Dan Newhouse

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Karen Miller from Richland, Washington, on her retirement and to honor her 20 years of service to the ratepayers of the Benton Public Utility District in Washington State's Fourth Congressional District. Karen has been a tireless advocate for the Tri-Cities community and for the reliable, affordable power generated by central Washington's hydroelectric dams. She has been at the forefront of the community's efforts to ``Save Our Dams,'' spearheading rallies and events like RiverFest, to celebrate the countless benefits of the Columbia and the Snake River dams. While I know the team at Benton PUD will sorely miss Karen's enthusiasm and friendship, I am confident her service to the community will continue. I wish Karen and her husband, Ken, the best as they spend more time enjoying golfing, traveling Europe, and enjoying time with their beloved grandchildren. Congratulations, Karen.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Bishop, as well as Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Speaker, I rise enthusiastically today to support this package that the House is considering. It includes one of my bills, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Phase III Act. This legislation authorizes the next phase of the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan, which is a decades-long effort to address the vital water needs of the ag community, conservationists, and certainly my constituents throughout the Yakima Basin. Mr. Speaker, I have not only worked on this project for the last three Congresses, but I hate to say it, my efforts go back even further, almost 30 years, more than I would like to admit, as a farmer, former State legislator, and as director of the State department of agriculture. Today demonstrates the closest we have ever come to sending this crucial legislation to the President to sign into law. I firmly believe that the Yakima Workgroup and the Implementation Committee are a model for the rest of the Nation to follow to address divisive issues. I invite all of my colleagues to come see for themselves. This group represents a diverse array of local, Tribal, State, Federal, ag, environmental, and private interests. They have worked through decades of painstaking compromise, collaboration, and efforts to find solutions. So I rise to thank all of them for their hard work, all of the Tribal leaders, the State-Federal partners, the commissioners of the counties, conservation organizations, the cities, local irrigation representatives, and certainly the Natural Resources staff who have worked very hard on this all along, including Mr. Bill Ball. Without their hard work and deep commitment to addressing this comprehensive issue, we would not be as close as we are today to getting this crucial step done. Mr. Speaker, I urge the strong support of all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this package of legislation that we consider today.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to lead a Special Order alongside my colleagues to discuss, frankly, a reckless and misguided and radical proposal recently introduced by some of my Democratic colleagues, the Green New Deal. Tonight, together with many of my fellow members of the Congressional Western Caucus, we will be taking the time to share with the American people the details of the ill-advised and bizarre provisions included in this green manifesto and the grave impacts that they would have on our Nation's economy. We will also share what we, as Republicans in the people's House, believe when it comes to our national strategy to innovate, diversify, and strengthen America's energy sector. Mr. Speaker, the Green New Deal is a bad deal for the American people. This so-called deal calls for cutting of greenhouse gas emissions to net zero in only 10 years. And while many studies are still working to grasp the perilous impacts and the enormous costs of this proposal, one independent estimate, led by a team of Stanford engineers, suggests it would cost our Nation in the neighborhood of $7 trillion to convert all of America's power to renewable power sources. To quote the former Secretary of Energy under President Obama, Ernest Moniz, he said: ``I'm afraid I just cannot see how we could possibly go to zero carbon in the 10-year timeframe. It is just impractical.'' Mr. Speaker, the Green New Deal goes much further than just the energy sector, however. It also mandates the guarantee of a job for everyone, paid vacations for everyone, free college for everyone. It dictates that every existing building in this country must be upgraded and retrofitted for ``comfort.'' It calls for a drastic overhaul of our transportation systems across the country, threatening not only our trucking and airline industries, but also the daily lives of the 85 percent of Americans who drive every morning or evening to get to work. Mr. Speaker, while calling for all of these implausible mandates, the Green New Deal would also insert the Federal Government into seemingly every aspect of our daily lives. By expanding our Federal bureaucracy far beyond anything we have ever seen in history and undermining the federalist principles our country was founded upon in the Constitution, this proposal would jeopardize the future of America as we know it. It would sacrifice the American energy, manufacturing, and transportation sectors; jeopardize businesses small and large across the Nation; and lead our country down the path of socialist nations like Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba. As the Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said after reading the proposal: ``What in the heck is this?'' Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more. My State, the great State of Washington, consistently ranks among the top of the list of States with the cleanest energy production. Do you know why that is? It is because of the strong reliance on our incredible system of hydroelectric dams, many of which are in my congressional district along the Columbia and the Snake Rivers. Nearly 70 percent of our power comes from hydropower, a clean, renewable, reliable, and affordable source of baseload energy. It also comes from our use of nuclear power. The Columbia Generating Station, which is also in the Fourth Congressional District which I represent, is the only nuclear power plant in the greater Northwest region. It too provides clean, reliable power for the Pacific Northwest. On top of these sources, Washington State uses a variety of other energy sources, including natural gas, coal, wind, solar, and biomass. It is because we use an all-of-the-above mix of energy sources, but largely concentrated on clean, renewable, reliable hydropower, that Washington State continues to demonstrate how we can lead in the use of clean energy while still diversifying and thereby strengthening our energy portfolio. Unfortunately, the Green New Deal negates this ability to do so. Not once is the word ``hydropower'' mentioned in the legislation. And in the frequently asked questions document that was released to accompany the introduction of the Green New Deal, it stated that ``The plan is to transition off of nuclear.'' Mr. Speaker, if we are going to continue to strengthen America's energy independence and increase our use of clean sources of energy, we must absolutely include hydropower and nuclear power. The science says so, the facts say so. So when Democrats in Congress release a sweeping, colossal overhaul of our Nation's energy policies and do not include these clean energy sources, it is clear that this is far more about politics and not about sound science. Mr. Speaker, my fellow House Republicans and I continue to advocate for sound, comprehensive approaches to energy policy. We must continue to explore every opportunity to develop viable alternative energy sources, which is why under Republican control of the House in recent Congresses, we have made serious investments in advanced nuclear and basic science research, grid-scale energy storage, and equipped our national laboratories with robust resources to lead the way in research, development, and innovation. National laboratories, like the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in my district, play a crucial role in developing the basic science research needed to pave the way for these alternative sources. Then when private industry can utilize this research, the open marketplace can put these new sources to use. That is exactly what our country needs: more collaboration, more innovation; not a top-down mandated system of bureaucratic dictates based upon a green manifesto. Mr. Speaker, I often share with my constituents that as a third generation farmer, I consider myself to be a conservationist and on the front lines of being a good steward of our natural resources. I know that we must respect our environment, we must ensure clean air and clean water for our citizens, and we must encourage innovative ways to produce energy through a variety of reliable, renewable traditional and alternative sources. Tonight I am looking forward to hearing from my friends and my colleagues in the Congressional Western Caucus on why the Green New Deal would be catastrophic for their constituents and what we in our Nation's capital should really be prioritizing in order to continue America's energy independence dominance. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my first speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the gentleman that represents the Eighth District of that great State.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for expressing so eloquently how Americans around the country would be affected by this if this legislation was adopted into law. People from different parts of the country with extreme weather, as you have heard, depend on reliable sources of energy. From minus 71 to hopefully a little warmer climate, the next speaker I am going to yield to is the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the chairman of our Western Caucus and the representative from the Fourth Congressional District.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Arizona for expressing his thoughts on how this would impact the people not only in Arizona, but also around the country. Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents continue to ask me what is actually in this Green New Deal legislation. Unfortunately for the American people, the Members of Congress who introduced the resolution had, I guess, several hiccups along the way during their rollout and released conflicting documents to accompany the bill. One significant piece of legislation that my constituents have asked me about is whether the related resolution mandated a job for everyone in the United States. Well, that is, in fact, true. A part of the frequently asked questions document that was released with the legislation even stated that economic security would be provided for those who are ``unwilling to work.'' Many of my constituents think that is an amazing statement. After an adviser to the Green New Deal accused Republicans of doctoring this document, The Washington Post later reported that he erroneously made that accusation. In fact, this document was released by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's office. Representative Ocasio-Cortez has since retracted the frequently asked questions document, but the message I hope my constituents and the American people hear clearly is that we know the motives behind this legislation. We know the intent. From ending the airline industry to shutting down all nuclear power, unfortunately, some people on the other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the Democratic side, are threatening the American economy. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the frequently asked questions document that was released by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's office. LAUNCH: Thursday, February 7, at 8:30 a.m. Overview We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution (important to say so someone else can't claim this mantle). This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline. The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all. It will: Move America to 100% clean and renewable energy Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure economic security for people and communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel industries Ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by prioritizing investment, training, climate and community resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these communities. Build on FDR's second bill of rights by guaranteeing: A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools Clean air and water and access to nature Healthy food High-quality health care Safe, affordable, adequate housing Economic environment free of monopolies Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work There is no time to waste. IPCC Report said global emissions must be cut by 40-60% by 2030. US is 20% of total emissions. We must get to 0 by 2030 and lead the world in a global Green New Deal. Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot. When JFK said we'd go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible. If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we'd pay for it. When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 2, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed at him. At the time, the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes in the last year. By the end of the war, we produced 300,000 planes. That's what we are capable of if we have real leadership This is massive investment in our economy and society, not expenditure. We invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy during World War 2 and created the greatest middle class the US has seen. The interstate highway system has returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost This is massively expanding existing and building new industries at a rapid pace--growing our economy The Green New Deal has momentum. 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal Nearly every major Democratic Presidential contender say they back the Green New Deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee. 45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original resolution for a select committee Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a federal Green New Deal New Resolution has 20 co-sponsors, about 30 groups (numbers will change by Thursday).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the other gentleman from the great State of Arizona (Mr. Biggs), who represents the Fifth District and I believe served on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee very well.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Biggs for sharing his thoughts on the direction that this would take our Nation and the dangerous path it would lead us upon. Those are things that we need to make sure that we don't allow happen, and I think the American people would agree with us. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the good doctor from Kansas' First District who serves on the Agriculture Committee. I know this is going to have a huge impact on many industries, but particularly agriculture.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Marshall for sharing with us his thoughts from the great State of Kansas. Some of the proponents of the Green New Deal have criticized others for criticizing the Green New Deal, saying that we don't have any room to talk if we are not going to offer something toward the issues that we face as a world and as a country. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, we do have options, and we do have solutions that we have been offering. Let me share a piece written by my Republican colleagues just recently who lead the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Greg Walden, Mr. Fred Upton, and Mr. John Shimkus shared an article that was published in several newspapers around the country. Some of the things that they say go like this: ``America's approach for tackling climate change should be built upon the principles of innovation, conservation, and adaptation. Republicans have long championed realistic, innovative, and free-market strategies to promote a cleaner environment and to reduce emissions. The results are clear: The United States is leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions thanks to vibrant energy sector competition and innovation.'' They go on to say: ``We should continue to encourage innovation and renewable energy development. We should promote carbon capture and utilization, renewable hydropower, and safe nuclear power, which is emissions-free. We should also look to remove barriers to energy storage and commercial batteries to help make renewable sources more viable and our electricity grid more resilient. And we must encourage more research and business investments in new clean energy technologies. These are bipartisan solutions that we must seize on to deliver real results for the American people.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud) from the 27th District.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud) for giving us great thoughts about the impacts of what the Green New Deal would actually mean for Americans and jobs in the United States of America. As the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes) makes his way to the microphone, I just want to share with you one study that was released today by the American Action Forum. It says that the Green New Deal will cost a startling $93 trillion over 10 years. Now, put that into perspective: That is equivalent to $600,000 per household. To generate $93 trillion in income tax revenue, we would have to tax every household earning more than $30,000 at a 100 percent rate for 10 years. If every household earning over more than $200,000 were taxed at 100 percent for 10 years, it would still fall $58 trillion short. So you can just see that this does not work. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes). I appreciate very much him sharing his thoughts about the Green New Deal and the impacts it would have on our country--something that we just absolutely cannot afford. So I appreciate very much his time this evening, and I thank him. Mr. Speaker, I recently read an article from Reuters titled ``Labor Unions fear Democrats' Green New Deal poses job threat.'' I didn't write that title. That is what they did. In it, a spokesman for a major union in this country speaks on the legislation's language, calling for a transition for union jobs. He says, ``We've heard words like `just transition' before, but what does that really mean? Our Members are worried about putting food on the table.'' Another labor union, the Laborers' International Union of North America states, ``We will never settle for `just transition' language as a solution to the job losses that will surely come from some of the policies in the resolution.'' Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans across the country deserve to be heard. Unfortunately, as this article states, neither union was contacted for input before the legislation was released. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gentleman from California's First District (Mr. LaMalfa), my good friend and a fellow farmer.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa). I appreciate very much him sharing his thoughts--and California's thoughts--about what we have in front of us and the impact it would have. And if anyone is thinking that this is just a bunch of Republicans that are thinking this way and have these thoughts, let me share with you some quotes from some of my friends across the aisle, Mr. Speaker. Representative Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat from New Jersey. He says of the Green New Deal, ``It is not a serious policy proposal. It seeks the complete reorganization of American society, which took hundreds of years to build, in a matter of 10 years.'' Or the senior Senator from California--Mr. LaMalfa's state--just stated last week that ``There's no way to pay for it.'' From my own State, my colleague, Representative Rick Larsen just said recently, ``It is difficult to support the resolution right now when one of the lead sponsors says one of the intentions is to make air travel unnecessary.'' He is the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation. My neighbor from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said, ``The idea that in 5 or 10 years we're not going to consume any more fossil fuels is technologically impossible. We can have grand goals, but let's be realistic about how we get there.'' Even our own Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi from California, said of the proposal, ``The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they're for it, right?'' So you can see, it is not just us, this is a bipartisan feeling about the Green New Deal that it needs a lot more consideration. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), my good friend from the Palmetto State, Fifth District, and a member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his input on this important issue. It underscores the cost to the Nation if this were adopted and its impact on our economy. I thank the gentleman for that tremendous help. I thank all my colleagues, members of the Congressional Western Caucus, for participating tonight to point out some of the fallacies of the Green New Deal. Certainly, it is something that, as legislation is proposed, this is the process: We talk about what we like, what we don't like, and we offer alternatives, trying to find solutions in a bipartisan way. Republicans have always advocated to continue looking at these issues of climate change, of energy use and production, of issues facing the environment. We are always looking for ways to innovate, to adequately fund research, but, basically, underscoring all of that, relying on the use of sound science for any decisions that we make, to make sure that the policies that we adopt are those that will be sustaining and good for not only our country, but for the world. So we base our decisions on science, not politics. As Republicans, as members of the Congressional Western Caucus, which is a bipartisan organization, we look forward to debating seriously and making serious decisions in regard to these very important issues that face our country, face the next generation, and face the world. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing debates on this important topic, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of human life and protections for newborn infants. This should be a noncontroversial thing. Newborn babies deserve access to medical care. In the weeks since Democrats blocked the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the Senate, my House colleagues have called for a vote on this important, commonsense legislation. I am a proud cosponsor of Congresswoman Ann Wagner's bill to define any infant who survives an abortion as a legal person and ensure the baby receives the same medical care that any newborn receives. This is in stark contrast to the legislation just passed in the State of New York and the proposal in the State of Virginia which legalizes late-term abortion even up until birth. These radical attempts demonstrate that this is a human rights issue that we must address. Protecting the dignity of human life upholds our society's highest values, and denying lifesaving medical care for newborn babies should defy our Nation's collective conscience.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce my legislation, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Phase III Act. As my constituents know all too well, communities across the western United States are often faced with the detrimental impacts of droughts and water shortages. This bipartisan legislation offers solutions to give water users more certainty, while also recognizing the concerns of conservationists and the various stakeholders in the Yakima River Basin. The Yakima River Basin is one of the leading agricultural regions in Washington State and throughout the country. The orchardists, wine grape and hop growers, and other members of the agricultural community inject approximately $3.2 billion into Washington's economy and support countless jobs in the area. However, the demand for water in the region currently exceeds the resources available, especially during times of drought, which have hit the state especially hard in the past few years. With researchers predicting that drought seasons will only become more common and get worse as snowpack in the mountains continues to decline, action needs to be taken so that stakeholders in the Yakima River Basin can continue operating without having to worry about whether or not they will be able to water their crops or support key commercial and municipal