Denny Heck

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this floor for the last time. My purpose is to convey two simple thoughts: first, an expression of gratitude, foremost to my wife, Paula--we are newlyweds; we have only been married 44 years--and to my two sons. Their support has been the only reason that I have been able to do this. I have been absent. I am sorry. I promise to do better. Thank you as well to my staff. Every Member here knows we ain't nothing without them. We are just the ornament on the hood of the car, and they are the engine. They have both my undying love and gratitude. Thank you to my colleagues. My life is enriched, and I am a better person for having known you. And a very special callout to my dear, dear friend, albeit messy roommate, and an outstanding legislator, Derek Kilmer. Last, thank you to the people of the 10th Congressional District of Washington, whom I affectionately but sincerely refer to as my bosses. You sent me here to represent a newly created congressional district. It has truly been my privilege. Thank you. Second, a plea, a plea to all those who follow here: Please, please work to nurture this institution. Institutions sustain us, be they our houses of worship for our faith or this secular equivalent for our democracy. They get us through hard times, but only if we tend to them. Citizens in a democracy have, of course, rights and responsibilities; Members of this institution, this body, likewise. We are all too aware of our rights here, but it is the responsibilities that bear emphasizing. We have a responsibility to conduct ourselves in a civil fashion. It is self-evident that civic discourse in America has degraded; some would say that it has even become vulgar. You know, it is hard to reach agreement with a colleague tomorrow that we have character assassinated today. So let us not measure our success in terms of the number of Twitter followers we have gathered through emotion-charged or clever attacks. Let us not define those with whom we disagree, even if that disagreement is profound, as ``the other.'' We live in a pluralistic society. Part of our responsibility is to figure out how the political Rubik's Cube comes together; getting to ``yes'' among different and competing points of view; fashioning a result where everyone can get up from the table, perhaps not with everything they sought, but with enough to vote ``yes'' while still being true to their values. There is such a thing as principled compromise. Indeed, I believe that principled compromise is the only way we can move forward and lift up those around us in desperate need of our help. Do we no longer believe that? Or did we forget it? Where I have failed to live up to these ideals, I beg your forgiveness. I can only promise to keep trying. Finally, I cannot help but think of the eternal wisdom of our former colleague, John Dingell, the longest serving Member of this Chamber in our Nation's history. When I arrived here, every first-term Member walked on down to where he sat and sought his advice, and he gave the same to everyone; the same to everyone. He would look us in the eye and say: You have an important job--a very important job--and you are not a very important person. Indeed, John taught us that we do not possess power, but that we only hold it in trust. For the privilege of holding the trust for these last 8 years, I am forever changed and forever grateful. I am 2,300 miles out and headed home. With that, Mr. Speaker, I permanently yield back.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the en bloc group of amendments including mine, bipartisan amendment No. 318, to increase funding for the Indian Community Development Block Grant. This is about creating jobs and addressing housing needs in Indian Country. For far too long, native communities have experienced poverty and overcrowded, dilapidated housing at a rate much higher than the rest of the Nation. My bipartisan amendment would help Tribes address these longstanding challenges by increasing funding for the Indian Community Development Block Grant by $5 million. Boosting funding for this program is a small yet meaningful step to improve housing and economic opportunities in Indian Country. But we can't stop there. We must continue our work to improve housing in native communities. I thank Representatives Young, Haaland, Moore, Gabbard, and Huffman for cosponsoring this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Early in my service, I got out of the car in the parking garage to walk into Cannon, and Mr. Lewis walked up behind me. I turned and he said: ``Good morning, my brother.'' I opened the door to try to point for him to enter first, and he said: ``You first, my brother.'' I often heard him refer to my colleagues as ``my brother'' or ``my sister,'' and for a while I actually was fooled into thinking that was because he hadn't yet learned our named. But that wasn't it. He knew. It was more a sign of respect and affection and mutuality. No one has ever walked in this Chamber on this floor, before, now, or in the future, who will ever command the love and reverence of him, because he was a great man. Godspeed to you in your journey, John Robert Lewis, my brother.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Waters. I rise in support of H.R. 7301, and I thank the chair for including my legislation, the Emergency Rental Assistance Act, in this bill. In 2 days, the rent comes due, and as we face historic levels of unemployment, far too many are going to come up short in their rent payment. Failure to address the rent crisis will have dire consequences for millions of Americans and for the housing ecosystem that fortifies our economy. Our legislation has 150 House sponsors and the endorsement of almost 700 organizations, and it passed the House as a part of the HEROES Act. It provides $100 billion in rental assistance through the Emergency Solutions Grants program. It would change the lives of millions of tenants across the country who have been hit hard by the COVID-19 crisis. Over 10 million families pay more than half of their incomes for rent. As job losses continue and eviction moratoriums expire, that is not going to improve. We must protect the housing ecosystem. Residential rent payments are $50 billion each month and represent a chain of payment between staff, maintenance, and contractors. As unemployment claims remain at historic highs, we can't afford to lose those jobs. This legislation is also for mom-and-pop landlords. Yes, they own more than half of the 20 million rental properties, and they can't afford a big rental income loss for a sustained period. If we do nothing to stop the spike in evictions, in homelessness, communities of color will be hardest hit. We need to be fighting systemic racism, not exacerbating it. So support this legislation. Keep Americans safely in their homes throughout the pandemic. Save the renters. Save the jobs. Save the housing ecosystem by voting ``yes'' on this measure.