Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues Mike Thompson, Jackie Speier, Salud Carbajal, Anna Eshoo, Jimmy Panetta, Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna, and Zoe Lofgren, in recognition of the Save the Redwoods League's centennial anniversary. Fulfilling its ongoing mission to protect and restore California redwoods and connect people to the peace and beauty of redwood forests, the League's work ensures these iconic symbols of our great state can be treasured for generations to come. Founded in March of 1918, the Save the Redwoods League was started by a small group of conservationists disturbed by the accelerating rate of destruction of the primeval redwood forests in northern California that held the tallest trees on earth. In response, the League committed to protecting the coast redwood and giant sequoia forests by purchasing multiple ancient groves and establishing a state or national park to protect them. Following its incorporation as a nonprofit organization in 1920, the League established a memorial redwood grove on the South Fork Eel River in 1921, the first of more than 1,000 memorial groves in California. In addition to raising millions of dollars to establish redwood preserves, the Save the Redwoods League was a leader in the grassroots movement to create a California state parks system, lobbying for legislation and campaigning for funding of the acquisition of park land. Fifty years after the League's inception, Redwood National Park was created in 1968, in part due to the tireless advocacy of the League and its partners to protect some of the last remaining stands of uncut redwoods. Over the last century, the Save the Redwoods League has protected more than 200,000 acres of redwood forests and helped create 66 redwood parks and reserves that inspire millions of annual visitors from around the world. Today, the League is a respected voice in science-based research and a pioneer of innovative forest-restoration work that is accelerating the transformation of young, harvested stands into the old-growth forests of the future. Through its Redwoods and Climate Change Initiative, the League's research established that old-growth redwoods store more carbon per acre than any other ecosystem in the world and play a critical role in the fight against climate change. Save the Redwoods League, now celebrating its hundredth anniversary, has played a critical role in protecting the majestic redwood forests of California that fill us with wonder and provide a living link to the past. Throughout its next century, the League will build upon this legacy by advancing its efforts to protect the remaining old-growth redwood forests, restore younger forests to a healthier state, and connect more people to the beauty and uniqueness of California's redwoods. Mr. Speaker, after a century of achievement and operational stability, the continuing success of the Save the Redwoods League has preserved a part of California's heritage and touched the lives of millions around the world. It is therefore appropriate that we stand together in recognition of this momentous occasion.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is correct; this decision created a lot of confusion and frustration. Staff needs at national parks fluctuate throughout the year. They are highly seasonally dependent, and many career personnel work at different parks through the year, a lifestyle that is supported by the ability to return to a position every year without having to recompete for it. Without that certainty, they lose job security, and it becomes extremely difficult to ensure adequate experienced staff throughout the National Park system. I agree with my colleague. I want to thank Representatives Knight and Panetta for coming up with this bipartisan solution. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), my colleague and champion of the Cape Cod National Seashore.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. This is a good bill. We are pleased that it facilitates the implementation of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation plan for the Lower Virgin River. It authorizes funds for fuels reduction and restoration projects in pinyon-juniper- dominated landscapes, makes technical corrections to the boundaries of several wilderness areas and validates a patent associated with a previously authorized land exchange. A previous version of this bill is cosponsored by the entire Nevada delegation, and I recognize that its passage is important to the people of eastern Nevada. I do want to thank the majority and the sponsor for working with the BLM to address many of their concerns throughout the bill's history. Resolving those concerns and working with the BLM turned this bill into a proposal we can support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman mentioned, this bill amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to establish special duck hunting days for youth and veterans. While I generally support expanding hunting opportunities for youth and veterans, it is important that we do it in a way that does not detract from management decisions based on sound science that produces the best outcomes for wildlife populations. This year marked the 100th anniversary of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a law which codified our Nation's commitment to honor international treaties that protect migratory bird populations. It is important to remember that prior to its passage, birds like the snowy egret and wood duck were