Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman. I also congratulate the chair, the ranking member, and others who support this needed legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring new focus to NOAA's ongoing efforts on deploying early detection systems, research, and working with potentially affected communities, better educating the public and designating evacuation routes and putting other measures in place that can mitigate damage or loss of life in the case of a tsunami. The Cascadia Subduction fault is not as well known to most Americans as the San Andreas in California, but the Cascadia Subduction fault, which starts just south of my district off of northern California has the potential for an even more devastating earthquake and much more probability of a devastating tsunami than anything caused by the San Andreas and other major faults. This bill is good in the focus it brings. The gentleman who spoke before me from California said it does it in a fiscally responsible way. Well, I would only disagree with that in that it is not fiscally responsible to underfund these efforts at NOAA. We should be moving forward with all dispatch to use existing technology which is on the shelf and being deployed by Japan, Southeast Asia, off of South America, and being used on land in Mexico and places like Romania for early detection systems. We are researching and thinking about what we want to do. There are off-the-shelf technologies that will work for remote sensing. What will that mean? If you have remote sensors off the southern Oregon coast close to this fault, that means in the case of a major earthquake-- which could be Category 9--you would have a warning further and further up the coast, a longer warning. For people immediately adjacent or in the mid-Oregon coast, it could definitely save lives and give people more time to get to high ground by using known evacuation routes. The further you move north, say to the city of Portland, a major quake will have a major impact, but the shock waves would take 8 to 10 minutes or more to travel there. You could get people off the bridges. You could shut down the light rail system. People with critical manufacturing undertakings could shut down their lines, so they would have less economic loss. In my district, schools could be evacuated. We have many schools that don't meet earthquake standards that will collapse. Given 3 to 5 minutes that we could have in Eugene, you could save the lives of hundreds and hundreds of kids. But we are the United States of America. We can't afford it. Under the budget priorities of the Republican Party, we can't afford to deploy an early warning system off the United States of America. Now, Mexico can afford it. Chile can afford it. Malaysia and Indonesia can afford it. Japan can afford it. Romania and Mexico can afford it. We can't. Well, it is time to stop dragging our feet. This bill brings the focus to NOAA, but it also brings focus on the fact that we aren't giving them the money they need. It brings focus to NOAA that will hopefully urge them to move more quickly and not mess around trying to develop new technologies or thinking about it, like some of our Federal agencies do. Use known, off-the-shelf technologies that work and is being deployed elsewhere in the world, and it is up to Congress to give them a budget adequate to do this. I hope we act soon. This bill today is the first step.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I am voting against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of Fiscal Year 2015. Although this bill contains a few positive measures and provisions that I support it unfortunately creates a two year blank check for the U.S. to wage a war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) in both Syria and Iraq. I am vehemently opposed to this two year authorization to train and equip as yet unknown forces in both Syria and Iraq to combat ISIL. Tragically, Congress has once again abdicated its constitutional responsibilities under War Powers. Instead of voting on a vague authorization today, we should wait and pass judgment on a more detailed assessment on this operation and vote on a specific authorization for use of military force (AUMF). In addition to the $5 billion already authorized to continue the fight against ISIL, this bill mistakenly allows for the reprogramming of funds as the President sees fit from the $63.7 billion overseas contingency operations account, which has turned into a slush fund to fight unauthorized wars. If you turned to any of my colleagues today and asked the basic question who are the 5,000 fighters that the U.S. will train and equip in Syria, they could not give you an answer. Not even our intelligence agencies know who we can trust. Before granting authorization, Congress should at least know who it is we are giving U.S. weapons to and what their ideology and political goals are. This is a complex mess of various actors, many of whom cannot be considered trustworthy allies. The Syrian opposition is made up of hundreds of thousands of fighters from various factions that are also fighting amongst each other. In Iraq, the U.S. is looking to form an alliance with a new government whose current Prime Minister has yet to prove he will bring Sunnis back into an inclusive society and government. At the moment the Iraqi army barely exists on paper. The main Iraqi force currently fighting ISIL, Asaib Ahl al-haq, is incredibly hostile to the U.S. and was attacking our troops up to the last day of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The enemy of our enemy is not always an ally. That is why it is so critical that Congress be presented with a detailed plan of this ``train and equip'' operation including who it is that we are arming before we vote and this authorization fails to do that. Most importantly what we are voting on today is a small part of President Obama's larger strategy to go to war with ISIL. No President can declare war without Congressional authorization. If the U.S. is going to war with ISIL as it appears that we are, then my colleagues need to vote on an AUMF. The American people did not elect us to punt the responsibility for matters of war and peace to the President. The purpose of an AUMF