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for introducing this important measure, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This resolution is especially timely as we reckon with the legacy of discrimination in our country. In that process, we must consider how housing policy has contributed to systemic inequality. For decades in this country, we allowed a Federal agency to legitimize racial discrimination by creating those color-coded maps indicating where investments would be profitable, ``greenlined,'' or where it would not be, ``redlined.'' We built institutional obstacles for Black families trying to purchase a home, and that resulted in devastating, intergenerational financial disadvantages. Redlining prevented access to the single most important wealth- building tool an American has access to, that is, owning a home. The result? Black families have a median net worth of $17,000, compared to $171,000 for White families. In fact, homeownership by Black families is 44 percent, and by White families, 74 percent. We have a responsibility to do everything we can to correct this. After all, we created it. Yet, in the middle of a pandemic that has made racial disparities all the more pronounced, the OCC rushed out a final rule that undermined the legislation that made redlining illegal, and they even did it without the support of the Federal Reserve or FDIC. The OCC's vague definitions and overly simplistic metrics do not do justice to what a crucial role homeownership and housing policy have played in racial inequality. Their approach takes us backward. If you don't want to go backward, vote ``yes'' on this measure. If you believe homeownership should be available to all Americans, regardless of skin color, vote ``yes'' on this matter. If you oppose redlining, vote ``yes'' on this measure. If you want to stand for racial justice, vote ``yes'' on this measure.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I do, in fact, rise in support of H.R. 4351, the Yes In My Backyard, or YIMBY, Act. I thank the gentleman from Guam (Mr. San Nicolas) as well as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for bringing this to the floor. Our Nation is, in fact, suffering from a severe national housing crisis, a word that is overused too much but, in fact, applies to the situation. We are indeed missing millions of homes to meet qualified and eligible demand in this country. The reference earlier was to 7.3 million. Estimates range from 7 to 10 million homes. In my home State alone, to put that in perspective, Washington State, we are underproduced by 200,000 homes. The implications of not having enough homes, of a supply problem, are grave, because housing, it turns out, is an ecosystem. What we see now is this entire ecosystem is under stress, and as a consequence, the cost of shelter is going up for everyone. From homeowners to renters, market-rate to affordable homes, and urban to suburban and rural areas, this housing crisis has hit everyone. One place where it is particularly acute is the production of starter homes. Stop and think about what that does to the ecosystem. If we are not building starter homes because of some of the fees, as an example, or regulations that my friend from Arkansas alluded to, that means that people who are renting can't quite get that first rung on the ladder of homeownership. It also means that the boomers who are seeking to downsize can't find homes that they can purchase. What is the implication of that? If there are no starter homes, more people stay renting. If more people stay renting, occupancies go up. If occupancies go up, rents go up. It is pure supply and demand. More people become rent-burdened, and, yes, in fact, this is a contributory cause of increased homelessness even in America. How severe is this? Little known fact, but a fact nonetheless: In the last 15 years, the single largest increase in household budgets, counterintuitively, is not healthcare, not postsecondary education, but it is housing. I have been saying for years that we need to encourage the construction of more homes that Americans can afford. We need to build more homes of all types and sizes for all of our neighbors. Now, affordable housing advocates, economists, builders, lenders, and countless others have come together to try to begin to solve this problem, now a crisis, and there are a few common themes beginning to emerge from their research. One of these common themes is that certain zoning and land use policies are negatively impacting construction and affordable housing supply. Local governments regulate zoning and land use policy, and we shouldn't be doing that here. That is not what this bill is about. The fact of the matter is, communities experience different barriers to housing. One size doesn't fit all, so we shouldn't be getting into that business. But the impact of zoning and land use policies on housing are significant. As certain regulations have increased, they have resulted in fewer homes and unaffordable housing cost increases for everyone, the hardest hit being low-income people. Here is another fact. There is not a single county in the United States of America where somebody working full time at a minimum wage job can afford, according to Federal standards, a two-bedroom unit--not a single county in all of America. That is why I argue that we must have a better understanding of the impacts of these policies. Sunlight is, after all, the best disinfectant. Under the YIMBY Act, local governments receiving Federal housing funds through the Community Development Block Grant program, or CDBG, would report on whether they have enacted policies to reduce regulations that affect affordable housing supply. Let's be clear. There is nothing in this bill that will deny municipalities CDBG--nothing. Rather, the bill seeks simple transparency for these decisions. It encourages localities to eliminate housing barriers. I introduced the YIMBY Act with my friend, Congressman Hollingsworth from Indiana, and it did, in fact, pass out of the committee unopposed. But it is not only bipartisan. It enjoys an incredible spectrum of support among external stakeholders. I am not going to bore you with all 18 organizations, but everybody from the American Planning Association, to Habitat for Humanity, to the Mortgage Bankers Association all back this bill because it is time to take this step. Solving the housing crisis is going to require the work and collaboration of all levels of government. Everybody has a hand on the oar here, local, State, and Federal governments. This is no longer something that elected officials at any level can ignore, and that includes us. We have a national housing crisis, one that is brought on in part by zoning and land use policies. This YIMBY Act is a crucial first step to addressing these policies in order to bring down housing costs. Mr. Speaker, I submit it to the body for its favorable consideration, and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Guam (Mr. San Nicolas), and the chair of the committee as well for their work bringing this to the floor today.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Financial Services, I am deeply committed to strengthening consumer protections through legislative action. I was proud to vote in support of each of the bills in H.R. 3621--Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020 in committee, and I commend my colleagues for passing the package out of the House. While I was unfortunately unable to vote on House passage, I would have voted in support.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, I was unable to cast votes during the week of January 27th to January 31st, 2020, due to an inability to fly while recovering from an upper-respiratory infection. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 23; YEA on Roll Call No. 24; YEA on Roll Call No. 25; YEA on Roll Call No. 26; YEA on Roll Call No. 27; YEA on Roll Call No. 28; YEA on Roll Call No. 29; NAY on Roll Call No. 30; YEA on Roll Call No. 31; YEA on Roll Call No. 32; YEA on Roll Call No. 33; and YEA on Roll Call No. 34.