'' and ``energy'' ports without reforming the massive cross-subsidies in the existing maintenance dredging program. The legislation authorizes funding for a project in Fort Worth, Texas, costing more than $800 million. The Upper Trinity River project is portrayed as a flood damage reduction effort, but is really a massive economic development initiative that would divert precious Corps resources to construct soccer and baseball fields, basketball courts, and even a splash park. Money spent on a splash park in Fort Worth is money that cannot be spent to further the Corps' core mission areas. At the least we urge you to remove or limit the funds for this project. Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303 the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2016.'' Sincerely, Ryan Alexander, Taxpayers for Common Sense. Pete Sepp, National Taxpayers Union.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I understand the gentleman's frustrations, and on its surface, it is a great idea. The problem is, unless things are reformed at the Office of Management and Budget, the trolls under the bridge with the green eye shades who have way too much clout here in Washington, D.C., and are invisible, this will empower them further, potentially. They rank projects according to cost effectiveness. So you can essentially move your project up if you can afford to put more money in it and it will jump ahead of other projects which were higher-ranked, cost-effective projects, but OMB is going to choose the one at the top, which will empower communities that can afford to contribute more and perhaps perpetually push communities that can't afford to contribute more than their regular share to the bottom of the heap, never to be funded. Of course, I already talked about the backlog of now $74 billion of authorized unfunded projects while we still misspend the trust fund moneys on other parts of the government. That, of course, was subject to earlier debate where the Republicans stripped that out of the bill, which would have helped deal with some of these problems. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to raise a question.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the earliest supporters of President Obama's negotiations with Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. I supported the conclusion of those negotiations which resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a historic international agreement which has already limited Iran's nuclear activities. I strongly appreciate the President's robust enforcement and monitoring of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. During a long vote series I mistakenly voted yes on H.R. 5461 when my intention was to vote against this legislation. I oppose H.R. 5461 and any other effort to undermine the JCPOA.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Vote 451, I voted No. I intended to vote Aye.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I introduced H.R. 5745, The Putting Main Street FIRST Act: Finishing Irresponsible Reckless Speculative Trading. The bill would levy a miniscule 0.03 percent tax on stocks, bonds and derivatives, which will discourage irresponsible high-speed trades that have no intrinsic value and that destabilize the market, which were the driving factors of the 2008 financial crisis and the 2010 flash crash. How much does a 0.03 percent tax cost per trade? It amounts to 3 pennies on a $100 trade. How much does it raise? The Joint Tax Committee estimates the tax would raise $417 billion over ten years. These funds can be used to fund national priorities like free higher education so college students aren't stuck in never-ending debt. It can be used for job-creating infrastructure investments, or other national priorities. Raising much-needed revenue to help average Americans is a big plus, but my primary reason for my bill is to end unhealthy speculation in the market and bring it back into balance. My goal is to stop Wall Street from gambling with Main Street's money. Opponents of a financial transaction tax have already rolled out their same tired arguments: American retail investors and retirees would get hit with higher administrative fees as brokerages pass the cost of the tax down to them. The opponents haven't read my bill, or if they have, they are ignoring what's in it. The fear-mongers have always said a transaction tax will destroy the market. The truth is the U.S. had a transaction tax from 1914 until 1966. In 1932, the transaction tax was raised. When the increase in the tax was proposed, various newspaper headlines screamed our markets would fail. Here are just two: ``Stocks Tax Called Peril to Exchange'' and ``Panic Threat Seen in Taxes.'' In 1932 the Dow Jones was at a low point of 41. In 1966, the Dow Jones was at nearly 1000 points. The sky did not fall. The point is the large majority of trades today are made by computers with algorithms whose sole purpose is to execute thousands of trades in milliseconds to turn a quick buck. Flash boys and high-frequency traders go so far as to locate their servers as close to an exchange as possible--all to gain a nanosecond head start of a trade price. How can average Americans compete with that? They can't. It's time to stop irresponsible trading, time to level the playing field, and it's time to put Main Street FIRST.