Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it would set a bad precedent by waiving the requirements to provide compensatory mitigation for federally authorized maintenance dredging projects in inland waterways, inlets, or harbors located in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. As it should, Magnuson requires compensatory mitigation to protect essential fish habitat, including seagrass. This mitigation requires the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation of aquatic resources to offset unavoidable adverse impacts from activities like dredging. Many of the inland waterways in the Southeast that need maintenance dredging are actually home to seagrasses, so these States are required to mitigate the negative impacts. Compensatory mitigation is the most obvious, commonsense solution for offsetting the damage to these important habitats. Fish depend on healthy seagrass habitats to survive and reproduce, not only in the Southeast but all across the Nation's coasts, including in my district. Moreover, we need all the help that we can get to recover seagrasses. Globally, 30 percent of seagrass meadows have disappeared. Of the seagrasses that remain, nearly a quarter are threatened or near threatened. In fact, the only marine plant listed as endangered in the United States is a seagrass found in Florida. Seagrasses are highly productive hotspots for biodiversity and can act as a carbon sink, making this habitat a critical component in buffering oceans against the impacts of climate change. Protecting and restoring essential fish habitat and seagrass is very important to maintain productive fisheries and healthy oceans. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill argue that the requirement to rebuild overfished stocks needs more ``flexibility,'' but it is important to note that the Magnuson Act already provides a lot of flexibility. While I am fully aware that it isn't always easy or popular to implement fishing restrictions, management tools like annual catch limits and rebuilding plans are essential to ensuring a future for our fisheries and fishing industry. In my district, fishermen went through several tough years while groundfish stocks were depleted. Magnuson provided the scientific and regulatory framework to bring those fisheries back. We have now rebuilt half of our groundfish species, and more are on the way to recovery. These accomplishments certainly did not come easily. Our fishermen had to make sacrifices. But the long-term health of our fisheries and communities that depend on them in making these tough decisions has benefited from it. That is why these decisions were supported by commercial and recreational fishermen. That support has been integral to sustaining the fisheries that are critical for West Coast communities. This success story, by the way, has been replicated around the country time and again. Our success and the sustainability of the fishing industry rely on harvesting from healthy and productive fish stocks. Fishing restrictions are only put in place because they are absolutely necessary. If there aren't enough fish to support strong harvests both now and in the future, we have no choice but to cut back in order to avoid the tragedy of the commons. It is important to note that the law allows councils to delay rebuilding when the biology of the stock, environmental conditions, or international management considerations present challenges. Because of these broad but fair exemptions, more than 50 percent of all overfished stocks today have rebuilding plans that are longer than the 10-year baseline in the act. So there is flexibility, and it is being used. Further, current law gives councils 2 years to put a rebuilding plan in place and another year to reduce rather than end overfishing. That is 3 years of lead time before significant harvest restrictions go into effect. My amendment requires that an exemption to strong rebuilding timelines would only be permitted if rebuilding plans have at least a 75 percent chance of success. That is contrasted with the 50 percent chance of success that ordinarily applies to rebuilding plans. Now, I am proud that, without being required to do so, most of the West Coast groundfish fishery recovery plans have a greater than 75 percent chance of meeting their rebuilding goals, and we have seen the success of that. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all the regions. The bottom line is that we should not be weakening standards unless we have a very robust rebuilding plan in place. That is what this amendment addresses. I want to note that, in addition to all of that, the current Magnuson Act requires a rebuilding timeline be as short as possible. H.R. 200 would change that requirement to be as short as practicable. This is a very problematic weakening of the law, with real consequences. Currently, the agency has to do whatever is possible, whatever is feasible. Practicable is a lower standard. It means the stocks would not be built in a reasonable timeframe, and this change could even allow the agency to do little or nothing to rebuild a stock. History has shown us what happens if we don't do that. We need to tackle rebuilding aggressively in order to succeed. Rebuilding plans that take a weak approach to harvest or drag on rebuilding for many years inevitably fail. So, unless the law is very clear and strong on this point, managers could choose not to deal with rebuilding situations proactively. My amendment addresses this to be sure that we continue to see fish stocks rebuild so that fishermen can ultimately reap the rewards. Mr. Chairman, I request an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th Anniversary of Pini Ace Hardware, which has served the City of Novato and greater Marin County since 1918, enduring through disasters, including a large fire in 