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, authorizing military force is the most sobering responsibility Congress has. Washington's 10th District includes Joint Base Lewis-McChord, where over 40,000 servicemembers are stationed. I am very aware that every decision I make can affect their lives and the lives of their families. I take that responsibility very seriously. In 2001, Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force only three days after the September 11th attacks. Because the country was still trying to determine exactly how we had been attacked, that AUMF was written broadly. In the time since, the 2001 AUMF has been used dozens of times to justify military action. Subsequently, Congress passed another AUMF in 2002, which authorized military action in Iraq. President Trump cited the 2002 AUMF as justification for his decision to kill Qassem Soleimani in early January, more than 17 years after the AUMF's passage. I have advocated for the end of the 2002 AUMF since 2014, during my first term in Congress. But it was only when I joined the House Intelligence Committee last Congress that I fully appreciated the scope and scale of our missions around the world. I would have joined my colleagues in voting to repeal the 2002 AUMF, and I was proud to cosponsor the underlying resolution. I strongly believe that Congress must reassert its role in decisions of when to use military force. The 2002 AUMF has been used to justify military action that had not been contemplated by Congress. By repealing it, Congress will bring grave decisions about war and military action closer to the people whose lives will be altered by them. I am glad the House voted for such an outcome.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, my heart is at half-mast after the passing of a business leader from my home state, Jack Creighton. He was a beloved husband, father, and grandfather. He was also a mentor and a friend. Jack had an impressive resume. President and CEO of Weyerhaeuser, Interim Chairman and CEO of United Airlines, national president of the Boy Scouts of America, Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army-- those are just a few of the highlights. If I were to list all his career accomplishments, board memberships, foundation involvements, and community projects, that list would take up more space in the Record than I am permitted. But those who knew Jack--as I was so fortunate to have--understand that there was so much more to him than his resume. Simply reading through his list of accomplishments, impressive as it is, misses the essence of Jack's contributions to our society and the many people whose lives have been enriched and improved because of him. I am one such person. Several years before I first ran for Congress, I co-founded a company that provides professional learning and training services to Fortune 500 companies. As the company grew, Jack became the chairman of the board. I had ongoing involvement in the management and operations of the business, as I was also a board member. The truth is that I learned much more than I contributed. Sitting next to Jack every meeting was like going to graduate school for business. But beyond his vast knowledge and business acumen, Jack brought something else to our board meetings, something that has stayed with me ever since, something I hope to emulate: his compassion. Jack cared deeply for the employees of the company and always looked out for their interests. ``We have to take care of our people,'' he frequently said. To Jack, a successful business wasn't measured merely by impressive numbers on a balance sheet; it was about the people. The most effective way to invest in the success of a company was to invest in the success of the people who comprise it. Madam Speaker, I ask that the House join me in honoring the life and contributions of Jack Creighton, and in sending condolences to his wife, Dr. Jan Creighton, and the entire Creighton family. I will remember Jack as a teacher, a mentor, and a friend. Knowing him has made me a better person. While he is no longer with us, his example remains and will continue to inspire those who knew him, because Jack knew that a successful life is not measured merely by impressive lines on a resume. It is about the people. And the most effective way to make the world a better place is to invest in the success of the people who comprise it.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, several important considerations underlie the purpose and intent of the Puget SOS Act. Puget Sound and its tributary waters are one of the most ecologically diverse ecosystems in North America with natural resources that have ecological, economic, and cultural importance to the United States and the many Tribal nations that have stewarded it for millennia. The health and productivity of Puget Sound is not only the cornerstone of the region's quality of life and vibrant economy, but its worldclass salmon fishery, commercial aquaculture, agriculture, and port activities ripple throughout the Nation. Threats to Puget Sound, such as water pollution, sediment contamination, environmental degradation, and habitat loss, jeopardize the economic productivity and natural resources that support the increasing population of the region. For nearly a decade, State, local, and Tribal governments, cooperative partnerships, and concerned citizens have worked together in a deliberate and coordinated way to direct and manage public resource allocation toward habitat restoration, improving water quality and shellfish farms, and developing a body of scientific knowledge, all of which have advanced the Puget Sound recovery efforts. Tribal governments with treaty-reserved rights in the natural resources of Puget Sound have long served as co-managers of fishery resources, have engaged in Puget Sound Partnership processes and public forums to encourage a holistic and scientific approach to recovery efforts, and have continued in their role as stewards of Puget Sound, including by engaging with multi-faceted restoration and protection actions, and are thus an indispensable, equal partner in all Puget Sound recovery actions. Despite significant and nationally recognized accomplishments, the rate of damage to Puget Sound still exceeds the rate of recovery. To outpace mounting pollutants and other cascading negative impacts, the next step in fortifying the recovery system is to align Federal recovery and protection efforts seamlessly with State, local, and Tribal investments, as the Puget SOS Act would do. Water and air pollution, sediment contamination, habitat loss and decline, and water flow disruption continue to devastate the fish, marine mammal, bird, and shellfish populations of Puget Sound, threatening local economies, and Tribal treaty rights, and contributing to: Significant declines in the populations of wild Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Summer Chum Salmon, Steelhead, and Pacific Herring, which are essential food sources for humans, fish, seabirds, mammals, and other wildlife; Risks to the sustainability of fish arid- shellfish populations, and their food chains, reproductive cycles, and habitats, which also threaten Federal obligations to protect Tribal resources, culture, traditions, and economies; Marine species being listed as at-risk or vulnerable to extinction, according to State, Federal, and provincial lists that identify the species of Puget Sound and surrounding areas, including the iconic population of southern resident Orca whales; Sediment contaminated with toxic substances--such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals (mercury), and oil (grease)--polluting Puget Sound, threatening