plummeting towards extinction due to market hunting and unregulated commercial trade in bird feathers. Thanks to the protections afforded by the MBTA, these birds and many others have recovered from the brink of extinction, while maintaining opportunities for hunters to participate in waterfowl hunting through science-based management and population assessments. Congress has an obligation to ensure that the Secretary of the Interior retains the authority to determine when hunting of migratory game birds can take place in the United States. While the flyway councils play a critical role in developing regulations, establishing the framework for migratory bird management is a Federal responsibility that should be done in consultation with flyway councils. I do want to thank Chairman Bishop for working with our staff to make modest changes to the bill to address some of our concerns. We hope to continue working with our colleagues in the Senate to make further refinements and ensure that this bill does not move us forward in a way that departs from sound, science-based management. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is strongly bipartisan. It reaffirms congressional intent to continue to authorize sustainable, working dairies and ranches within a portion of the Point Reyes National Seashore. This is consistent with the seashore's historic, cultural, scenic, and natural values. It also honors repeated Federal promises that the ranches and dairies in the Point Reyes National Seashore would be offered long-term permits so that they can have the certainty and the clarity they need to obtain financing, make family succession plans, and other decisions necessary to continue operations. For over 150 years, agriculture has been a vital part of the fabric of West Marin, part of my district in northern California. This includes the historic ranches and dairies in the Point Reyes National Seashore and also some northern portions of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. These ranches and dairies contribute to the unique history, character, and cultural heritage of these magnificent national park units. The statutory history of Point Reyes reflects Congress' intent to continue ranching in the pastoral areas of the seashore to ensure that future generations could experience these working landscapes. We are reaffirming that intent with this bill. I think the agricultural heritage of West Marin is worth protecting. The National Park Service agrees. Across Presidential administrations and since the creation of the seashore and the GGNRA, the Park Service has consistently supported continuation of the ranching heritage in these areas. Today, Congress is reaffirming longstanding policy and decades of diligent efforts by the Park Service. We are also making good on a commitment Interior Secretary Salazar made in November of 2012 to provide long-term assurances for these ranchers and dairies. He specifically directed the Park Service to proceed with extending 20-year permits consistent with applicable laws and planning processes. Toward that same end, this bill directs the issuance of 20-year leases and permits after completion by the Park Service of a robust general management plan update process, including public engagement and environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, which must include compliance with the Endangered Species Act and any other environmental reviews. Through this planning and environmental review process, the Park Service will receive public comment, evaluate possible measures that could improve the environmental sustainability of the ranches and dairies, and ensure the good stewardship of the seashore's national resources. The general management plan and the NEPA process will inform how the Park Service exercises its broad discretionary authority to set terms and conditions in the leases and the permits, and can develop critical strategies, actions, and policies on a wide range of issues involving land and natural resource management within the seashore. As any visitor to Point Reyes knows, one of the unique features of the seashore is the successful return of the majestic tule elk. This legislation envisions a healthy coexistence of thriving elk herds and the historic ranches and dairies within the seashore through effective management. It provides direction to the Park Service to manage for effective separation between tule elk and livestock in areas where growing elk herds have presented conflicts with working ranches and dairies, such as taking up permanent residence on dairies' critical organic pastureland, interfering with ranch operations, or damaging infrastructure, hardly the outcomes envisioned by the Park Service's 1998 elk management plan. While providing this general policy guidance, the bill leaves broad discretion to the Park Service to determine how best to manage the elk. It leaves in place all existing tools, while adding a new opportunity to explore relocation and cultural ceremonial activities with interested Native American Tribes. I am grateful for the broad public support that this bill has received, ranging from the Marin Conservation League to the Marin County Farm Bureau and the Marin County Board of Supervisors. I also want to address, briefly, some misconceptions that a few of the bill's critics have raised. First, nothing in this bill elevates ranching above other uses of the seashore. It specifically does not amend the purpose section of the enabling act, which means that operations of the ranches and dairies