1944, and major world events such as World War I, World War II, and the Great Depression. Founded by Henri Pini, who immigrated from Switzerland in 1906, Pini Hardware started out as a small grocery store, selling dry goods and produce. Over the years, the store relocated and expanded to respond to the changing demands of the growing community, and was sold by the Pini family after Henri passed away. Currently owned by Tom, Russel, and David Young, not only is Pini Hardware celebrating 100 years of business this year, but also 50 years of Young family ownership. Well-known for outstanding customer service, Pini Ace Hardware is praised by shoppers for its old-fashioned and community-oriented approach, and for its enduring community service. The store regularly sponsors school sports teams, hosts monthly Kid Club events, and participates in local events such as the Downtown Novato Tree Lighting and Scream on the Green as well as in Novato's Fourth of July parade with the Pini Plunger Brigade. As a member of the Novato Chamber of Commerce, Pini Hardware is a shining example of the Chamber's mission of ``Building Business, Building Community.'' Mr. Speaker, after a century of outstanding customer and community service, Pini Ace Hardware's legacy to Novato and Marin County is immeasurable, and I wish them another 100 years of success. It is therefore appropriate to honor Pini Ace Hardware on this momentous occasion.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is the most corrupt in our country's long history. They are enriching themselves and rewarding special interests and campaign donors like nothing we have ever seen. If you need proof, look no further than our polluter in chief, Scott Pruitt. Every day brings another Pruitt bombshell. Just today, news broke that, last year, he enlisted a top EPA aide to ask big Republican donors to help his wife find a job, eventually securing her a position with a conservative political group, Judicial Crisis Network. We have learned about similar efforts involving Pruitt's attempt to secure a Chick-fil-A franchise for his wife using EPA resources. He raised millions of dollars as attorney general of Oklahoma from oil, gas, and coal companies for his campaign. He chaired a dark-money group that organized State challenges to clean water and clean air protections. He sued the EPA 14 times as Oklahoma AG to block public health protections while raking in campaign contributions from his polluter co-litigants. He is facing more than 12 Federal investigations into his corruption, influence peddling, and waste of millions in taxpayer dollars on his lavish lifestyle. Mr. Speaker, in any other administration, at any other time, he would have been fired long ago. It is time for Pruitt to go, and it is time for Congress to do something about the toxic corruption in the Trump administration.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Arlene Beverly Halligan, who passed away on April 1, 2018 at the age of 82, after a lifetime of public service to her community. Mrs. Halligan was born on March 30, 1936 in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and later moved to San Francisco in the late 1950s, looking .to enjoy the single life in a big city. Not long after, she would meet and marry Jim Halligan, and settle in Marin County to raise their children Shea and Kelly. Known in and around Marin County as a prominent philanthropist, Mrs. Halligan's most recent, treasured venture was the restoration of Mt. Tamalpias Railroad's historic Gravity Car Barn and Depot, where she once held the position of Project Director for the Mount Tamalpias Association. Working on her passion project to the very end, just weeks before her passing, Mrs. Halligan helped to secure the final steps to bring back to Marin County the No. 9 Heisler from where it has been located in Scotia, California. It was the only remaining locomotive from the Mt. Tamalpias Scenic Railway. In addition to her extensive community service, Mrs. Halligan was well known around Marin and beyond for her famous Christmas Eve parties, which many residents looked forward to all year long. Mrs. Halligan could also be found playing a lively game of tennis, traveling around the world, passionately discussing politics, or voraciously reading anything she could get her hands on. Mrs. Halligan is survived by her son Shea Halligan, daughter Kelly Halligan and son in-law Don LeBuhn, and her three grandchildren Samantha, Andrew, and Mackenzie LeBuhn. Mr. Speaker, the depth of Mrs. Halligan's service to her community has left a positive legacy across Marin County and the entire Bay Area, and she will be profoundly missed. It is therefore appropriate that we pay tribute to her today and honor her memory.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on the day of June 8th, 2018, I was unavoidably detained and as a result, I was absent for rollcall votes 254-257. Had I been present for the rollcall vote 254, on Agreeing to the Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' Had I been present for the rollcall vote 255, on Agreeing to the Amendment, I would have voted ``aye.'' Had I been present for the rollcall vote 256, on motion to recommit with Instructions, I would have voted ``aye.'' Had I been present for the rollcall vote 257, on passage of H.R. 5895, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson in recognition of the Petaluma Gap's recent designation as an American Viticultural Area (AVA). Spanning 202,476 total acres, the Petaluma Gap AVA represents the culmination and heritage of more than 180 years of steadfast dedication to the craft of winemaking throughout the region. The first wine producing grapes were planted in what would become the Petaluma Gap in the 1830s, with the first winery later established in 1884. Wine production in the region then continued to grow at an increasingly