is to lay out in detail the scope, plan, purpose, and duration of a military operation and to provide both classified and non-classified briefings to Congress and allow them to debate and express their opinions on the merits of this. Absent an AUMF from Congress, we are committing ourselves to an open ended war, declared by the President about which we have little to no details. Despite my disagreements with the President on defense policy, members of our armed forces must be adequately funded and get the services they deserve. The bill includes increased funding for the National Guard, a 1% pay raise for our troops, and additional funding for mental health screenings and psychological services for those who have served and suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, this bill prevents the retirement of the A-10 Warthog, a more cost effective close air-support weapons system than the F-35 Joint Striker, contains funding for nuclear non-proliferation activities, and acquisition reform measures that take a small step in reining in the bloated Pentagon budget. I strongly support these provisions of the NDAA. Lastly, there was a public lands package attached to this bill that include provisions that are critical to the West Coast and Oregon. The REFI Act will save West Coast fishermen millions of dollars by refinancing expensive, unfair high-interest federal loans. The expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument will boost the local economy and create needed jobs in southern Oregon, protect the unique cave system for hiking and other recreational opportunities, and it designates the River Styx--the underground stream running through Oregon Caves--as the first subterranean Wild and Scenic River in the nation. The package wasn't perfect, but it was the result of a multi- year negotiation to clear the backlog of mostly non-controversial, locally supported lands bills that have languished in this dysfunctional Congress. I didn't pick the vehicle to move these bills, and unfortunately it was attached to the NDAA. Again, I will ultimately vote no on this legislation because it contains a two-year blank check to fight an unauthorized war in Iraq and Syria. Congress shouldn't duck its responsibility to thoroughly debate and discuss the authorization of use of force.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Jim Oberstar was a true gentleman of the House who ably represented Minnesota's 8th District for 36 years. He was a fixture of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Jim started as staff in the 1960s, became a Member in the 1970s, then served as Chairman of the Committee from 2007 to 2011. I was blessed to work, and sometimes ride, alongside Jim for many years. Given his many years of work to improve transportation in Minnesota and across the country, it is fitting that a portion of Interstate Highway 35 be renamed in his honor. As a tireless advocate on transportation issues, Jim earned well- deserved admiration in many circles, including in my home state of Oregon. He accompanied me on tours to advocate for increased infrastructure investment. Jim truly understood the importance of investment as a way to create American jobs, improve safety, and build roads, bridges and transit systems to accommodate a 21st Century economy. His passion and leadership are evident in projects across the country. Jim was also an avid cyclist, and I am grateful I had the opportunity to show him my state in 2007 during the Cycle Oregon event. He was one tough athlete, easily outpacing cyclists half his age. Jim was a champion of the road in more ways than one. Like many people in Washington, DC, Minnesota and beyond, I feel fortunate to consider Jim not only a colleague, but a friend and a mentor. I only wish he had lived long enough to share all of his knowledge with the rest of us.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You forgot I reserved, Doc, so I do get to respond. I have to say we were looking for a logical reason for what I would say is your recalcitrance to further create wilderness so that areas may remain undisturbed for future generations. I thought that was potentially a plausible reason. In fact, it was so plausible that the next day in the gym a Republican Member who was there that didn't know either me or you that well asked if that indeed was a true story. I played him along for just a brief period of time and said, ``No.'' I appreciate that you have corrected the record. In the NDAA bill, we also did do a wilderness package as it relates to your State and some other wilderness bills that I think were very bipartisan and reasonable. I appreciate the fact you supported that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, for too long, Federal policies have unfairly disadvantaged Indian tribes in western Oregon and, obviously, elsewhere around the country. After signing many treaties with the western Oregon tribes, the United States removed them from their original homelands throughout the western part of the State and put them on only two reservations, which were established at the time to house potentially people from more than 60 tribal governments. Many of the tribes confederated on these reservations far from their ancestral homes. Other tribes refused to leave their ancestral homes and were basically forgotten by the United States, despite its promises that it had made in treaty agreements with them. Later, in 1954, one of the darkest chapters was when all but one of the Oregon tribes west of the Cascade Mountains lost their Federal recognition in the Western Oregon Termination Act. The termination era, as scholars call it, was terrible Federal Indian policy. It was so bad that it was only 30 years later that it was formally rebuked by Congress. Starting in the seventies, Congress began the process of restoring the western Oregon tribes to Federal recognition and of cleaning up the mess that the United States Government made in western Oregon. In fact, I began my congressional career as an original sponsor of the Coquille Restoration Act, legislation to restore one of Oregon's terminated tribes. I partnered with then-Senator Mark Hatfield on that legislation, which was later enacted into law. While six Oregon tribes are now federally