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Congress is leaving town for 53 days, the longest break that anyone can remember for Congress to leave town. But I guess, you know, there are no important issues confronting the country. Zika virus--no additional funding, spreading north into the U.S., don't have time for that. Background checks for firearms purchases, don't have time for that. But they do have time for a couple of little things here, you know. Every day, Republicans are for states' rights--except, well, maybe, kind of, today. The State of Vermont passed a law requiring labeling foods produced with GMOs. A number of the major companies are already doing it. Here are some M&Ms. But they are saying it is impossible, impractical, and the American people don't want to know, and even if they did want to know, we don't want them to know. So, today, they are going to pass a bill to take care of their corporate friends that will preempt any State from having a meaningful labeling law to inform their citizens, something over 90 percent of Americans would like when it comes to GMOs. And they are going to come up with a meaningless proposal to say, oh, well, you can put a QR code on there, and everybody will pull out their iPhone, and you can give them a lot of information. Instead, we could just do what Mars has already done here: ``partially produced with genetic engineering.'' But there are a lot of big corporations that don't want to do that.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with one of the earlier speakers. It would be confusing for consumers to have 50 different State standards. There is a simple solution, but it is not what is before us today: a simple, forthright disclosure in plain English. For instance, this was obtained out of a House vending machine just today. It was distributed by Mars. We are all familiar with M&Ms. Partially produced with genetic engineering. Wow, that wasn't too hard, was it? I think that is what we should be doing here today, instead of saying: Oh, we are going to maybe have one of three ways of doing it, and one of them will be a QR code. Well, this doesn't have any QR codes on it, so I won't get my QR reader out. So the average American will be in the grocery store pulling out their iPhone and they are going to have hope there is a good signal in there and they are going to read that. That is ridiculous. Sixty-four countries require this. The last time we debated this, I brought in a Hershey's bar wrapper. It had a little nice American flag on it. Made in America. Contains GMOs. That is the version they sell in 64 other countries, but they can't do it here. They say you can't do it here. It is too expensive. We will have to change the labels. Well, M&M's just changed the labels. And now, with what you are doing today, they will probably change it back and take off the words that say ``partially produced with genetic engineering,'' because they won't have to do that anymore. This is not about passing judgment on the safety or the science behind genetic engineering. It is to say that 90 percent of the American people want to know what is in their food. They want to know it has Blue 1, Lake Yellow 6, Red 40, corn syrup, dextrin, corn starch, peanuts, milk, soy, oh, and partially produced with genetic engineering. That is not too hard. That is what the American people want. But you are going to deny them that. On any other day, I would hear my Republican colleagues say we're for states' rights. Well, now we are just about to preempt the States because, if the States do it, it will become confusing. Well, how about we just have a national standard, plain and simple, plain English, so that American consumers will know. It is not too hard, and it is very sad that we have come to this point. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, of course, I have tremendous respect for the chairman of the committee, but it wasn't quite an accurate statement. Courts have found that what Fish and Wildlife said is: If you want to have delisting and manage the wolf, you must adopt an acceptable management plan. Courts have found that neither Wyoming nor Minnesota have adopted adequate management plans. In fact, we have seen basically management to the point of extirpation. Even in States that have theoretically adopted plans, like Idaho, they are attempting to reduce the population to unsustainable levels. There is a fabulous ``Dear Colleague'' from Mr. Ribble showing the biggest, fiercest, ugliest looking wolf I have ever seen attacking a small school child. Of course, there have been no wolf attacks in the lower 48 in the recorded history of the United States, but that is what we are protecting against here tonight. They talk about predation on cattle. If we had better management of cattle, better husbandry--it is, basically, disease and weather are the biggest cause of loss of cattle. Then the number two cause is other predators. That would be coyotes. And guess what? Wolves kill coyotes. And wolves' preferred prey is not cattle. So what is this insane obsession with killing wolves? I don't get it. I mean, were you frightened by a wolf as a small child. I don't get it. This is an incredible, iconic top species which actually helps regulate the ecosystem. Look at Yellowstone since we had wolves reintroduced there and how much more healthy it is. I just don't get this irrational behavior. I would urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and don't substitute political science and stupidity for science.