public health, and posing; significant dangers to humans, fish, and wildlife; Rivers and beaches failing to meet water quality standards and becoming unsafe for salmon, as well as business and recreational activities, such as fishing and swimming; The closing of shellfish beds from contaminated pollution caused by sources such as stormwater and agricultural runoff; and Mortalities and morbidity in shellfish due to the acidification of Puget Sound. Puget Sound is a national treasure and its recovery and protection will significantly contribute to the environmental, cultural, and economic well-being of the United States and the many Tribal nations that have stewarded it for millennia. The PUGET SOS Act underscores the recognition that Federal Government should align its efforts and resources to fully implement and enforce the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, including State implementation of non-point source water quality standards for salmon, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and all other Federal laws that contribute to the recovery and protection of Puget Sound. The Act also recognizes that the Federal Government should uphold Federal trust responsibilities to restore and protect resources crucial to Tribal treaty rights--including by carrying out government-to-government consultation--as well as support regional, local, and Tribal efforts to address environmental challenges. The PUGET SOS Act is intended, among other things, to ensure that the recovery and protection programs, projects, and initiatives that the Federal Government undertakes in, or that otherwise impact, Puget Sound shall be actively coordinated and aligned with the protection of Tribal treaty rights and resources, the Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative, Salmon Recovery Plans, the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, and the Puget Sound Action Agenda. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to all stakeholders who have come together to advocate for the recovery and protection of Puget Sound. The PUGET SOS Act is an important step towards those goals, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. Mr. Speaker, I do indeed rise in strong support of H.R. 2247, the Promoting United Government Efforts to Save Our Sound, or the PUGET SOS Act. As indicated, Puget Sound is, in fact, located in western Washington, but it is a national treasure. Indeed, to modify just slightly what my friend from Florida suggested, by water volume it is actually the largest estuary in the United States of America. Puget Sound and its tributaries are one of the most ecologically diverse in all of North America, and it is, as has been indicated, the economic engine for the western part of our State, supporting maritime industry, commercial and recreational fishing, shellfish growers, tourism, and recreation. But it is more than that. It is also absolutely critical to the Tribes that reside in Washington State who have stewarded it for literally millennia. And need I remind you; they have treaty-reserved rights to its natural resources. Above and beyond that, it is central to the identity of anyone from western Washington. I ask you this: For those of you who have been to Seattle and have made the comment or a post from an August visit, it is beautiful. What is the image that comes to your mind? It is of Mount Rainier, above the shimmering waters of the Puget Sound. Or--and more about this later--it is of that magnificent black and white fish, the orca, breaching the surface of the water. But here is the deal, Puget Sound is dying. Slowly but surely, it is under serious threat. Water and air pollution, sediment contamination, and water flow disruption continue to devastate the fish, marine, mammal, bird, and shellfish populations of Puget Sound. Indeed, that orca, the Southern Resident orca, population is down to 72, arguably not sustainable because we need to save the Sound. And if these trends continue, we will lose much of what makes Puget Sound a national treasure so special. And that should concern us all. Fortunately, there have been many people across the Puget Sound region that have been treating these deteriorating conditions as a call to action. Tribes, State governments, local groups and private sector people are investing in recovery efforts. Back in 2013, I teamed up with my good friend, roommate and colleague, Congressman Kilmer, to establish the Puget Sound Recovery Caucus to promote Puget Sound preservation at the Federal level. And in 2016, the Obama administration created the Puget Sound Federal Task Force, by executive action, to coordinate recovery efforts more efficiently among the Federal agencies. Still, we must bring more attention to bear on Puget Sound recovery, and that is why we introduced the PUGET SOS Act. The bill will simply codify the Federal task force to ensure that coordination among Federal agencies continue--and we all want that-- into the future and it also creates the Puget Sound Recovery National Program office at the EPA, elevating Puget Sound recovery efforts and putting them on a par with those deservedly of the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. And for the first time, the bill authorizes funding for Federal Puget Sound recovery actions. This is a product of years of collaboration between Tribal, State, and local stakeholders, including private sector investors. Specifically, I thank the members of the committee. I especially thank my friend, Congressman Kilmer. And I most especially thank my friends across the aisle, who joined in cosponsorship in support of this. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the Puget Sound Partnership for their effort. The threats facing the Puget Sound are numerous and they are existential, but I believe that with a strong Federal partnership role and smart investments, we can act before it is too late. We can help recover the Puget Sound and preserve its ecological, economic, and cultural significance for generations to come. The PUGET SOS Act is a strong first step towards recovery, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. And again, I extend my gratitude to all of those who have put your shoulders to the wheel and gotten it this far in the process.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. This idea of America is in peril, brought about so by this President, who sought to cheat in an election, a President who puts himself above the law and attacks the bedrock constitutional precept of checks and balances. Yet, the question is, can America survive this behavior? What ideal will we hand down to those who follow us? And, finally, what is our obligation to those who would follow? It is simply this: to do our duty, to defend the Constitution and the values underpinning it by voting ``yes'' on the Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, this week, Americans are busy finishing up their Christmas shopping mostly for their children, or if they are lucky enough to have them, their grandchildren. And high school and college students are taking final exams and sweating out the results. That got me to thinking about those who follow and what our obligation is to them, and that got me to thinking about those who came before and how they might have seen their obligation to us, people like my grandfather, who our family believes literally was born on the boat on the way over here from Germany, or my father, who fought in World War II against the very people that his grandfather had left. We are all here today, all of us, because someone before us sacrificed so that they could journey here and build a new life in this unique land. We are here today because those immigrants and their children were dedicated not just to the land of America, but to the idea: freedom and opportunity secured by self-government, choosing our own leaders in free and fair elections, and the rule of law under the Constitution.