will remain consistent with the policies and legal requirements that govern the Interior Department's stewardship of the land. It is important to remember that less than one-third of the seashore is in agricultural use today. Nearly twice that amount is designated as wilderness. Nothing in this bill expands agriculture. It is limited to the areas where there is currently ranching or dairy operations. I also want to address and emphasize the fact that nothing in this bill suggests elimination of elk from the seashore. I am not aware of a single stakeholder who has suggested eliminating elk. If they had, I would reject it. There is no reason elk and ranching cannot coexist on the seashore if there is effective management and separation in areas of conflict. This bill leaves broad discretion to the Park Service to determine the strategies and actions that make the most sense to achieve that goal. For those worried that this bill may somehow reopen the 2012 decision by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to not renew for Drakes Bay Oyster Company and to designate and manage Drakes Estero as marine wilderness, let me be emphatically clear. There is nothing in the letter or the intent of this bill that possibly could be read to do that. The bill has nothing to do with the oyster issue. It focuses on making sure the unresolved part of Secretary Salazar's 2012 decision, the part providing long-term assurances for the historic ranches and dairies, is actually carried out. In this regard, I was mindful in drafting the bill of Secretary Salazar's specific direction in his memo of November 29, 2012, that the Park Service work with the ranches and dairies to ``reaffirm my intention that, consistent with applicable laws and planning processes, recognition of the role of ranching be maintained and to pursue extending permits to 20-year terms. . . .'' Secretary Salazar also directed that ``the values of multigenerational ranching and farming at Point Reyes should be fully considered in future planning efforts. These working ranches are a vibrant and compatible part of Point Reyes National Seashore and both now and in the future represent an important contribution to Point Reyes' superlative natural and cultural resources.'' I couldn't agree more. Finally, we have been careful in this bill not to micromanage or tie the hands of the Park Service. As we made clear in amendments at markup and in the committee report, the Service retains the ability to exercise commonsense discretion in the supervision of the seashore's agriculture property and in administering its various permits and leases. For example, the Park Service is not financially responsible for operating ranches and dairies. It is not required to bring back property into agriculture if it has been retired or converted to other purposes. It doesn't have to allow ranching on agricultural property where there is no willing lessee. Nothing in this bill diminishes any of the Secretary's existing discretionary authority regarding how to manage agricultural property, including setting and enforcing permit terms and conditions and allowing shorter lease or permit terms if a rancher does not want a 20- year lease or permit. All of this is common sense. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6687 is a narrowly tailored bill to help ensure that sustainable ranches and dairies continue as part of the fabric of our spectacular Point Reyes National Seashore for generations to come. The bill does this without compromising any environmental standards. It is consistent with both longstanding congressional intent, with Secretary Salazar's 2012 policy directive, and with the current National Park Service planning process. I am proud that this bill has been a refreshing bipartisan effort here in Congress, and I do want to thank my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee for their support and assistance, especially Chairman Rob Bishop and his staff, as well as Ranking Member Raul Grijalva and his staff, who have worked diligently to perfect this legislation and to move it forward. I also want to thank my staff, especially my district director, Jenny Callaway, as well as Logan Ferree and Christine Sur from my legislative team, for their hard work to make this bill possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman's description of this very good bill. These two sites draw nearly 200,000 visitors to the Dutchess County region. They are significant contributors to the local economy. It is only fitting that we should work to improve the integration between these two sites and enhance their management and increase their accessibility to the public. I know Representative Faso has worked hard on this bill and that it is a priority for his office. I want to commend him for working across the aisle, including with Senator Gillibrand's support, and I congratulate him on this success today. Before wrapping up, I do want to mention that the money to carry out the expansion proposed in this bill will likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a popular program that expires at the end of this week. That is right. After more than 50 years of bipartisan support, LWCF is once again on the brink of expiring. This is despite the fact that a bill to make the program permanent has earned the support of 235 Members of the House. The bill was voted out of the committee by voice, and all this body must do is bring it up on the floor for a vote. I am always happy to support legislation that protects our public lands and cultural legacies, like this bill by Mr. Faso. I urge immediate action, however, on the other step we need to take, and that is bringing forward the bill to address the pending expiration of the LWCF. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 150th anniversary of China Camp Village. Welcoming more than 260,000 visitors each year to its 1,500 acres of parkland, natural resources, and recreation areas, China Camp is an important part of the Bay Area's past, present, and future. One of a few fishing villages in the San Pablo Bay in the mid-1800s, China Camp was home to thousands of Chinese American immigrants who came to work at newly built dairy ranches and brick manufacturing plants in the area, while continuing to fish for income and for their families. China Camp Village still maintains a 300-foot wooden pier and several wooden homes where the former Chinese fishing camp once stood, preserving the area's rich and diverse history. As fresh water was diverted from rivers that entered San Pablo Bay, it became too salty for shrimping. China Camp transitioned to a state park in 1977 when a developer donated the 36-acre village as a living memorial to the important Chinese American history it represents. Years later, the Friends of China Camp helped save the park when it was threatened for closure during a state funding crisis. In 2011, I authored legislation, Assembly Bill 42, to allow California state parks to be managed by non-profit operators. The bill was approved and signed into law, and the Friends of China Camp entered an agreement with California State Parks to manage China Camp. Today, China Camp is still operated by the Friends of China Camp, a non-profit organization comprised of dedicated staff and volunteers, who are hard at work to increase campgrounds and picnic sites and expand interpretive programs for visitors while also attracting the community to engage in protecting its important natural and cultural resources. In keeping with its past, China Camp continues to evolve and grow with changing times and the environment. Mr. Speaker, it is therefore appropriate that we stand together today, in celebration of 150 years of China Camp Village, as a living tribute to the Bay Area's history and future.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of an inspirational community leader, Herb Meyer, who recently passed away at the age of 87. Mr. Meyer was one of the sailing world's premier disabled racers, and he was dedicated to reducing barriers facing people with disabilities. Born in 1931, Mr. Meyer began his sailing career at 12 years old in New Jersey. After serving in the Korean War as a jet fighter pilot, he moved to California in 1963. Once in the Bay Area, Mr. Meyer started racing out of Belvedere Cove and eventually moved to Marin county in 1980. In July of 1993, while sailing on San Francisco Bay, Mr. Meyer broke his neck and became a paraplegic. After sailing for over 30 years, Herb thought his days on the water were over. Thanks to the Bay Area Association of Disabled Sailors, Mr. Meyer was re-trained on sailing with a disability, and back out on the bay just one year after his accident. He continued competitive sailing and participated in Paralympic and other international races including in Canada, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Australia. Over the years, Mr. Meyer joined many community organizations serving the disabled. In addition to serving as Commodore for the Bay Area Association of Disabled Sailors in 2002, he was on the boards of the Marin Center for Independent Living and the Treasure Island Sailing Center, and he was a founding member of the county's In-Home Support Services chapter. These efforts also translated to national action, as Mr. Meyer chaired the Special Needs Committee for the United States Sailing Association. Herb Meyer served his country during a time of war and his community thereafter. He faced his disability and worked tirelessly to not only continue his passion for sailing but to lower the barriers for other to do the same. Mr. Speaker, it is therefore fitting that we honor Herb today for his decades of commitment to helping people with disabilities overcome barriers and follow their passions. His presence will be sorely missed, and his leadership not be soon forgotten.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of David Lewis on the occasion of his 20th year as the executive director of Save the Bay. A nationally renowned conservation leader, David's work has had a remarkable impact on the preservation and expansion of the Bay Area's natural environment. Born in Palo Alto, California, David earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University. During his time in college, David became passionate about nuclear arms control, and after graduating in 1983, he went to work for Friends of the Earth in Washington, D.C. as an arms control specialist. By 1985, David became the Director of Policy and Legislation for Physicians for Social Responsibility and by 1991, he went to work for Senator Carl Levin as a senior legislative assistant. Finally, in 1996 he became the chief operations officer for the League of Conservation Voters where he would conclude his 14-year career in Washington, D.C. By 1998, Mr. Lewis accepted an offer to become the Executive Director of Save the Bay and moved back to the Bay Area. David's leadership was promptly tested that year by a proposal put forward by the San Francisco International Airport to expand runways through bay fill. The proposal had wide