rapid pace for the next thirty years. However, with the establishment of prohibition in the 1920s and the influx of Phylloxera aphids that followed, the region's wine production plummeted and remained in tatters through the 1960s. By 1987, planting conditions and subsequent wine production began to rebound, which led to the establishment of the Sonoma Coast AVA. The Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance eventually formed from this resurgence in 2005, and initiated the AVA process for the Petaluma Gap ten years later. On December 7, 2017, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) approved the alliance's application, and the Petaluma Gap AVA then went into effect on January 8th of this year. Today, Petaluma Gap contains over 4,000 vineyard acres that support more than eighty commercially producing vineyards and nine bonded wineries, contributing to a thirty-four billion dollar California wine industry. It is the 241st AVA to be established in the United States, the 139th to be established in the state of California, and the 18th AVA to include a portion of Sonoma County. Mr. Speaker, the designation of the Petaluma Gap as an AVA represents nearly two centuries of winegrowers working to build a distinct reputation and heritage. It is therefore appropriate that we stand together today, in celebration of this momentous achievement.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Susan Williams, a world renowned marine ecologist who died last month in a tragic car accident. Dr. Williams' scientific research on coastal ecology and her activism surrounding the expansion of marine sanctuaries have left an indelible impact on the world. Born in 1951, Dr. Susan Williams earned a bachelor's of science in biology, a master's degree in biological oceanography, and a doctoral degree in botany and marine biology. After finishing her doctoral program in 1981, she conducted research at major marine laboratories across the world for three years. By 1986, after serving as the science director for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's National Undersea Research Program, Dr. Williams started teaching at universities while continuing her research. She became the director of the Coastal and Marine Institute at San Diego State University in 1990, and the director of the Bodega Marine Laboratory at the University of California Davis in 2000. Dr. Williams stepped down from that role in 2010, and became a full-time professor and researcher at the University of California, Davis, until her death in 2018. Throughout her career, Dr. Williams' research underlined the connection between the health of oceans and the communities surrounding them. Her work on the ecology of nearshore marine ecosystems, seagrass, coral reefs, and invasive species helped illustrate the impact of warming oceans on coastal environments and yielded strategies for mitigating those impacts. Her work was heralded by the international scientific community, and provided the foundation for critical changes to state and federal policies addressing the management of coastal environments. As an educator and mentor, she had an immense impact: she supported students around the world, encouraged women in science, bridged international divides in her collaborations, and empowered others to be leaders in the field. During Dr. Williams' ten-year tenure as the director of the Bodega Marine Laboratory, she brought scientists from around the world to conduct research at the laboratory, while at the same time working with local schools and the community in adopting conservation practices based on the latest scientific discoveries. Through this work and her ongoing research, Dr. Williams became a valued advisor for state and federal officials seeking to protect the California coast. Nowhere was this more apparent than through her work in significantly expanding two national marine sanctuaries off the coast of Northern California: the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the Gulf of the Farallones, now known as the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Both sanctuary boundary expansions were proposed in legislation in 2005, and were ultimately expanded to more than twice their original size by the Obama administration in 2015. Throughout that ten-year process, Dr. Williams was the driving force that propelled the policy forward. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Susan Williams' lifelong pursuit of knowledge has left a positive legacy across our country and the world. It is therefore appropriate that we pay tribute to her today, and honor the memory of a scientist who believed that no problem was insurmountable.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Daniel Price on the occasion of his retirement after 25 years of dedicated service as senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Eureka. In 1974, Daniel Price graduated from Westmont College in Santa Barbara with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies. After obtaining a Master of Divinity degree in 1978 from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, he was ordained through the Presbyterian Church (USA) and served as Associate Pastor of the Easton Presbyterian Church in Fresno. In 1987, Pastor Price pursued his Ph.D. in Theology at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. After completing his doctorate, he became pastor at the International Protestant Church of Zurich, Switzerland, where he gained experience serving in a more urban setting. In 1993, Pastor Price moved to Eureka, California, where he has served as senior pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Eureka for the past 25 years. During his tenure, Pastor Price led a major renovation of the First Presbyterian church facility, which was completed in the fall of 2005. He implemented two. services, one contemporary and one traditional, and writes a weekly column for his parish. Throughout his career, Pastor Price has engaged in his community through volunteer and community efforts. He currently serves as president of the Betty Kwan Chinn Foundation and is a former member of Eureka Rotary and de facto chair of the Eureka Interfaith Fellowship and North Coast Presbyterian Parish. He taught religious studies courses at Humboldt State University and the North Coast Bible Institute. Mr. Speaker, Pastor Daniel Price's leadership and service have left many lasting and positive impacts on his community and is worthy of recognition. I urge my colleagues to join me in extending our congratulations to him and best wishes in his retirement.