recognized, it remains difficult for these tribes to function as the sovereign nations they are and to govern themselves as effectively as they could. Shifts in Federal Indian policy have made it time-consuming and expensive for western Oregon tribes--and other tribes around the country--and the Department of the Interior to work together on land- into-trust issues. These policy shifts have also deprived two of the tribes of sufficient land bases, and it has created a legal anomaly with regard to the Coquille Indian Tribe's forest. H.R. 5701, the Western Oregon Indian Tribal Lands Act, is a long overdue, no-cost, commonsense bill that will go a long way to helping resolve some of the problems the Federal Government and its policy shifts over more than a century have created for the western Oregon tribes. This legislation clarifies on-reservation land-into-trust procedures for the Grand Ronde and Siletz tribes, so the tribes don't have to face outrageous delays in dealing with the Department of the Interior. The bill also makes good on decades-old promises to restore land bases for the Coos and Cow Creek tribes, and it puts the Coquille Indian Tribe's forest on an equal footing with those of other Indian tribes nationwide. H.R. 5701 deals only with Oregon issues, Oregon tribes, and Oregon constituents. All of the provisions in this Oregon tribal bill have received some form of consideration by both the House and the Senate. This package also enjoys bipartisan, bicameral support, the rarest of rare things, I would say, in Washington, D.C., these days. I strongly encourage my colleagues here in the House to join with me in passing this legislation swiftly, so we can get it over to the Senate and hopefully get the Senate to act before the hopefully soon- looming adjournment of the 113th Congress. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the last in the series of bills from the Resources Committee and, perhaps, the last time that I will be on the floor as ranking member and Chairman Hastings will be on the floor as chairman. I just want to thank my colleague from Washington State for all of the work we have done together. We obviously don't always agree on issues, but I think the Resources Committee has reported out more bills and passed more bills in the House than any other committee in this Congress. We have been very active. We are hoping that the Senate will go along with a few that we have pending, and we will get some of those bills enacted into law. In particular, I want to thank the chairman for his partnership on an issue absolutely critical to the Pacific Northwest, which is the management of the Columbia River system and the Bonneville Power Administration, in the phenomenal gift of that clean and inexpensive power to our region and to the Western U.S. generally. We have some major issues looming, in particular, the negotiation or renegotiation or termination of the treaty with Canada regarding the Columbia River Treaty. A session that the chairman held in his district in Washington State on a cold day in February was, I think, very critical in helping move that discussion and debate in a productive direction for all the stakeholders and was particularly critical for a position of our region in this negotiation. I am only hopeful that we will soon get the attention of the State Department and whomever else they have seen fit to involve in this process and have a recommendation from the State Department regarding modification or termination of that treaty so we can enter into meaningful negotiations with the Canadians. The gentleman played a particularly key role in that, and I want to thank him for that and, obviously, a lot of other work on forestry and other issues.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Chesapeake Bay is America's largest estuary, and restoration of the estuary will be an incredible conservation challenge. The Federal Government, States, localities, and conservation groups have spent billions of dollars to improve water quality, habitat, fisheries, recreational opportunities, and tributaries since the first Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed back in 1983; yet the water quality has continued to deteriorate. The efforts have yielded some impressive successes, but by many metrics, the bay is still in poor health. This is due in large part to the fact that since bay cleanup began in earnest in the eighties, the population of the watershed has increased dramatically by more than one-third. There is more wetland loss, more polluted runoff, and more nutrients in the wastewater and other sources entering the bay. In a sense, the bay is being loved to death by those who live near it. President Obama's 2009 executive order on Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration has refocused Federal efforts, and that is a good thing; however, taxpayers and bay advocates deserve to know more about how and how much money is being spent. S. 1000 would require the Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget of Federal agency and State expenditures on bay restoration. This exercise will help identify areas where Bay partners can better coordinate or eliminate redundancy. Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense legislation that will help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts. I would certainly congratulate the representative from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) for championing this cause and shepherding his version of this legislation through the House. I would note that today I did hear on the radio that the Governor- elect of Maryland is proposing to further delay or undo some additional restrictions on the applications of chicken manure and other phosphate nitrogen-rich fertilizers that are contributing to the dramatic deterioration of the bay. I would say this new Governor is being very shortsighted in terms of the benefits of the bay in total versus the small cost that would be imposed upon farmers to get these needed restrictions in place, and I would hope that he reconsiders and hears a lot about this from his constituents. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5086 directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail in Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas. The trail extends 550 miles following the same route taken by Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca people during Federal Indian removal in 1877 and their subsequent return to Nebraska. Chief Standing Bear played an important role in American history. He was the first Native American recognized by the United States Government as a person under law, following his arrest and ensuing trial for leaving his reservation in Oklahoma without permission. Chief Standing Bear was honoring his son's dying wish to be buried in the land of his birth and traveled with his son's remains, along with 20 other members of his tribe, through harsh conditions from Oklahoma back to their ancestral lands in Nebraska. Unfortunately, at that time, leaving the reservation was a violation of law. At the very least, 135 years later, it is only right that we look into the feasibility of including this trail as part of the National Historic Trails system, to reflect on a not-so-proud period of American history in our country when Native Americans were treated as second- class citizens and honor the courage of Chief Standing Bear in living up to the promise he had made to his son. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for advancing this legislation, and Representative Fortenberry for his leadership on this bill. I support passage, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Miller on this legislation. H.R. 5699 will authorize the National Park Service to expand the boundary of the John Muir National Historic Site and acquire, by donation, 44 acres of land from the Muir Heritage Land Trust. It will expand the site and help carry on Muir's legacy of conservation and environmental stewardship. John Muir is an important historic figure to me and to millions of other Americans in terms of his advocacy for the environment. Obviously, we owe him a great debt of gratitude for many, many of the actions of his legacy--Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks, and he also founded the Sierra Club back in the early part of the last century. This bill will contribute to his legacy and help protect and conserve the place where he found solace and inspiration in his later years. It was interesting to me. I read an article that I would describe as sort of ascribing 21st century political correctness on the part of a few historians--one from UCLA, one from Stanford, and one person from the Center for Biological Diversity--essentially criticizing and denying the legacy of John Muir and using a 21st century politically correct backwards telescope to look at it. It is just extraordinary to me that there are people like that who exist. Sure, he didn't live up to 21st century political correctness, and he certainly couldn't have predicted the phenomenal growth of the Western United States and the need for amenities that relate to the environment in major urban areas, but what he saved is an extraordinary gift enjoyed by millions of Americans and people from around the entire world every year. I just have to say to those people that they are a bit misguided. With that, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague Representative George Miller on this. Obviously, this is coming at the end of an extraordinary career of service to America and protecting our environment for future generations. I think it is really, really appropriate that Mr. Miller is moving this bill to help perpetuate the legacy of someone else who, at a much earlier time, also contributed phenomenally to our public resources and assets. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Now, why would an Oregonian insert himself into the perpetual water wars in California? Well, first off, this bill has had no hearings. As you can see from the debate here on the floor, there is extraordinary disagreement over the potential impacts of this legislation. That is not just critical to Californians, it is critical to Oregonians. I have a letter here from the Pacific Fishery Management Council. They believe that this could have a hugely detrimental impact on some audit species which compose about 80 percent of the California fishery and about 50 percent of the fishery in Oregon. We went through this before about a decade ago where there were inadequate outflows. There were problems with the forge fish, the smelt, and the returning salmon, and we had a season that was closed for 2 years. It put many, many Oregonians out of work. There was impact beyond commercial fisheries and coastal communities on recreational fisheries. It cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. We got a couple of hundred million dollars in Federal relief. The experts, the Pacific Fishery Management Council and their lawyers who have read this bill, believe it does change the management of the water in ways that are detrimental and would void the biological opinion and would probably put us back into another couple of ``no fishing'' years a few years down the road given the cycle of salmon, particularly, section 103(d)(2) and section 103(c). I have heard here on the floor, despite the fact no hearing has been held--the bill just burbled up very recently--that on one side they are saying, ``No, don't worry, it will not have a detrimental environmental impact, and, if it does, well, we will stop doing it.'' But I just looked at that section of the bill and it doesn't quite say that definitively. In fact, it changes the standards, and then it says, ``If additional negative impacts might happen, then the Secretary could suspend some of the provisions of this bill.'' Not exactly certainty, and we need some certainty here for our fisheries. We have been hurting for years. Last year, we had a good year, thankfully. We are still dealing with buybacks because of reducing the size of the fleets from past problems. Fishermen are burdened with the buyback year in, year out. I just got the terms of that adjusted in the NDAA. They had a payday loan from the Federal Government. Now we got them a reasonable loan from the Federal Government. The government didn't even pay for their buyback. Heck, in the Northeast, they paid for a couple of buybacks. No, we had to pay for our own with a payday loan. Now we are going to jeopardize the fleet 1, 2, or 3 years out because we won't have the returns with the endangered species. So this is a bad idea to do in the waning days of a Congress, to bring forward a bill which is controversial, over which there is disagreement on the actual language in the provisions of the bill, and which my experts, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, say would be detrimental and would cause those problems. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR, December 6, 2014. Hon. Jared Huffman, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Huffman: Thank you for your letter of November 17 and follow-up on December 3 requesting Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) comment on legislation related to operation of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project in California (HR 5781) and its potential impacts to fisheries. Although the timing of the bill did not allow for full Council deliberation, we present the following concerns, which are consistent with previous comments the Council has made on similar legislation. Absent changes in the legislation to address these concerns, the Pacific Council does not support HR 5781 moving forward. HR 5781 would override Endangered Species Act protections for salmon, steelhead, and other species in the Bay-Delta in order to allow increased pumping from the Delta in excess of scientifically justified levels. These measures also protect salmon stocks not currently listed under the ESA, which are a primary source of healthy sport and commercial fisheries from Central California to Northern Oregon. The bill introduces a new standard for implementing the Endangered Species Act concerning Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt, a keystone species in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. (See Sec 101(3), and 102(b)(2)(a).) It is unclear how severe the negative effects of this new standard might be, but it would certainly impact current water management policy that protects ESA listed salmon stocks from further decline and helps prevent currently healthy stocks from becoming listed under the ESA. The bill contains several provisions that override the salmon and Delta smelt biological opinions (for example Section 103(d)(2), Section 103(c), and others). Section 103 could result in dramatically higher pumping than is authorized under the biological opinions, and would cause significant harm to migrating salmon and steelhead and other native species. The 1:1 inflow to export ratio for the San Joaquin at Vernalis overrides the `reasonable and prudent alternatives' to standard operations that were set out in the 2009 Central Valley biological opinion in order to protect Sacramento River winter-run Chinook and other salmonid species. Further degradation of salmon habitat is contrary to the provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act (Sec. 305(b)(1)(D)) and something the Pacific Council strongly opposes. Section 103(f)(2) provides exemptions for mitigation of negative effects on listed fish species, which alleviates the project from compensating fisheries for negative effects of its operations; it is unclear if there is an exemption for mitigation of negative effect on non-listed salmon stocks. Exempting mitigation responsibility for harm to salmon populations provides the exact opposite incentive to the kind of salmon protection and enhancement advocated by the Council, and essentially amounts to redistributing the value of salmon fisheries to agricultural or municipal interests, as well as increasing the risk to ESA listed fish stocks threatened with extinction. Additionally, the Pacific Council is concerned about whether Central Valley projects are achieving their current mitigation responsibility, and providing these exemptions could preclude seeking remedy. If this bill moves forward, it should provide direct mitigation for the proposed actions and risks to which it would subject fish populations and fishing communities, not avoiding this appropriate responsibility. In 2008 and 2009. $158 million in Congressional aid was provided to deal with the disaster of the closure of ocean salmon fisheries off California and Oregon south of Cape Falcon due to a collapse of the Sacramento River salmon stocks. These fisheries are an important source of jobs for coastal communities, which cannot be replaced simply through disaster relief. Without adjustments to this bill, we fear such a disaster could be repeated in the reasonably near future. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this legislation; please don't hesitate to contact me or Ms. Jennifer Gilden of the Pacific Council office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, D.O. McIsaac, Ph.D., Executive Director.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, let's just sum up. We have the most carbon-intensive way of creating ultimately diesel and gasoline by extracting these tar sands. They contribute 81 percent more greenhouse gases. Of course many on the other side believe that greenhouse gases are potentially beneficial or aren't a problem. We have a foreign entity here that will be exempt from paying taxes, like U.S. entities do, into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And U.S. taxpayers will be stuck with the bill should a spill occur. We have a foreign entity--granted, they are our friends and neighbors in Canada--but still, a foreign private corporation being given the right of eminent domain over citizens of the State of Nebraska. We have, in fact, this company saying that it is likely, if this pipeline is completed, that gasoline prices will go up in Midwestern areas of the United States and their production will be exported from the United States; so it is not going to be a direct benefit to Americans or deal with energy independence, which we heard earlier. Of course, we are cutting short the evaluation process that every other energy-producing entity in America has to go through in terms of environmental reviews, and of course, we are cutting off any meaningful consideration of the 2.5 million comments that have been received by the State Department. But, hey, it could help a House Member beat a Senate Member and get elected to the Senate, so I guess it is a bad bill whose time has come. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, would you tell me the time remaining, please.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman mentioned taxpayers. I think taxpayers might be concerned that this foreign entity which will ship our oil over 1,700 miles across America will be exempt from a fee that all of the American companies and others using our current pipelines have to pay because of a bizarre ruling from the IRS, which often makes bizarre rulings. Tar sands oil will not be required to contribute toward the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. I think U.S. taxpayers might be concerned that a foreign entity which is going to ship tar sands oil 1,700 miles through the United States to an export zone, in all probability to be processed and exported in a tax-exempt area, won't be paying much, if any, taxes in the U.S. except some property taxes, and it won't have to contribute toward this trust fund. In case there is a spill with this line, the U.S. taxpayers and other entities in the U.S.--mostly U.S. companies--will be liable to pay for their mess. So I have a concern about taxpayers. Another part of this is three citizens of the State of Nebraska brought litigation because this bill would give a foreign entity the right to take their private property in the United States of America-- in Nebraska--by eminent domain. I don't know. I am not aware of any other time we have given a foreign entity the right to take the private property of U.S. citizens. These same citizens won a case in district court, and this bill would essentially nullify the ruling that they won, which is still under appeal to the Supreme Court in that State. So here we have a foreign entity that won't pay taxes that other oil companies and others who ship by pipelines will be required to pay, a foreign entity that will be given the right to take the private property of U.S. taxpayers and residents--and for what? Yes, there will be construction jobs, and jobs are good, but those are fairly ephemeral, and there is a lot of other construction going on, particularly in the fracking area and with some proposed liquid natural gas export facilities that will help provide employment in the construction trades. In this case, there will be 35 permanent jobs for this tax-exempt sludge that will be shipped to a zone in Texas where it is most likely to be exported. Do we need to export more oil, gas, and diesel from the United States of America? Is that going to help lower the price at the pump for Americans? I don't think so. And, in fact, we are today exporting 422,000 barrels of gasoline a day, 1.3 million barrels of diesel every day, and yet truckers are still being pretty well extorted at the pump. That is 54.6 million gallons of diesel, and yet our truckers are still being gouged at the pump because there is a diesel shortage. Well, wait a minute. We are exporting that, and now we are going to take this tar sand goop, process it in the U.S., and export it. That is not going to help the truckers. It is not going to help the American consumers. And then there are some minor environmental issues. You know, tar sands do create 81 percent more greenhouse gas than most other forms of fossil fuel extraction. They are going to destroy forever large portions of boreal forest. Now, sure, that is a Canadian issue. If I lived in Canada, I would be protesting this. I don't. But we don't need to facilitate it in the United States of America by building a pipeline there. They will use precious water resources, create huge waste pits that will be polluted with the extract, except for the part which is shipped south to be processed and shipped overseas. So I really don't see this as something where we should preempt the laws of the United States. There were 2.5 million comments. Apparently the Republicans don't care much about the public comments. There are 2.5 million comments that are still being meaningfully evaluated that are raising concerns about various aspects of this project. But here I will say, bad legislation; good politics. We are trying to help someone get elected to the Senate who is currently a Member of the House. The Senate is moving potentially ahead with this bill. So the House, with very little notice, decided they would bring up this bill which we have passed in one version or another eight previous times. So this is nothing but bare, naked politics and the use of the House to promote someone's candidacy to the United States Senate, which I think is really a disgrace to this institution. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would start out by saying this feels like Groundhog Day, but I have already done that when we brought up these same bills multiple times in the past. I could start, as I did the last time we considered this package of bills, by reading a statement from the last time we debated these bills and then pretend to get angry at my staff because they gave me a statement that is 8 months old, but I made that point the last time we debated this energy package on the floor. Mr. Speaker, the House has passed nearly all the provisions in this bill at least two times. Now, I think most Americans still remember high school civics. The House passes a bill; they send it to the Senate. The Senate either takes it up or not; and, if they do, then we work out our differences in conference committee and send it to the President for signature. We just keep sending the same bills over to the Senate under the premise that, somehow, they will do something because it has been sent multiples times from the House. It hasn't worked in the past, and it won't work in the future. This package really also ignores reality. We are producing more natural gas than we ever have and more oil than in over 25 years. We are projected to be the number one oil producer in the world in the next few years. Meanwhile, thanks to a worldwide glut of oil, gas prices are going down. They are the lowest they have been this time of year since 2010, except perhaps in my State, where we are getting price-gouged because we don't have a refinery. If Republicans really cared about keeping gas prices down for American consumers, maybe they would take a serious look at the fact that