support and appeared to be a lost cause to the conservation community at the time. David however, was able to provide cheaper and more effective alternatives that prevented further encroachment into the bay, a negotiating model for which Save the Bay has now become known. Through continued lobbying, negotiation, and community organizing, David was eventually able to get the airport to go with his proposal. Save the Bay's actions and advocacy have continued to grow under Mr. Lewis' leadership. The organization has remained vigilant in fighting the encroachment of development into the bay, and has expanded community outreach and education to create broader public stewardship. David's leadership has also led to greater cooperation on conservation policies between conservation groups, businesses, and community organizations. Most recently, David led a successful campaign for a nine-county parcel tax that will provide needed revenue for wetland restoration to mitigate the dangerous impacts of climate change. Mr. Speaker, as Bay Area shores become increasingly urbanized and sea levels continue to rise, the work done by organizations like Save the Bay will be critical for the long-term viability of the communities who call this region home. Therefore, please join me in thanking David Lewis for his ongoing leadership and service to the public.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of David Lewis on the occasion of his 20th year as the executive director of Save the Bay. A nationally renowned conservation leader, David's work has had a remarkable impact on the preservation and expansion of the Bay Area's natural environment. Born in Palo Alto, California, David earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University. During his time in college, David became passionate about nuclear arms control, and after graduating in 1983, he went to work for Friends of the Earth in Washington, D.C. as an arms control specialist. By 1985, David became the Director of Policy and Legislation for Physicians for Social Responsibility and by 1991, he went to work for Senator Carl Levin as a senior legislative assistant. Finally, in 1996 he became the chief operations officer for the League of Conservation Voters where he would conclude his 14-year career in Washington, D.C. By 1998, Mr. Lewis accepted an offer to become the Executive Director of Save the Bay and moved back to the Bay Area. David's leadership was promptly tested that year by a proposal put forward by the San Francisco International Airport to expand runways through bay fill. The proposal had wide support and appeared to be a lost cause to the conservation community at the time. David, however, was able to provide cheaper and more effective alternatives that prevented further encroachment into the bay, a negotiating model for which Save the Bay has now become known. Through continued lobbying, negotiation, and community organizing, David was eventually able to get the airport to go with his proposal. Save the Bay's actions and advocacy have continued to grow under Mr. Lewis' leadership. The organization has remained vigilant in fighting the encroachment of development into the bay, and has expanded community outreach and education to create broader public stewardship. David's leadership has also led to greater cooperation on conservation policies between conservation groups, businesses, and community organizations. Most recently, David led a successful campaign for a nine-county parcel tax that will provide needed revenue for wetland restoration to mitigate the dangerous impacts of climate change. Mr. Speaker, as Bay Area shores become increasingly urbanized and sea levels continue to rise, the work done by organizations like Save the Bay will be critical for the long-term viability of the communities who call this region home. Therefore, please join me in thanking David Lewis for his ongoing leadership and service to the public.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues Mike Thompson and John Garamendi to recognize the fiftieth anniversary of North Coast Opportunities, Inc. and their decades of good work for the residents on the North Coast of California, in particular those areas in our congressional districts. North Coast Opportunities was created through the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, and it has served as the Community Action Agency for Mendocino and Lake Counties, as well as parts of Humboldt, Sonoma, Del Norte, and Solano Counties since its incorporation in 1968. As a member of the Community Action Network, North Coast Opportunities joined nearly 1,000 community-focused agencies throughout the United States that are charged with addressing local problems of poverty, social disengagement, and inequity by engaging local affected populations through direct services. These services are tailored to meet local conditions and seek the greatest participation in the vital services provided to struggling families. North Coast Opportunity reaches local residents from infancy to the end of life through programs including Partnerships in Community Health, Lake County Food and Produce Pantries, Head Start Child Development Program, Mendo-Lake Food Hub, Leadership Mendocino, Food PREP, Lake and Mendocino County Farm to School, Gardens Project, Redwood Caregiver Resource Center, Rural Communities Child Care, Volunteer Network, Walk and Bike Mendocino, Hammers for Hope, Lake County Disaster Recovery, and the Caring Kitchen Project. Mr. Speaker, it is with great appreciation that we congratulate and recognize North Coast Opportunities on fifty years of stellar service to California North Coast communities in our congressional district and extend to them best wishes for decades of service to come.