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brad Breithaupt of Marin County, California, on the occasion of his retirement, for 42 years of dedication to local journalism. Brad Breithaupt was raised in Marin County, where he attended Redwood High School and College of Marin. He then graduated with a bachelor's degree in English from U.C. Berkeley in 1976 and began his career in local journalism that same year. For the next three years, Brad Breithaupt served a variety of roles at The Ark newspaper in Tiburon, ranging from reporter, to editor, to publisher. By 1979, he started working for the Marin Suburban Newspaper, now known as Marinscope, and would go on to serve as a reporter there for the next 4 years. He became the managing editor for the Ross Valley Reporter, San Rafael News Pointer, and Ignacio News. After seven years of quality local reporting in a variety of newspaper roles, Brad Breithaupt was recruited by the Marin Independent Journal in 1983. For the next 35 years, Mr. Breithaupt remained at the Marin Independent Journal, where he served as a reporter, columnist, city editor, editorial writer, and editorial editor, among other roles. During his time at the Marin Independent Journal, Brad Breithaupt stayed committed to balanced reporting and shining a light on causes in need of the public's attention. His work put a spotlight on local and regional topics including crime, community politics, and infrastructure hazards, driving the region's agenda and helping set priorities for the public and decision-makers. Mr. Speaker, Brad Breithaupt's career represents more than a collection of articles, but rather a laudable example of the role that local journalism can play in informing and supporting our communities. Given the adverse conditions that local news sources increasingly face across the country, it seems fitting and appropriate to celebrate the culmination of this momentous career. Therefore, please join me in congratulating him on his retirement and expressing our deep appreciation for his long and exceptional career in local journalism.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has just hit on the ``quo.'' We talked about the ``quid'': the solicitations from Russia. Through Papadopoulos, even earlier, in April, the spring of 2016, those solicitations were welcomed and embraced by the highest levels of the Trump campaign, possibly even Mr. Trump himself. We need to nail down that phone call and a few other details. But now we are talking about the ``quo'' part: what would Russia get in return? And we know from undisputed evidence that Mike Flynn was working on sanctions relief even before they took office, during the transition, violating, apparently, the Logan Act as he was doing it. We know that this President and others in his administration have bent over backwards to try to cut Russia breaks on these sanctions. So, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right to focus on that obvious piece, the ``quo'' part of this seeming quid pro quo. That is another reason why we have to let this investigation run its course: so that we can find out exactly what happened here.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado is right that the pace of revelations and controversies surrounding this Trump White House and their personal financial and political involvement with Russia, their attempts to interfere with and obstruct justice relating to Mr. Mueller's investigation, the pace of all that is just dizzy. So, here we are, 1 year into the work of Special Counsel Mueller. I am glad that Congressman Perlmutter began his remarks by reminding us of the context of this issue; the fact that what happened in the 2016 Presidential election was a big deal. It was unprecedented. A foreign adversary maliciously interfered in our election with a specific intent to help one candidate and to hurt another. They placed a bet on Donald Trump. They put their thumb on the scale in every way they could to help Donald Trump. Maybe that is why all along he has been reluctant to acknowledge what obviously happened. He doesn't want to talk about it. He wants to write it all off as a witch hunt and a conspiracy theory. He probably feels a little defensive about that cloud of legitimacy involving Russian interference. Based on what we know so far, there may be an even more sinister explanation for some of his behavior. It may be that he--or, at least a lot of people very close to him--were actively working with the Russians as part of this. That is what the Mueller investigation is looking into and that is what the American people have to find out. We have to know the full extent of exactly what happened, no matter where those facts may lead. The truth is, at this 1-year mark in this historic investigation, this historic scandal, there is plenty of reason to worry about what President Trump might do by way of trying to block and stop and interfere with this investigation. It is not just us saying it. You can look at his own word. He has said at various times in recent months: ``At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved.'' That