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4029, the bipartisan Tribal Access to Homeless Assistance Act. As Congress is working to alleviate our national housing crisis, we also need to make sure our Federal assistance is getting to those that are hardest hit. And Indian country is facing a severe pervasive housing crisis. There is a widespread lack of affordable housing. Mr. Speaker, 38 percent of Native American households are considered cost-burdened by high housing costs. Insufficient stock of affordable safe housing in Indian country also results in increased homelessness. A study commissioned by HUD--I presume the same one referred to by my friend from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner)--found that there are between 42,000 and 85,000 homeless Native Americans living on Tribal lands. That is several times the number of people who are homeless in Seattle and in San Francisco combined. And unfortunately, both cities are known for having significant homeless populations. On Tribal lands, homelessness also leads to overcrowding. Families double up by taking in friends and loved ones who can no longer afford their housing. And as has been indicated, 16 percent of Native American and Alaskan Native households experience overcrowding. It is worth repeating--16 percent compared to 2 percent in the general population. So, here is the thing about homelessness and overcrowding that we all know intuitively but it behooves us to be reminded of it: When you are homeless or in an overcrowded circumstance, it is nearly impossible to find a meaningful job or go to school or otherwise engage in the community. When you are constantly worried about shelter, you are unable to deal with whatever other issues you are confronted with in your life, whether it is health or holding down a job or substance abuse. I have also considered that one of the most important duties I have as a Member of Congress is ensuring the sovereignty of the four Tribes in the district I have a privilege to represent and the 29 Tribes in my State, and to help them as they work to help their Tribal members on a range of issues, including combatting homelessness in Indian country. I know you all feel the same way. That is our Federal trust responsibility, and that is why I introduced this legislation. Despite the prevalence of homelessness in Indian country, Tribes and Tribally designated housing entities simply cannot access the homeless assistance grants offered by HUD, including the Continuum of Care program, and this bill fixes that. By establishing Tribal eligibility to compete for HUD McKinney-Vento Continuum of Care grants, this bill would improve Tribes' ability to combat homelessness and, frankly, potentially help tens of thousands of people. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Young who is also a part of this bipartisan deal, and former Congressman Duffy, for joining me in introducing this bill. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 4029 today. And finally, let us note, this bill is an important first step to fulfill our obligations to Indian country, but to be clear, this is not the last step. I hope to soon introduce a bill to reauthorize and update the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act--we call it NAHASDA for short. NAHASDA is a critically important program that helps provide safe and affordable housing to Tribes and their members. I look forward to working with Chair Waters in the full committee on a bipartisan NAHASDA bill as we continue to discuss how we can continue or keep our obligations to Indian country.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this motion, because I also rise, as I have so many times before, as a strong supporter of the Export-Import Bank, and I am going to tell you why. It is because I want us to be a nation that builds things. I want the most advanced factories in the world, building the most complex goods invented, to be located in America and filled with American workers. That is what I want. And I actually think we all, all 435 of us, want that. We vote for manufacturing tax breaks. We vote for infrastructure to improve the shipment of manufactured goods. We vote for programs to develop a manufacturing workforce. Those bills are not controversial, because we all want American manufacturers to keep their production facilities here. We want them to tap into new markets and add more ships and keep increasing good-paying jobs that don't require a mountain of college debt. But to do that, we must have a robust export credit agency. Private markets simply cannot meet the needs of our smallest and largest exporters. Every other major economy in the world has figured this out. They all set up export credit agencies to boost their manufacturers. Only the U.S. alone sabotages itself. For 7 years I have been fighting to end this sabotage and to restore the Bank to its rightful place supporting manufacturing jobs, and we are slowly succeeding, but none of it has come easy. Over 7 years, the opponents of the Bank have evolved in their tactics. At first, they outright opposed the Bank and called for it to be shuttered. Ultimately, those arguments failed, because we didn't want to unilaterally disarm. Next, they claimed to support the Ex-Im, but only if the agency's charter was crippled in its support for our most advanced manufacturing goods. They would restrict the Bank from backing sales in--listen to this, Mr. Speaker--U.S. locomotives and aircrafts and turbines to our largest foreign markets. Again, these arguments failed, because we knew our purpose was to support American workers. Finally, in the last few weeks, we have come to this point where support of Ex-Im is conditioned on turning it into a foreign policy agency, but these arguments must fail too. Everyone on both sides of the Chamber wants to do more to combat the near peer competition of China and all the threat that they pose to our system of government and our values, but passion untempered by expertise can lead to some very bad outcomes. The truth is, the Financial Services Committee does not have the expertise necessary to make China policy. The Ex-Im Bank does not have the expertise either, and I fear that making it to do so will lead to very bad outcomes, loss of U.S. goods and lost jobs for U.S. workers. The MTR would create one-way sales. They are going to sell to us, but we can't sell to them. A version of this amendment was rejected in committee not once, not twice, not three times, but seven times. No more sales to railroads or to utilities or of airplanes. There is a better way, and it is included in the underlying bill, that is sharply focused and targeted to hold China accountable. I understand the frustration with China, as I have sat on this floor before. You know what? If we want to relitigate admission of China into the WTO, bring it out. Let's have that debate, but let's not do it under the subterfuge of trying to cripple and hamper the Export-Import Bank. There is an exemption in this bill supposedly for small businesses. Mr. Speaker, when are the Republicans going to get into their heads the notion of a supply chain? Big businesses have massive supply chains made up of what? Small businesses. If we pass this MTR, I guarantee this is what is going to happen: increased bankruptcy, factory workers laid off, factories closed in America. That is what will happen. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot. Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans want us to be a nation that builds the most sophisticated machines on land, on sea, in the air, in space, if the Republicans want us to be a nation that sends its goods around the world, defeat this motion, support this bill, and put the Ex-Im on a strong footing to meet the challenges of the decade to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I understand the temptation to dabble in foreign affairs when it comes to Ex-Im reauthorization. We have seen a lot of that here today. But there is a reason why we have separate committees in the House: so that Members can develop expertise and apply that expertise. Financial services, simply put, is not the main repository of that kind of expertise, and it shows in this approach. But let me be clear: No one here wants to support the trafficking of synthetic opioids, of course not. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. This is the wrong way to do it. And, in fact, if my friend, the author of this amendment, and I do consider him a friend--if you want to ensure that those who are sanctioned for dealing illegal opioids cannot use this Bank, vote in support; indeed, vote in support of the McAdams amendment. It is not theater. It is not cover. It is a strong amendment that is targeted and substantive and, in fact, is going to get at the very underlying problem without costing American jobs and without hurting American businesses. So I urge you to join the Foreign Affairs Committee or support the efforts of the McAdams amendment.

Mr. HECK. Mr. Chair, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and nobody is ever going to accuse the other side of having a small mind, because I have been here just long enough to remember when they railed with righteous indignation to pass legislation even though the Obama administration had issued an SAP. Evidently, that is not a standard that applies today, but it applied then. Listen, I have heard no objections to the content of the proposed legislation. What mostly I have heard is that we had a deal that fell apart and it is all our fault. That is pretty good revisionist history. It fell apart because it didn't have the votes. And it wasn't just a question of what happened on the majority side. They know full well there were minority party Members who were not going to vote for it. There was bipartisan opposition, frankly, because of all the external stakeholder opposition, because it does not work. What are the differences, the major differences? Basically, that other deal would have prohibited sale into countries--China, in particular--with state-owned enterprises. What are those? All railroads, all utilities, all airlines. That is not the way we engage other countries and change their behavior. Materially, factually wrong that we would subsidize the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, in the last 30 years, the Export-Import Bank has transferred up to $10 billion into the U.S. Treasury. Listen, I just wish people would have the courage of their convictions. The argument seems to be made, and I think it is a debate worth having, is should we kick China out of the World Trade Organization. That is really what is being said here. Let's have that debate. Looking back, I think it is questionable that they were admitted without stronger accountability, and I think we need stronger accountability. Mr. Chair, great irony, the bill before you has incredible advance progress over current law in terms of accountability with China. So, at the end of the day, here it is: revenue generating, job generating, American jobs. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HECK. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Waters for yielding. Mr. Chair, China, in particular, has used this tactic to crowd out U.S. manufacturers, and Ex-Im will finally have the tool it needs to counter this tactic. I am proud of the work we have done on this bill. Building a stronger Export-Import Bank, if I may be personal for just one second, is one of the main reasons why I was asked and honored to become a member of the Financial Services Committee 7 years ago. This is a bill that would achieve that mission for a decade to come, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. HECK. I thank Chair Waters for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I also am not going to spend much time rebutting the arguments of the previous speaker, indeed, given that he has opposed every single reauthorization of the Ex-Im since he began service in this Chamber--especially since he supported every amendment that would have been harmful in past reauthorization legislation; especially since he had the audacity, frankly, to use Huawei as an example, which he cannot cite a single line in the draft to which he refers that would have prohibited export financing to Huawei, and the bill before you does. No. I am going to use my time to do as I have in the past: to support and defend the bank, one of the most important, least understood elements of our national manufacturing strategy, the Export-Import Bank. It is vital to our national and local economies, especially manufacturers, farmers, and small businesses, but it has suffered badly under misguided attacks, such as that to which you were just treated. I have seen this damage firsthand, despite our ongoing attempts to fight them. This year, I am pleased and proud that we finally have an opportunity to reverse that damage and reinvigorate and expand the Ex-Im. I support the Export-Import Bank because we want to see more U.S. exports. The international market for goods and services is three times as large as our domestic economy, and that gap, by the way, is widening. The American economy has not historically been export oriented, so targeting foreign markets and increasing exports holds untapped promise to raise living standards. As I like to say, if we want to keep our middle class, we better sell into the world's growing middle class. Maximizing exports will require a strong Export-Import Bank. Over the last many years, the committee has heard testimony and seen analysis that the private market will not maximize exports if left to its own devices. Trade financing markets fail in predictable and repeated ways. The scale is too large for new exporters to access; the timeframes are too short for the largest, most expensive products; and there are some countries that private lenders simply will not lend into. So without a robust official export credit agency to fill these gaps, we simply lose out on overseas sales, especially for small businesses and capital equipment makers and farmers. Every country recognizes this fact, but the U.S. alone among major economies has failed to fully act on this knowledge. If we want to maximize our exports, we need to stop the sabotage of our credit agency, the Ex-Im Bank, and enhance it. This is what this reauthorization bill does. It does make several critical changes. It sets the bill up to succeed by increasing the spending cap and expanding the ability to use reinsurance to lay off risk, and setting up new authorities for the bank to go out and search for foreign buyers who it can match with U.S. suppliers, American jobs. It attempts to move past some of the misinformation about the agency's purpose that has dogged the reauthorization fight the last many years by renaming it to focus on its sole purpose: financing and expanding exports of U.S.