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Caryl Castleberry, who passed away in May of this year. Born in Iowa and raised in southern California, Caryl Castleberry earned an Associates of Arts Degree at Citrus Junior College before going to Pitzer College on an arts scholarship. Caryl began her more than 30-year sculpting career in 1985 while working for the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. She would go on to become a renowned wildlife sculptor over the course of her career, and her work was on display at numerous museums, galleries, zoos, nature preserves, and private collections. Caryl also cared deeply for the community, volunteering with organizations such as the Valley of the Moon Children's Home and Friends of the Petaluma River. Caryl is survived by her husband of 51 years, three siblings, two children, and four grandchildren, and she will be missed by her family and many friends. Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest respect and condolences that we honor the life of Caryl Castleberry and send her loved ones our regrets.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jeffrey Hansen, founding winemaker of Lula Cellars, who passed away on June 5 at UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco after more than three decades producing award-winning California wines. Born May 7, 1952, in Sherman Oaks, California, Mr. Hansen graduated from the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena in 1973. After a successful fourteen-year career as a commercial product photographer for Southern California advertising agencies, Mr. Hansen decided to move to Northern California in 1985 to pursue his passion for wine and winemaking. Mr. Hansen's career in wine began in 1987 at Spring Mountain Vineyard in Napa Valley. During his time working for Spring Mountain, he began making wines at home, and discovered the Anderson Valley region of Mendocino County, famed for its Pinot Noir grapes. Mr. Hansen continued to work in Napa Valley, producing his first wines for Amici Cellars in Calistoga in 1991, and continued to work for the label until 2009. Hansen then founded the label he was best known for, Lula Cellars, in 2010. Named in honor of his grandmother as a tribute to her tenacity and optimism in the face of adversity, Mr. Hansen cited her as his inspiration in life. The winery sold out its first 600 cases and continues to be lauded by fans, and has won numerous awards and medals. Mr. Hansen stepped down as winemaker for Lula Cellars in 2017, retaining the title of Founder and Winemaker Emeritus. Mr. Hansen made impressive contributions to Mendocino County's winemaking industry, promoting and supporting the economy of Mendocino County and the popularity of California wines. He leaves a distinctive legacy and a unique winery, and it is therefore appropriate that we honor the memory of an entrepreneurial leader whose winemaking contributed greatly to the prosperity and recognition of Anderson Valley and Mendocino County wines.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, this week's stunning betrayal by President Trump, choosing Russian President Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence agencies, begs questions that we should never have to ask about an American President: What does Putin have on President Trump? Is he literally being blackmailed? Do we have a Manchurian candidate as our President? It is difficult to imagine any other explanation for Trump's constant bowing and scraping at the feet of the Russian dictator or of his refusal to hold Putin accountable for his election interference, even after numerous indictments, including 12 Russian military officials, and even after the arrest of a Russian national who was caught trying to use the NRA as a tool to change U.S. policy toward Russia. And it is hard to find any other explanation for Trump's constantly calling Special Counsel Mueller's investigation a ``witch hunt,'' even after so many indictments and multiple guilty pleas. On Monday, our security interests of this country demanded that our President speak out and seek accountability from the foreign adversary who attacked it. But instead, the American people witnessed a Manchurian moment, exposing that President Trump is so deeply compromised on Russia that he is willing to alienate our European allies, to blame our country for the strains in the relationship with Russia, and to betray our intelligence and law enforcement communities by casting doubt on their conclusions and accepting Putin's self- serving denials. And so the world wonders: What does Putin have over Trump? Now, it could be some compromising or embarrassing financial information, which would explain Trump's refusal to release his tax returns. Now, let's remember, candidate Donald Trump promised, if elected, promised unequivocally that he would publicly release his tax returns just like every other modern President. We are still waiting. But Trump's position has evolved to an outright refusal, making him the only President in modern history to refuse to share this information with the American people. Now, it could also be his nefarious dealings with Russia that Trump wants to keep secret. Now, we know Trump and his family and his campaign had a web of contacts with Russia going back several years. The degree of collusion