activities. As the nation has witnessed extreme water problems in California, we must be proactive and have a viable plan in place should intense drought persist in Washington State. The Yakima River Basin Integrated Plan was developed by a diverse group of stakeholders from the region, including farmers and ranchers; irrigation districts; county and city governments; tribes; conservation organizations; and state and federal agencies. The Plan will protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife habitat; provide increased operational flexibility to manage instream flows to meet ecological objectives; and improve the reliability of the water supply in the Yakima River Basin for irrigation, municipal supply, and domestic uses. After years of tough negotiations, the Yakima River Basin Plan is a model of collaboration that offers a solution to give water users more certainty, while also recognizing the concerns of conservationists and the various stakeholders in the Yakima Basin. The authorization of this next crucial phase of the Plan is vital for my District. This legislation will provide the tools and necessary next steps to addressing our water challenges in Central Washington. I thank my new colleague, Representative Schrier, for joining me in introducing this legislation, as well as Senator Cantwell for her partnership and continued determination to get this effort across the finish line. As this identical legislation currently moves through the Senate in the lands package legislation, I welcome all members to join me in supporting the legislation here in the People's House.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, Mel Stottlemyre is a household name for baseball fans across the country, but to us in central Washington, he is a hometown hero. Hailing from the small town of Mabton in the Yakima Valley, Mel's career skyrocketed to the heights of becoming a star pitcher for the New York Yankees and one of the most impressive pitching coaches in all of baseball. Mel shared his passion for baseball with all of those around him, from his sons, who followed in their father's footsteps to pitch in the major leagues, to the young players he coached at baseball camps in Yakima and in Ellensburg. Throughout his career, he pitched for five All-Star teams. He went on to secure five World Series rings as a pitching coach before returning to his home State to coach for the Seattle Mariners. Mel passed away on January 13 after a long battle with cancer, but his spirit, perseverance, and compassion will not be forgotten. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating Mel Stottlemyre and the legacy he leaves. My prayers go out for his wife, Jean, and his sons, Mel, Jr., and Todd, at this difficult time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding some time. Madam Speaker, today I regretfully rise in opposition to this rule. The base text of the legislation before us is vitally important. I will admit that. It demonstrates bipartisan--in fact, I would say, really, nonpartisan--efforts negotiated over months between both sides of the aisle to provide desperately needed resources to communities ravaged by hurricanes, typhoons, wildfires, and other disasters in 2018. But, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, as is becoming all too familiar under Democratic control of the people's House, Democrats are now pulling political stunts, jeopardizing these vital resources from reaching communities who need them the most. Last night, Democrats on the House Rules Committee stuck a continuing resolution into this appropriations package, thereby sealing the fate that it will not be taken up by the Senate nor signed into law by the President. Madam Speaker, I find it shameful that House Democrats are playing partisan politics with disaster relief. It is so unfortunate and shameful that Chairman McGovern and Rules Committee Democrats are jeopardizing these funds from reaching the areas that so desperately need them. Communities pummeled by hurricanes in the Southeast, families devastated by wildfires across the West, territories struck by typhoons in the Pacific will now have to face the fact that help is not on the way. Madam Speaker, when I learned that the Rules Committee was going to be considering this disaster relief package and allowing amendments on the legislation, I, frankly, was looking forward to coming to the House floor to commend Chairman McGovern for allowing a vigorous process with amendment consideration. Unfortunately, they chose to play politics with disaster aid, and not only is it disappointing, Madam Speaker, but it is wrong. Vote no on this rule. Let us send a message to communities devastated by disasters that we will not play politics with the resources they so desperately need to rebuild.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, it is once again disappointing to witness my Democratic colleagues pull political stunts rather than make serious efforts to find a compromise to reopen the government. This legislation that we have before us today has only seen the light of day for less than 24 hours. Democratic leadership is abusing the suspension list--something usually reserved for bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation--to play politics with this government shutdown. Let me be clear: This legislation will not reopen the government. This has, once again, as we have seen for 3 weeks in a row now, House Democrats using valuable time on the floor of the House of Representatives to play partisan politics rather than to do our job to find a real solution to reopen shuttered agencies. It is being reported that President Trump has invited several House Democrats to the White House today to discuss the government shutdown and potentially find solutions for compromise. Unfortunately, it is also being reported that several of my fellow House Members have rejected that invitation. If that is true, it demonstrates a serious neglect of our duties as representatives of the people. As my friend from California, Jackie Speier, rightly said just this morning on cable news: ``I think when the President calls, it is incumbent upon us to respect the office and to attend the meeting. And if they have been asked, I would suggest that they go.'' Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. Every single Member of this body should be working on behalf of the American people to reopen this government. The President is demonstrating his willingness to compromise. I sincerely hope my Democratic colleagues will heed the invitation and come to the table with a real offer. Any rejection of this invitation is a shameful disregard of the seriousness of the situation before us.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend Mrs. Hartzler from Missouri for putting this evening together to help us make some important points about a very important issue facing our country. So I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me some time. I just wanted to relate a couple of instances. Madam Speaker, last June I had the opportunity to tour the same southern border area that President Trump toured just this past week. In fact, he was briefed by some of the same officials that I was, including Acting Chief Patrol Agent Raul Ortiz of the Rio Grande Valley sector. It was a very interesting conversation. Chief Ortiz said, so far in 2019, his sector has apprehended people from 41 countries around the world. On a single day, Chief Ortiz's sector apprehended 133 people from countries other than Mexico or countries in Central America. Madam Speaker, we absolutely have a crisis at the border. It is a humanitarian crisis. Even President Obama said as much back in 2014. President Trump now is, rightly, citing the growing numbers of families and unaccompanied minors crossing the border as a crisis, yet he is met with partisan criticism for saying so. The numbers will tell you the truth. Just last month, 20,000 migrant children were brought illegally to our country--20,000. Our border facilities just are not equipped to handle this influx of families and minor children. We are being overrun. Therefore, this results in a humanitarian crisis. Securing the border and coming to a solution on immigration reform should not be a partisan fight, but, rather, we should see this as an opportunity to find the common ground about which the gentlewoman was speaking. Americans support a deal to secure our border, reform our immigration system, and--another point--provide certainty to DACA recipients. Just this weekend, I polled my constituents on this very solution. You know what they told me? Madam Speaker, 69.8 percent said they support a border security and DACA solution compromise deal. President Trump has made it clear that he is open to a broader immigration reform deal that includes DACA recipients if the border is secured. So I think our time to achieve both is right now. The fact that we have a crisis at the border must be addressed. But congressional Democrats must be willing to make a deal with President Trump to support broader solutions for our Nation. Speaker Pelosi's flippant comment of being willing to only give a single dollar for a barrier at the border, that is a slap in the face to the men and women, like Chief Ortiz, who are working selflessly to keep our Nation safe. Madam Speaker, let's reopen the government, secure our border, and reform our broken immigration system. We can do all those things.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the workers at Columbia Generating Station for sending over 9.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the Northwest power grid last year, a new record in its 34-year history. Operated by Energy Northwest, the Columbia Generating Station is the third largest electricity generator in Washington State and has set five new power generation records in the last 7 years for its increased production. Its gross megawatt capacity can power a city the size of Seattle and is equivalent to about 10 percent of electricity generated in Washington. Nuclear power and advanced technologies like small modular reactors are critical for safe, reliable, and clean baseload power generation in the United States. As we begin the 116th Congress and as the Nation strives to depend more upon carbon-free sources of energy, I will be a steadfast advocate for the safe, clean power we receive from nuclear energy. Congratulations to the Energy Northwest employees at Columbia Generating Station on a job well done. You play a vital role for our State's and our Nation's energy security and independence.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member on the House Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Mr. Aderholt, for yielding, as well as for his strong leadership on behalf of our agricultural community. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. Throughout last year, the House Appropriations Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to find common ground for fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills, including the vitally important Agriculture appropriations legislation. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not reflect those bipartisan efforts. As I have been sharing with my constituents, the bill before us has never had a hearing in this body, has never had a markup in this body, and now has no opportunity for amendments to be offered. By taking up this bill, unfortunately, House Democrats are effectively writing off the people's House and shirking our responsibilities by deferring to the U.S. Senate. My constituents' priorities--and I would submit those of constituents of my colleagues across the aisle--deserve to be heard. I offered two important amendments to the Agriculture appropriations bill in the Rules Committee this week. Both amendments previously passed unanimously in the Appropriations Committee and, rightfully, should be in the bill before us. The first was a bipartisan amendment I offered with my colleague, Sanford Bishop, who was the then-ranking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The amendment would have upheld the longstanding prohibition of releasing proprietary SNAP sales data of food retailers. Due to a decision last year in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, USDA will be required to release the SNAP redemption data of all retail stores across the United States. The result will be irreparable harm to competition in the food retail marketplace. My amendment sought to prevent the closure of grocery