we are exporting 1.6 million barrels of gasoline and diesel every day. There is no shortage. We are exporting 1.6 million barrels a day; yet truckers are paying extraordinarily high diesel prices because we are exporting more and more diesel and saying, ``Well, you have got to pay the same price they are going to pay in Europe.'' Mr. Speaker, inside the Beltway here, we don't really deal with facts and statistics very much; so, today, we will take up and pass the same tired legislation for the second, third, or fourth time so any Republican Members who happen to be in a tough race can claim that they have been productive on this issue. This is just an opportunity to check the energy box again and again so you can try to get voters to check the box for the so-called energy experts on the ballot, but we are not legislating; instead, we are wasting time and taxpayer money to put on a rerun show. If you are going to do a rerun show, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, then I am going to do the same. Every time we have come to the floor to debate another legislative fish wrap this summer, I have brought up the same issue, Western wildfires. Now, this poster shows Weed, California--or what is left of it. A wildfire destroyed half the town and over 150 homes. In my home State, a major fire is burning 10 miles away from the town of Estacada, threatening over 150 homes, forcing evacuations, and forcing the Governor to use the State's conflagration act to mobilize emergency resources. In the West, there are over 50 active fires burning, one in the Willamette Forest outside of Eugene and Springfield. It is costing $1 million a day with attempts to keep it from running toward a town. Two days ago, the Forest Service said they have $179 million left for suppression. Last week alone, they spent $150 million on suppression efforts. That means, next week, while we are out of session, they will run out of money, and they will do what they always do: they will start pulling back money from the fuel reduction, forest health, and other programs to fight the fires. You can't stop fighting the fires. These fires are enormous, unnatural, and unprecedented in many ways. On top of that, we have a drought which might or might not have to do with climate change, which the other side of the aisle doesn't believe in, but, nonetheless, they are a fact. Now, it doesn't have to be this way. We could do something real. We have the rarest thing in Washington, D.C.--a bipartisan--that means Democrats and Republicans are on a bill, 52 House Members, including myself, 52 Republicans on a bill--bicameral--similar bill, same bill in the Senate--supported by Democrats and Republicans, and, lo and behold, it is a bill supported by President Obama. Maybe that is why they won't even hold a hearing on it or move it-- because the President supports it--despite the fact that it would deal with a very real problem. We aren't investing enough money in a regular fashion to get ahead of the fire problem in the West and to do the fuel reduction and the forest health we need. The agencies don't have enough in their budgets, and, every year, in fact, they overspend their firefighting budgets, and they have to cancel projects and other needed activities. There has been no hearing on the bill. We can't find time to hold a hearing on a bill that has to do with wildfires that are burning up the West. We can't find the time; instead, we are going to pass these bills for the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth time. We can't find the time. We are too busy here pretending. We have 196 Democrats who have signed a petition to overrule the Republican leadership and bring that bill to the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Fifty-two Republicans are cosponsors of that bill. Many of them have active fires burning in their districts; and will they defy their leadership and do something that is needed for Americans in the Western United States, needed for our natural resources, and needed to prevent these towns from burning down? No. They can't do that. They will not sign the petition. So here we are. Western communities are burning. You can pretty much step outside the door and smell the smoke from here. We have a potential solution to get ahead of this problem in the future and deal better with it, but, instead, we are wasting time here today passing, yet again, bills that have already been passed and have already been sent to the Senate, but we will send them over to the Senate again, and they can put them on the same stack of paper. If you look at these pictures, we are wasting the second-to-last day--well, now, it is the last day, actually--on repeat because we have to get home for elections. I mean, we don't need to pass the budget for the year, the appropriations bills. We don't need to take more meaningful consideration of what we are getting into in the Middle East and spend more time on it, and we can't certainly find any time to deal with the wildfire issue. Let's just pretend. Yet, again, you get to check a pointless box, and I don't think the American people are going to be fooled. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, remember, should this bill pass and become law, which it never will, it will tie us to the 2003-2008 guidance, which the Farm Bureau has described as a hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent jurisdictional theories, and will result in and is resulting in increased delays and costs to the public at large. That is why we are here today. Everybody agrees that we need clarification, but you are excluding them from using the judicial decisions and any document that was used in coming up with this problematic rule, and you are saying you can't use any of that. So, basically, we are stuck with the 2003-2008 guidance, which, prior to this grandstanding over here, everybody agreed needed to be fixed. Now we are going to be stuck with it forever. Instead of using a legislative scalpel, you pulled out the giant sledgehammer here. Sometimes it is harder to be a legislator and to actually get into the guts of something and figure out what is wrong and what isn't wrong, and Mr. Bishop has done that. They cannot expand the scope beyond those water bodies covered