-made goods. It preserves the requirement that goods must be made in the United States by U.S. workers in order to qualify for assistance from the agency. This is the strongest domestic content requirement in the world, and it reinforces that the core of Ex-Im's mission is supporting U.S. manufacturing jobs. It continues Ex-Im's historical role in leading export credit agencies around the world toward higher environmental standards, stricter pollution controls, and more concern for the effects of infrastructure projects in developing countries. This is a legacy to be proud of and to build on, and I am glad to see that our environmental advocates and our export sector have come together to agree on the importance of this language. It aligns Ex-Im more closely with U.S. foreign policy and anticorruption efforts. Ex-Im financing will now be barred if a foreign customer appears on any one of several bad actor lists maintained by various agencies of the U.S. Government. No, Mr. Chair, it is not a restatement of current policy. It is an expansion of it, and they full well know it. These targeted provisions allow Ex-Im to focus on maximizing U.S. sales to good customers while also increasing the leverage that our foreign policymakers have in encouraging foreign countries and corporations to clean up their act. Finally, it makes it much faster and easier for Ex-Im to match financing terms with those foreign export credit agencies that subsidize financing in their country's exporters.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters of endorsement for H.R. 1595, the SAFE Banking Act, which passed the House on September 25, 2019. National Cannabis Industry Association, March 26, 2019. House Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC. The National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), the largest and oldest national trade association dedicated to protecting state-legal cannabis businesses, defending state laws, and advancing federal policy reforms, would like to offer its support of H.R. 1595, the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2019. On behalf of our members, we thank the committee and Chairwoman Waters for the opportunity to markup this legislation and further discuss providing fair access to banking and financial services for state-licensed cannabis cultivators, processors, and retailers throughout the country. Founded in 2010, NCIA represents nearly 2,000 member- businesses and tens of thousands of cannabis professionals committed to replacing criminal marijuana markets with a responsible and regulated cannabis industry. Currently, our industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, tens of millions in tax revenue, and billions in economic activity. In 2017, the five states that had taxed and regulated adult-use sales (Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) collected more than $790 million in state tax revenue that year. However, per current federal law, cannabis remains a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act. This blocks state-licensed cannabis business and firms providing ancillary products or services to the industry from accessing banking services, forcing them to operate in an all-cash environment. This situation not only creates an unnecessary public safety risk, it poses an undue burden on state and local tax and licensing authorities, which are forced to take large cash payments. These taxes and licensing fees fund the enforcement of state marijuana laws as well as school construction, drug education activities, and infrastructure programs. In order to operate safely and successfully, businesses must have access to traditional financial services. For the cannabis industry, which conducts hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions across the majority of U.S. states, the lack of access to financial services creates public safety hazards, including an increased chance of becoming a target for robberies, loss of economic opportunity, and inability to retain workforce talent. Restricting financial services to licensed cannabis businesses also prevents the elimination of illicit businesses currently operating in the grey and black markets. The SAFE Banking Act of 2019 would offer not only safe harbor for financial institutions that choose to service cannabis related businesses, but would also provide much needed clarity and direction from the federal government. After nearly a decade of significant regulatory changes at the state level, now is the time to pass the SAFE Banking Act of 2019. Ending the conflict between state and federal cannabis laws will promote a sound and robust financial system that best supports the economic growth and job creation driven by the growing number of state-licensed cannabis businesses across the country. Sincerely, Aaron Smith, Executive Director & Founder.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters of endorsement for H.R. 1595, the SAFE Banking Act, which passed the House on September 25, 2019. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Banking and Securities, Harrisburg, PA, September 24, 2019. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: As state banking supervisors, we are responsible for ensuring the safety and soundness of state-chartered banks and credit unions, as well as the regulation of non-depository financial service providers that may provide services to these entities. The financial services industry in state authorized marijuana jurisdictions is unable to effectively service the needs of this new and growing industry because of conflicting federal and state regulation for marijuana. Medical marijuana is available to 67 percent of the country's population, and 11 states have legalized adult recreational use. This significant portion of the country's population is funding a growing cannabis industry. The lack of federal safe harbors or authorization for financial service providers is creating commercial risk for the legitimate marijuana industry, due to the lack of financial servicing of these monies. This absence of servicing encourages a grey economy, as the industry's participants are unable to use safe, regulated, and verifiable money services. Until financial institutions can serve the industry without violating federal laws, then tax collection, consumers, and the financial system will remain at risk. Until Congress can take broader action to more comprehensively address cannabis, we support the passage of H.R. 1595 to provide a safe harbor for depository institutions that supply financial services to legitimate marijuana businesses and allow for the transparent and safe banking of the marijuana industry. We urge a YES vote on H.R. 1595. Robin L. Wiessmann, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities; Candace Frank, Bank Commissioner, Arkansas State Bank Department; Kenneth Boldt, Bank Commissioner, Colorado Division of Banking; Kevin B. Hagler, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Banking and Finance; Iris Ikeda, Commissioner of Financial Institutions, Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs; Deborah Hagan, Secretary, Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation; Anita G. Fox, Director, Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services; John Ducrest, Commissioner, Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions; Lloyd P. LaFountain III, Superintendent, Maine Bureau of Financial Institutions; Mary Gallagher, Commissioner, Massachusetts Division of Banks; Melanie