in the 2016 election is still unknown, but we know that, at the very least, they explored receiving illegal foreign election assistance, and we know that assistance was actually provided by Russia. Or it could be more straightforward blackmail. We know about the reports that Russia had compromising information on Trump that includes not just financial entanglements, but a sex tape. Now, I am confident that whatever President Trump is hiding, Special Counsel Mueller's investigation will get to the bottom of it. And that is why I have joined my colleagues here on the floor to demand that the Mueller investigation be protected from political interference and that we let the special counsel's office do its job. But we should also think about how we got into this surreal situation in the first place. How did a Presidential candidate with such potentially disqualifying baggage slide through the process without a way for voters to know about it? There is a clear public interest in ensuring that Presidential candidates are not deeply compromised or vulnerable to blackmail. And that is why today I introduce the Protecting Access to Classified Information in Elections Act. It is a new bill designed to protect the national security of our country by allowing Presidential candidates to voluntarily undergo a national security clearance investigation well before the election. Candidates who are granted a security clearance would have the option of publicly disclosing that fact on a website maintained by the director of national intelligence. Current law doesn't work that way. Presidential candidates start getting classified briefings before they take office, but it is based on an informal grant of access by the sitting President, and voters may assume that candidates have security clearances, but they don't actually have to get one and not all of them do. By providing an early security clearance process, candidates can provide a real assurance to the American people that there is nothing in their background, such as financial or personal vulnerabilities, that should prevent them from receiving our Nation's top secret information. And if a candidate chooses not to seek that security clearance, voters can consider that fact, too, when they cast their vote. An early security clearance would also virtually rule out the possibility that a Presidential candidate is vulnerable to foreign coercion, compromise, or manipulation, because among the things scrutinized by background investigators are tax returns and financial dealings. Investigators would learn if an applicant has been accused of sexual misconduct. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support to this bill.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it has been brought up that Vice President Al Gore proposed, in certain instances, that title transfer might make sense. That is correct. But I have also acknowledged that I, myself, have proposed that, in appropriate circumstances, title transfers can make sense. They can be good for water users, for the taxpayers, and for other users as long as the right safeguards are in place. What we are really talking about here, though, is a bill that fails to work in that narrowly tailored space that Al Gore and myself and others have been willing to work. This bill does not include those safeguards. This bill would not be limited to small, noncontroversial projects. It could apply to very large multiuse projects, and it could apply to those projects in ways that do not include safeguards to protect other stakeholders and other interests. That is why we disagree on this point. Now, it has also been argued that because water districts have repaid the Federal Government through water rates, somehow, that effectively means they should have an entitlement to transfer of these facilities. A couple points need to be emphasized here. First, under reclamation law, water districts generally only pay a fraction of the total cost to construct reclamation water projects. The rest of these costs have been borne by taxpayers because the projects were deemed to have public benefits, such as fish and wildlife enhancement and recreation. Given the billions spent by taxpayers on reclamation projects, it is appropriate for the public to maintain ownership of projects, especially in cases where title transfer could result in operational changes that jeopardize those public benefits for which the public has borne the cost. Now, project construction costs that are borne by water districts are further reduced by various taxpayer subsidies that should be part of the equation, including federally subsidized, zero-interest financing, power subsidies, and write-offs of debt owed to taxpayers that are deemed beyond a water district's ``ability to pay'' under reclamation law. And then, finally, it is important to note that even water districts who pay for this water over time, they still don't pay for any land that might be appurtenant to these facilities. That land, under this bill, would go along with the title transfer, and so would the mineral rights underneath that land. These would be essentially bonus subsidies, potentially, to these water districts without proper compensation to the U.S. taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, we need to insist on the safeguards that I and others, when we worked on this issue, have proposed and that are so lacking, unfortunately, in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on my friend's point about privatization, let me just clarify that, in