is obviously a threat, whether that is using his pardon power or beginning to fire people in the Department of Justice, the FBI, or even the Special Counsel himself. He has threatened to reveal conflicts of interest of the Special Counsel. Obviously, this is a favorite tactic of President Trump, trying to intimidate, trying to posture with folks who he perceives as adversaries. He said on another occasion: ``Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy.'' These are the ravings of someone who is acting very defensively. And I would say as a former attorney--Congressman Perlmutter is a former attorney himself--it really speaks to a consciousness of guilt. We would argue that if we were in a court of law and we had evidence of statements such as this repeatedly calling this investigation a witch hunt. On another occasion, he says: ``As I have been saying all along, it is all a big hoax by Democrats based on payments and lies. There should never have been a Special Counsel appointed. Witch hunt.'' On another occasion he said: Why don't I just fire Mueller? Well, we'll see what happens. Taken together, all of his various statements should be very troubling to anyone who cares about the independence of our law enforcement agencies and about the integrity of this critically important investigation. I am glad to stand with the gentleman tonight and every night that we have had these Special Order hours to continue to make sure that our colleagues here in the House know that we are going to defend this investigation, that we are going to do everything we can to make sure that our law enforcement professionals and Special Counsel Mueller have the chance to fully find the evidence, wherever it may lead, to get the truth out to the American people. We deserve nothing less. I am glad to see our colleague, Joe Courtney from Connecticut, joining the conversation.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, that infamous Trump Tower meeting in June of 2016 just stinks to high heaven; the gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who looks objectively at what we know about that meeting, anyone who is not hosting a show on FOX News, at least, would feel that there is a big, big problem here and we have got to ask some hard questions. Of course, Donald Trump, Jr., initially outright lied about it, said it was about adoption. And then we saw the full text of the email exchange, making it very clear that this was the front-end part of a quid pro quo between the Trump operation and the Russians, that this was the offer of assistance, of dirt, of a bombshell on the Clinton campaign. And of course that was greeted with enthusiasm by Trump, Jr., who hastily arranged the meeting, brought in the top brass, said he was very excited about it if it is what he thought it was. And then, when it proved not to reveal that bombshell, he immediately expressed how disappointed he was, and some phone calls ensued. One of those phone calls was from a restricted number, and he claims he didn't remember exactly who that call was. Well, turns out his dad, our President now, has a restricted number. And that is a knowable fact. If our colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee were serious about this investigation, they would find out who that phone call was to because it is one of the dots that could need to be connected around this very controversial Trump Tower meeting. But they are not interested at all. They didn't ask those questions. They didn't even require Trump, Jr., to answer the questions, and they have rushed to shut down their investigation. So that brings me to the other point. We have all talked about the threats to the Mueller investigation from President Trump himself, but there is another threat from within these walls, from our colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee, who have taken this sacred trust of oversight that we have as Members of Congress and, unfortunately, compromised it to the level that they seem to simply be fronting for the President instead of doing a genuine investigation. Unlike their colleagues in the Senate who at least acknowledge the obvious, that Russia was trying to help President Trump in its interference, their report doesn't even say that. And then they include a gratuitous statement that they find no evidence of collusion, despite everything we have been talking about, everything that is already in the public record. We have got a real problem within these walls that also threatens the investigation.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on the day of April 27, I was unavoidably detained. As a result, I was absent for Roll Call votes 163 through 166. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: for Roll Call vote 163, on agreeing to the amendment on of H.R. 4, I would have voted no; for Roll Call vote 164, on motion to recommit with instructions of H.R. 4, I would have voted yes; for vote 165, on passage of H.R. 4, I would have voted yes; and for Roll Call vote 166, on motion to table H. Res. 856, I would have voted no.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Wade Thomas Elementary School in Marin County for its recognition on May 3, 2018 as a 2018 California Distinguished School by the California Department of Education. Chosen for its exemplary high performance, as measured by state and national assessments, Wade Thomas Elementary School was one of 287 schools to attain this honor statewide. This highly competitive award reflects outstanding achievement and the highest caliber of professional service, family commitment, and community engagement. With 412 students across six grades, Wade Thomas Elementary School offers comprehensive educational programs that academically challenge and instill a joy of learning in its students while ensuring that all children have the skills and knowledge to reach their full potential. Mr. Speaker, this hard-earned distinction reflects true community success. From the students and their families, to the staff and administrators, and the extended community, Wade Thomas Elementary School has developed an education model for the state and the nation: empowering today's students to be tomorrow's problem-solvers, inventors, and pioneers. Please join me in congratulating Wade Thomas Elementary School on this impressive achievement.