stores in both rural and urban areas by upholding this longstanding USDA practice. The second bipartisan amendment passed unanimously in the Appropriations Committee directed USDA to work with H-2A agency partners to modernize, develop, and implement an online application system for the H-2A program. I constantly hear from farmers in central Washington about how inefficient the H-2A program operates due to the continued use of paper-only applications. Many farmers have had to deal with lost applications and other logistical inefficiencies, making the H-2A program inconsistent and all too often an unreliable program for farmers. This amendment supported the administration's regulatory task force reform efforts to modernize that program with technological advancements that would make the program more user-friendly. It demonstrated an important step to providing relief for farmers facing a broken bureaucratic maze when trying to access a reliable workforce. Madam Speaker, these are just two of the many reasons that I am not supporting the bill before us. But there are other issues that must be pointed out, like the fact that the House bill made a major investment in the new broadband pilot program for rural America by adding an additional $550 million in infrastructure for the unserved and underserved. This bill undercuts that by $125 million. In regard to the important matter of food and drug safety, our House bill included higher levels of funding for the FDA, which is critical to helping industry advance their medical products to the marketplace sooner, safer, and with greater efficiency. The House bill included language to secure set-aside funds for persistent poverty counties in rural areas. This provision was vital to rural communities across the country that face challenges escaping poverty. Unfortunately, that is not included in this bill. Lastly, the House bill included nearly $30 million more for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture for research that is vital to our Nation's food security priorities. Again, that is not included in this bill. Madam Speaker, as a proud member of the Appropriations Committee, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. The bipartisan work conducted by House appropriators must be honored. We should not abdicate our responsibility and the voices of our constituents to the Senate.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, today, on National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, I rise to honor Frank Rogers, who has served the public in his role as Okanogan County sheriff for the past 16 years. In his own words, Sheriff Rogers ``bleeds cop.'' He spent the past three decades in the northern part of my district working to improve his community and promoting camaraderie among different law enforcement agencies. From solving burglaries and violent crime cases to helping evacuate those affected by devastating wildfires, Frank has been dedicated to his friends and neighbors. Also known as Sheriff Batman, he acted as a superhero for the people of Okanogan County. Sheriff Rogers signed off for the last time on December 31, and I know he is excited to spend more time with his wife, Minette, and his family. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on a successful career and wishing him all the best in the future.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding me some time. Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are again. Last night, the Rules Committee, under its new chairman, Mr. McGovern, voted to bring four spending bills to the House floor, four bills that have never had a hearing in this body, have never had a markup in this body, and now, under Democratic control of the House, will have no amendments made in order. These bills may sound familiar to my constituents because these are the exact same bills that House Democrats forced votes on last week, only now we will be considering them one by one, rather than in a large package. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee over the last 4 years, I can tell you I had the distinct honor of listening to the now- chairman of the Rules Committee spend hours, literally hours, berating those of us in the majority for not allowing amendments on bills. So, Mr. Speaker, you can understand my full expectation as Democrats took control of this body that we would be seeing open rules allowing for vigorous debate on amendments and healthy, open dialogue and transparency on these important pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the now-chairman who spoke of his frustrations with the Rules Committee in recent months. First of all: The Rules Committee ought to be a place where people who have good ideas, whether you agree with them or not, have legitimate ideas, ought to be able to have the opportunity to be able to offer them. Increasingly, we're moving away from that. Secondly, Mr. Speaker: I'm always intrigued by the excuses why we can't be open . . . and decry this very closed process. And lastly, Mr. Speaker: I hope if we're lucky enough to take over this place, I hope that we're more accommodating. Well, Mr. Speaker, they were, in fact, lucky enough. The Democrats took control of this body and very well could be allowing amendments today. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. For instance, last night, I offered three amendments to two of the bills before us, all three of which were accepted unanimously in the 115th Congress in the House Appropriations Committee, again, on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, the chairman isn't allowing a single amendment on the Republican or Democratic side to be offered on any of these four bills, including bipartisan amendments like those that I had offered. I thank my good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his effort to push these amendments to be made in order. It is sincerely disappointing to see the chairman and House Democrats manage legislation in the very manner they so vehemently decried. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on these spending bills.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. My constituents' priorities deserve to be represented in the people's House. Unfortunately, in this bill, they are not.