Hall, Commissioner, Montana Division of Banking and Financial Institutions; Christopher Moya, Director, New Mexico Financial Institutions Division; Lise Kruse, Commissioner, North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions; Elizabeth K. Dwyer, Superintendent of Financial Services, Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation; Charles Clark, Director, Washington Department of Financial Institutions; Dawn E. Holstein, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Financial Institutions; Kathy Blumenfeld, Secretary-designee, Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1595, the SAFE Banking Act. Before I do that, I want to acknowledge the leadership of this man for a very long period of time. The only reason we are standing here tonight about to vote on this is because of the tireless and brilliant leadership by the gentleman from Colorado. I thank him for it. It has been an incredible journey over a long period of time. I thank the chair of the committee as well for her strong and clear leadership on this. Lastly, I would like to thank the two gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. Stivers and Mr. Davidson, who are not just allies, they are friends and have done excellent work in this regard. This is a public safety bill pure and simple. If you want your neighborhoods to be safer, Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes.'' If you want your communities to be safer, vote ``yes.'' If you want the employees at the dispensaries throughout the 47 States who have some form of legalized cannabis, vote ``yes.'' This is a public safety bill, and it is not hypothetical. It is real. Exhibit A, Travis Mason. June 18 of 2016, Travis Mason got up and went to work. He was full of optimism about life. He was a marine veteran. He served this country honorably. He was looking forward to his future, because he just had been informed that he was approved to take the Denver Police Department test. He was confident he would pass it. He had been studying for it. So he kissed his lovely wife, Samantha, good-bye. They were both marine veterans, both just 24 with three small children. He kissed Aidyn and Daisy--they were twins--and little baby Julian good-bye and went to work where he served as a security guard in a dispensary in suburban Denver. Because that was an all-cash settlement, because the Federal law did not allow for that business to be banked, to be within the guardrails of the financial system, an evil person walked in that night and shot Travis dead and left Samantha a 24-year-old widow with three small children. This was so unnecessary. If we pass this legislation that does not have to happen. This is not hypothetical. You can be agnostic on the underlying policy of whether or not cannabis should be legal for either adult recreational use or to treat seizures for juvenile epileptics, but you cannot be agnostic on the need to improve safety in this area. If you believe that the first two provisions, especially, of the Cole memorandum, which sets forth: Keep marijuana out of the hands of children and keep cash out of the hands of the cartels, if you support that, you must vote ``yes'' on this bill so that we can track this and so that we can monitor this. If we do nothing, bad things will again happen. If we pass this law, if we pass the SAFE Banking Act, the public safety measure, then we can avoid another widow, Samantha, and another murdered clerk at a dispensary. We can make our neighborhood safer, and we can make our communities safer. Please join us in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1595.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, today indeed I do rise in strong support of H.R. 1526, a bill to honor the life and legacy of Eva G. Hewitt by renaming the Post Office in Tumwater, Washington, in her honor. A few blocks from where we stand today is the Smithsonian Postal Museum, a museum that preserves and promotes postal history from every era. In it you can read about the rural letter carriers. This is personal with me. As it turns out, my grandfather was a rural postal delivery member of the post office from 1905 to 1944. Out of Henrietta, Texas, he for many years delivered the mail on horseback. One of the biggest days of his life was when he got a Model T. He, in fact, delivered letters right up to the day he died in 1944. You can read about him and a lot of other people in the museum. Most notably you can learn about the women trailblazers who built the postal service into what it is today, women like Sarah DeCrow who in 1792 became the very first woman postmaster; or Ethel Hill, who in 1900 became the first woman listed as a full-time rural delivery carrier. This year, in celebration of the city of Tumwater's 150th anniversary--they call that the sesquicentennial--they are sharing many of the stories there about their own women trailblazers, women like Eva G. Hewitt. She was indeed Tumwater's first woman postmaster during a very pivotal time in Tumwater's history. So it is fitting to rename the post office for her. In 1893 she and her husband, Charles, purchased that drugstore alluded to earlier right in the heart of Tumwater, and their drugstore became known as Hewitt Drug Store. It was the center of the community, and it housed a store and, yes, a soda fountain, and the post office, all under one roof. She started as an assistant there, but--get this--prior to that time her husband was the postmaster, but it turns out when the Postal Service adopted civil service rules, she and her husband both took the examination. And guess what? She passed; he didn't; she became the postmaster in 1915. It sounds like something that would happen in my home. So following the death of her husband in 1927, she took over the business and served there until her retirement in 1942. She was the very first person to hold the position of Tumwater postmaster. At the time of her retirement she was also the longest serving postmaster in that city's history which dates back to 1824. During her decades at the store, she saw a massive growth in mail volume throughout the Pacific Northwest. As a matter of fact, she once remarked that the volume at the Tumwater Post Office in terms of monthly mail in 1942 was equivalent to annual mail at the turn of the century. Yes, indeed, the store was torn down and the post office was torn down to help make way for Interstate 5, the main arterial between Canada and Mexico that runs throughout the West Coast. Although the drugstore may be gone, her legacy isn't. As postmaster, as business woman, and as community member, it lives on. So I was delighted when the city approached me about this long overdue recognition for Eva. Very few post offices, let us note, are named for women, much less the women who carried out the mission of the Postal Service. In fact, take note, of the 823 post offices that have been renamed, only 98 of them have been renamed for women--less than 12 percent. We have got a parity issue here, Madam Speaker. That is why I am even more than proud to introduce and support this bill. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Olympia Tumwater Foundation for helping to tell Eva's story. I thank the city of Tumwater for sharing her story with our community. And I want to thank all the members of my delegation who joined in to cosponsor this. Eva has earned her place in the South Sound history books that she helped write. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to support this bill to rename the Tumwater Post Office in her honor, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.