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ross Elementary School in Marin County for its recognition on May 3, 2018 as a 2018 California Distinguished School by the California Department of Education. Chosen for its exemplary high performance, as measured by state and national assessments, Ross Elementary School was one of 287 schools to attain this honor statewide. This highly competitive award reflects outstanding achievement and the highest caliber of professional service, family commitment, and community engagement. With 366 students, Ross Elementary School offers comprehensive educational programs that academically challenge and instill a joy of learning in its students while ensuring that all children have the skills and knowledge to reach their full potential. Mr. Speaker, this hard-earned distinction reflects true community success. From the students and their families, to the staff and administrators, and the extended community, Ross Elementary School has developed an education model for the state and the nation: empowering today's students to be tomorrow's problem-solvers, inventors, and pioneers. Please join me in congratulating Ross Elementary School on this impressive achievement.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today we are being asked to pass yet another bill that undermines the Endangered Species Act and accelerates the extinction of our Nation's fish and wildlife. Specifically, H.R. 3144, the Salmon Extinction Act, undermines protections for several runs of wild salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest. The Northwest's iconic salmon runs are extremely important to commercial, recreational, and Tribal fishing interests across the country. My Republican colleagues are pushing this bill even though the region's salmon runs are currently at crisis levels. Recently, we have even seen reporting that, for the first time, Federal scientists who were surveying Northwest salmon populations came up with empty nets. And yet, here we are today, advancing a bill that will do nothing but accelerate our Nation's existing salmon declines. The bill also represents a troubling attack on the legal process. If enacted, it would overturn legally sound court decisions simply because the bill's sponsors don't like them. Instead of following the law, this bill forcibly mandates the use of an outdated illegal salmon recovery plan for the Federal Columbia River Power System. The recovery plan in question has clearly been found by the courts to violate the law and the Endangered Species Act. It is illegal, and Congress, through this bill, would be saying: Do it anyway. I should note that this bill also undermines one of our Nation's other bedrock environmental laws, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, by barring a host of actions that could potentially recover this region's salmon runs, which are currently, again, on the brink of extinction. The sponsor of this bill and I do agree on one thing, however. When talking about this bill, Representative McMorris Rodgers recently said that dams and fish can coexist, and I too think that is possible. The debate here is not about dams versus no dams. The debate is about striking the appropriate balance between responsible hydropower development and sound fisheries protection. For too long, there has been an imbalance when we consider these issues. Our country built thousands of dams in the 20th century before we even realized the harm that can be caused to our Nation's fisheries. So today, we are left with many legacy, low-value dams that don't justify their cost and their impacts to our Nation's fishery and natural resources. So as we consider what to do about these older, low-value dams, our decision making must be guided by the best available science and a consideration of all available options, not what politicians in Congress want. Unfortunately, this bill takes us in the wrong direction by blocking responsive science-based fisheries management. It would actually lock in a disastrous status quo until at least the year 2022; a status quo that is expensive, illegal, and inadequate; an approach that causes great harm to wild salmon, struggling fishing communities, Tribes, and energy consumers. The status quo is not working. This bill says: Keep doing it anyway. It is time for Federal agencies to pursue new, innovative solutions that are better for both fisheries and hydropower generation. This bill pushes a one-sided divisive approach that will only cause further harm. That is why it is opposed by the Governors of both Washington and Oregon, by Tribal interests, by hundreds of businesses that depend on healthy salmon runs, and also by numerous conservation organizations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Nancy Kenyon for her stellar leadership and exemplary public service as the founder and former executive director of Fair Housing of Marin, which is now Fair Housing of Northern California. In 1963, Ms. Kenyon joined the Fair Housing Council of Northern New Jersey, where she served for 12 years and rose to the rank of Housing Director. During this period, she led a number of initiatives, including the creation of a funding stream by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to support efforts by fair housing organizations to end discriminatory housing practices, now