many cases, water districts, certainly many of those in California and many of those that serve agricultural interests in the Central Valley, are comprised and governed by private agribusiness owners and private landowners. They elect the board. They set the agenda. Further, by the terms of this bill, it allows transfer to joint power entities which, under California law, at least--I would suspect, the laws of other States as well--can include nonpublic agency entities. So I believe the concern about privatization is certainly valid in this case. Now, the gentleman from California has mentioned the fact that one of the safeguards in legislation that I have proposed has been included in this bill. I am grateful for that. But the back end protection of the possibility of a joint resolution coming out of Congress within a certain period of time, while not insignificant, is pretty hard to actually achieve in a slow-moving Congress. Far more important are the other safeguards that were in my legislation on the front end of the process, including safeguards that were intended to ensure that bigger multiuse, more controversial, more public benefit-oriented projects would not be subject to this type of authority by the executive branch. Those front-end protections are important, and the most important of them, of course, is that for those type of projects, Congress would retain project-by-project approval authority, and not cede it to the executive branch. In effect, my bill included a belt and two suspenders. At best, the bill from my friend from Colorado includes one suspender and nothing else. So we disagree on the adequacy of these safeguards. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Colorado. So let's talk about this Huffman safeguard that has been discussed most recently. It is a perfectly good piece of a safeguard framework, if it is accompanied by all of the other pieces that went with it and that are designed to go with it. And that included all of the front-end protections that were part of the legislation I had proposed, but which my Republican colleagues did not include in their bill, to make sure that only the right kind of projects--not the controversial ones--were subject to this new grant of authority to the executive branch. That is what this is all about. Simply tacking on one safeguard, which, frankly, was the flimsiest of them all to begin with, doesn't come anywhere close to addressing the problem. As I have said, instead of a belt and suspenders, it is a single suspender--a perfectly good suspender, but try walking around with one suspender all day long and you will find it not very adequate. This bill recklessly authorizes the de facto privatization of public infrastructure. It fails to protect interests of numerous stakeholders, including American taxpayers, Tribes, fishing groups, environmental and recreational interests, and, finally, it comes from the bankrupt Trump infrastructure plan that reflects this administration's failed privatization philosophy. The public deserves a real infrastructure plan, not a shell game that simply gives away and privatizes existing public infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. HUFFMAN. I am in its current form.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is the part where I give the usual stipulation that this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. This amendment is simple. The underlying bill allows the Department of the Interior to dole out publicly owned infrastructure and other public assets to water districts. My amendment simply says, the Department of the Interior can't give away public assets to a water district if that district has employed the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Interior as a lobbyist in the previous 3 years. Put another way, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary can't give away public infrastructure to those who recently signed their lobbying paychecks. It should go without saying that this basic ethics requirement is needed, particularly in this administration, where conflicts of interest and corruption run so rampant. The Department of the Interior has been mired in scandals. The Interior Secretary's actions have triggered at least 10 government investigations. It was also recently revealed that the Secretary and/or his family, are currently in a business partnership to develop a former industrial site with the chairman of the energy company, Halliburton. Halliburton, of course, has a lot of business pending before the Department of the Interior. This is an outrageous conflict of interest, and demonstrates how hollow the President's pledge to drain the swamp has been. Further, Mr. Speaker, Interior Deputy Secretary Bernhardt, the number two official at the agency, was most recently employed as a Federal lobbyist and had a long list of clients with business before the Department, including clients who stand to gain with the passage of this bill by taking ownership of public infrastructure. We must not allow such blatant conflicts to stand. It is time for Congress to exercise some oversight over this administration and install some basic rules of accountability and ethics. If my Republican colleagues are serious about exercising their oversight responsibilities, they will support my amendment. It simply makes sure that the public's assets cannot be given away to big business and narrow special interests if those same interests employed agency leadership in the past 3 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.