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are, doing so-called morning- hour debate after a very late evening here in the House doing a pretend bill. We are providing the very similitude of a representative Congress by having endless series of votes on bills that are going nowhere in the appropriations process because the Senate isn't doing appropriations bills. Everyone knows there will be some gigantic omnibus or continuing resolution year-end deal. Nonetheless, to make it look like we are actually doing something, instead of taking up issues, as mentioned by Mr. Clyburn earlier, we are holding endless vote series and then debate late at night. At 1:45 a.m. the gentleman from Washington introduced an amendment to remove all protections for wolves in the United States of America. Now, of course, wolves only occupy a tiny fraction of their range. He did this under strong urging from the cattlemen and some hunting groups. There is only one thing wrong with what he is doing. It is actually going to have a countereffect. The wolf predation on cattle is unbelievably insignificant. 7.8 percent of the losses of cattle are due to disease and weather. Better husbandry would help a lot with the cattlemen. And then, 2.7 percent is due to other predators, principally, coyotes, who the animal damage control and wildlife services people have been trying to extirpate for 70 years. Well, 70 years after they tried to eliminate all the coyotes in America, there are many more coyotes much more wildly dispersed across the country, and there are huge packs in the West which do predate on cattle. Now, why is it a problem if they want to kill off the wolves? Well, wolves eat and kill coyotes. Here is a predator that does not prefer cattle; it prefers wild game. In fact, wolves do help also with wild game. They aren't trophy hunters. They aren't going after the 50- point elk. They are going to go after the slowest and weakest that are out there, or caribou up in Alaska. They actually improve the health of the herds, but the hunters say: Wait a minute. They are killing some of our elk. We should be killing the elk. But the hunters are going after the trophies. The wolves aren't going after the trophies. So you are doing exactly the wrong, stupid thing here. I think a majority of the American people, as indicated by the 1.2 million comments against delisting the wolf submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, would agree that we want to restore ecosystems and make them more healthy. Look at Yellowstone. Since the wolves have come back into Yellowstone, the park has changed dramatically for the better. The elk herds don't just hang around now down in the rivers and eat all of the riparian vegetation and ruin the water quality. They have got to act more like elk and hide out in the forest. If they make themselves into targets, they are going to get eaten. So the health of the park has improved unbelievably due to the presence of wolves. This is a keystone species in a natural order. And because of this horrible depredation, this 0.9 percent loss due to wolves, compared to almost 10 times that due to bad husbandry practices, the answer is: Kill the wolves. We have got a 2.7 loss due to coyotes and other predators who actually are targeted by the wolves. The answer is: Kill the wolves. This is stupid, irrational, unscientific. In fact, there is a study from the University of Washington that found killing wolves actually increased livestock losses. The gentleman from Washington wants to persist in the myth that somehow, by eliminating wolves, it will help the livestock industry. It is just yet another misbegotten amendment on a fake bill that isn't going anywhere, but I would still urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This gives us 14\1/2\ months of certainty for critical programs with the FAA. It is a bipartisan product. I would rather that we had been doing a long-term authorization, more substantial policy, but this is an acceptable resolution. The safety title gives the FAA authority to more rigorously go after people who use laser pointers, idiots who use laser pointers, potentially causing catastrophic accidents and high damage; to go after people who are interfering in stopping firefighting efforts with drones; shore up cybersecurity for safety critical aviation infrastructure. The FAA, something I have been pursuing for years, will step up its oversight of overseas aircraft repair and overhaul facilities, where more and more work is being done, where they do not live up to U.S. standards. Some of the people at the FAA had come up with a brilliant new idea which was disqualifying people eminently qualified and already working as air traffic controllers from becoming air traffic controllers. We fix that problem. We balance the need for integration of drones with the need to protect the general public and the national airspace and a number of other critical provisions. With that, I recommend my colleagues support the legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.