known as the Fair Housing Initiative Program. She also supervised housing projects for the Ford Foundation and served as a training consultant for the States of New York and New Jersey. In 1979, she moved to California to assume the position of Researcher of the Special Contribution Fund of the San Francisco Chapter of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Her research in this role helped the NAACP to successfully argue that the San Francisco Unified School District violated federal law in its maintenance and creation of a racial segregated school system, and she helped establish a citywide lottery affording every child regardless of race, color, national origin, or class the right to attend the most prestigious schools in the district. In 1984, Ms. Kenyon returned to her roots in enforcing fair housing laws and founded Fair Housing of Marin, where she would serve as Executive Director until her retirement in 2012. Under her leadership, Fair Housing of Marin grew from two part-time staff operating in a spare bedroom to a staff of 10 serving communities in Marin, Sonoma and Solano Counties. Ms. Kenyon's quest for fair housing has also been expressed in several published articles she authored, and her powerful advocacy has been recognized with numerous awards, most notably the 2005 National Pioneer of Fair Housing Award, and the Human Rights Award from the United Nations Association in Northwest Bergen County, New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Kenyon is a respected leader and dedicated champion for equity. Please join me in expressing my deep appreciation and praise for her national leadership as Fair Housing of Northern California honors her as part of a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for his leadership and convening these conversations. It was really helpful to hear from our friend from Missouri, who reminds us that this is really a big deal, this Russian meddling, and that we have to keep pushing to get answers as to why our President behaves so strangely when it comes to Russia, and we have to hold anyone who may have been part of that Russian interference fully accountable. I will tell Congressman Perlmutter that constituents in my district, and I think a growing number of people around this country, are extremely concerned and growing more and more concerned about this dark cloud of corruption over the Trump administration; about the possibility of collusion between the Trump team and a foreign government to affect the 2016 election; about the obstruction of justice, the pattern of lying about even the most basic facts; and just based on what has already come out through the special counsel investigation and through the media and, to some extent, through congressional investigations, their level of concern is really growing. This week, I want to focus on one aspect of these investigations that we have tried to push here in the House and in the Senate: the issue of privilege. I am not talking about the kind of privilege where a billionaire's son-in-law gets a job inside the White House, even though he has no foreign policy experience and can't get a security clearance. That is a different kind of privilege. I want to talk about the issue of executive privilege. This is an idea that Presidential communications need to be kept out of the public eye, even when Congress or the courts issue subpoenas and request that information. Presidents have always kind of tried to claim that this type of privilege is implied in the Constitution's separation of powers. It is an argument that a President might not get as candid and fulsome advice from his Cabinet and others if all of it was going to be publicly disclosed. So I can appreciate that. But the Trump administration has taken this notion of executive privilege to extreme and absurd lengths. I think we need to talk about that. Just a little quick historical aside, though, on executive privilege. The concept and the limit of executive privilege has really only been tested at the Supreme Court in a pair of Watergate-related lawsuits in the 1970s. This came about when the special prosecutor sought access to President Nixon's secret Oval Office tapes. In that case, the court rejected President Nixon's attempts to quash a judicial subpoena. The unanimous decision of that court was that the President had to hand over these tape-recorded conversations with his closest advisers about the Watergate break-in. Of course, we know that was the beginning of the end of the Nixon Presidency. So back to the modern era. Over the past year, we have seen numerous Trump officials, and even some who never worked in the White House, refuse to answer questions from Congress, asserting some variation of this executive privilege. In the now-defunct House Intelligence Committee investigation we have seen it. We have seen it in the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. I think we need to take a look at how this is being used or misused. We have seen witnesses, literally on a break from their testimony, take phone calls from the White House, where they get instructions about what questions they can answer and which ones they can't. Essentially, President Trump has treated the executive privilege as if it is a gag order he can invoke on those around him. It is sort of like the hush money nondisclosure agreements that he has entered into with porn stars and playmates and all sorts of others to keep embarrassing or damaging information out of the public eye. A few specific examples of this and why it doesn't hold up. In June 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was testifying before the Senate committee about the firing of James Comey. He refused to answer certain questions, but he did choose to answer others that he thought were helpful. He claimed that he was protecting the right of President