prior to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in those two cases, and it cannot be inconsistent with the judicial opinions of Scalia's and Kennedy's in Rapanos. This is not judgmental stuff. These are clear legislative restrictions. This would be taking and putting walls around their rulemaking and saying, no, you're staying inside those rules. In addition to that, they can't increase the regulation of ditches. They can't eliminate any historical statutory or regulatory exemptions for agriculture, which do not exist under the 2003-2008 rules. There are questions about ditches under the 2003-2008 rules, and they are interpreted differently in all parts of the country. You are going to bind us to something that doesn't work because you want to grandstand and pretend you are doing something for people who have legitimate concerns. Sometimes it is harder to say to them that this is a difficult and complicated question, because Americans want to preserve the clean waters of the United States. We don't want to go back in time, but we also want you people to farm and to ranch and to do other productive activities. That is hard to do, and that isn't what this bill before us today will do. It will bind us to the problems of the past.

Mr. DeFAZIO. It is unfortunate that we are here today. We have departed from reality, which would be the districts we represent, where I just spent 5 weeks, and now we are back inside the Beltway. And we are doing things in this case that we know will never become law, but we do have an opportunity actually to do something real and allay the concerns--legitimate concerns--of farmers, ranchers, and others who feel that the EPA is either overreaching or has written a somewhat garbled rule. I would agree with that. But instead of approaching it in a measured way and saying we want to be certain that you are not doing this, and we want to be certain that you are doing this, this would say that anything and everything that they have considered over the last 2 years in developing this rule is now ineligible for future consideration. Well, what does that mean? Well, it means that the determination that certain things are exempt, well, we probably can't revisit those. Can we use the Court's decision or any of those documents? Seems not. So where do we end up if this cockamamy thing passes the House and becomes law--which it won't? Well, where we end up is back in the earlier era of the 2003 and 2008 guidances. And many of the groups that are here today supporting this unbelievably broad overreach are actually groups who had objected strenuously to what the Bush administration did in the 2003 guidance and the 2008 guidance. Here is a quote from the American Farm Bureau, 2003: No clear regulatory definitions to guide their determinations. What has emerged is a hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent jurisdictional theories. 2008, American Farm Bureau: Guidance is causing confusion, added delays in an already burdened and strained permit decisionmaking process which ultimately will result and is resulting in increased delays and costs to the public at large. Then, on the other side, groups such as the National Wildlife Federation and Ducks Unlimited also found the objections of the 2003 and 2008 guidances to be totally inadequate, and, of course, the Supreme Court itself split 4-1-4 on one of the guiding documents behind this. So instead of wading in, rolling up your sleeves, and acting like legislators, you are acting like idiot ideologues here today. You are saying nothing that was considered in developing this rule can ever be used again to develop a future rule. What does that mean? That means you are stuck with a 2003-2008 guidance, which all these groups found to be disturbingly inconsistent, expensive, causing unnecessary delays, and we need new guidance. We do need new guidance. We do need new definition. There are some who have the agenda of wanting to repeal the Clean Water Act altogether. Let's go back to the good old days, when you could light a match and watch the Cuyahoga River burn or when the Willamette River in Oregon was an open sewer. Let's go back to those good old days before the Clean Water Act. No, I don't think the American people want to go there, and I don't think a majority in this House want to go there, but instead of fixing and limiting the problems and the potential defects of this incompetent rulemaking that is ongoing and is, at this point, only proposed, perhaps the Agency itself will wake up and withdraw and revise the rule. That is what public comment periods are all about; but no, we are going to preempt it before then and say nothing that went into developing this rule can ever be considered again in developing another rule. You are stuck with something that doesn't work, which these same groups object to. It is just very sad that we are aren't a legislative body anymore. You take someone who has got a tough race, you give them a bill, they go out and rah-rah-rah, they pretend they did something, and they go home and get reelected, instead of really doing something.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, there are two real crises before us, and the Republican response was the misbegotten legislation, withdrawn yesterday, as it should have been, but the other wasn't even on the table in any form. There were 236 new fires started in the Western United States last night. There are 31 large fires that are uncontained. And the Forest Service and the BLM are running out of money. In the Senate bill-- which, granted, it didn't pass--but in the President's proposal was emergency firefighting money. But somehow, the Republicans here don't think those fires are an emergency and they don't care about the loss of resources, the potential loss of life, and the loss of property that is going to result. When those agencies run out of money, they can't stop fighting the fires, but they have will have to cut back on programs of preparedness and things that would mitigate the disaster of future fires, deal with forest health, fuel reduction, and all those things. But they couldn't care less. They are taking no action. They didn't even put forward a lame proposal on that, unlike their very lame proposal on the border.