Trump to assert the executive privilege. Well, first of all, Sessions can't selectively choose when to invoke the privilege and when not to. There is this thing called waiver, and you don't get to cherry-pick the stuff that you think helps you and then invoke the privilege for the stuff that doesn't. But the second point is that the Attorney General even admitted that he does not have the power to claim executive privilege. He said: ``I am protecting the President's constitutional right by not giving it away before he has had a chance to weigh in.'' The President hasn't done that. In fact, the President has yet to assert the executive privilege, but he has had all of these other folks on a short leash, counting on them to assert the privilege. So then we go to January of 2018. Steve Bannon was testifying in the House Intelligence Committee. He only agreed to answer 25 specific yes or no questions that had been drafted by the White House. So, on a bipartisan basis, the committee issued a subpoena to force Bannon to answer these questions, but he continued to stonewall and the committee never followed through. Again, why Bannon's assertions of the privilege don't pencil out. In the United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court made very clear that public extrajudicial disclosure of a privilege like the executive privilege is a waiver. So right off the bat you have the problem that Steve Bannon spilled his guts in ``Fire and Fury'' for the whole world to see. He has made public extrajudicial disclosures of all manner of communications involving the Presidency on all of these subjects. But he has also played this pick-and-choose game, much like Attorney General Sessions. Even if he had the privilege to assert for himself, which he doesn't, it just doesn't hold water. Now, some of the oversight that Bannon has been ducking has to do with the transition period before Donald Trump was even President. Obviously, there is no executive privilege if you are not yet the executive. So that is another problem. When he was asked whether he was being instructed by the President to invoke executive privilege, guess what? He refused to answer. Our friends in the House Intelligence Committee were in such a hurry to shut down their investigation that they did not move to hold him in contempt of Congress, and they never followed through on their subpoena. Another example. January 2018, Mr. Trump's former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, appeared before the House Intel Committee and surprise, surprise, he refused to answer all sorts of important questions. Since Mr. Lewandowski never served in the Federal Government, it would be pretty preposterous to assert executive privilege as a way to evade Congress' questions. But it is up to the majority in Congress to actually force him to answer these questions. Again, Mr. Trump is onto, apparently, a winning strategy in this Congress. He instructs others not to answer questions, suggests they should assert the privilege, or some variation of it, and then counts on a compliant majority in this House and in the Senate to simply not follow through. Something similar happened in February 2018. Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, was testifying before the House Intelligence Committee and would not discuss anything from the inauguration forward. The committee declined to issue a subpoena, despite the request to do so from our ranking member, Adam Schiff. So you may ask in these various situations: Why wouldn't President Trump himself simply assert the executive privilege? I think one reason for that is we can safely say that it makes him look even more guilty. That is hard to do, based on the way he has conducted himself so defensively with such a seemingly guilty state of mind in his tweets and other public statements, but the assertion of the privilege would be a very clear signal that he is trying to impede legitimate investigations. So he would rather have Bannon and Hicks and Lewandowski and Sessions stonewall for him, and then count on a compliant hyper-partisan Congress not to follow through. That is why we have so many unanswered questions and why it is so important that you continue to bring us together to talk about this to make sure the American people know that we are going to keep talking about it and we are going to keep asking what they are hiding and what they are afraid of.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will close on my end but with a bit of a question for my colleague: We have talked about how big this is. I think ``sabotage'' is not too strong a word for what the Russians did in the 2016 election. I think anyone who was involved in a criminal conspiracy with them to pull that off, certainly there are criminal penalties, violations, possibly up to and including treason, that may apply. So we have to get to the bottom of this. We have to get to the truth. And if Congress won't do its job because of partisan reasons and won't follow through and hold folks in contempt when they ignore subpoenas and when they refuse to answer questions, we can at least protect the special counsel investigation so that that lifelong Republican leading this investigation can get the truth out for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I guess my question for Congressman Perlmutter is: Given how big this is--and we have never seen anything like this. We have never seen all of this evidence that a candidate for President--folks at the top of his campaign were involved in these illicit activities with a foreign power, this extensive sabotaging of our election, and all of the coverup and the obstruction and other problems that are coming to light. Given all of that, how will history judge those who refuse to let the special counsel get to the bottom of it all so we can all know the truth?