Online Job Training Act of 2009

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. GORDON Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009.

Thirty-six States expect to experience significant water shortages by the year 2013. Diminished supplies of water and intense competition for limited resources are forcing local water agencies to make tough decisions on water allocations and limiting access to needed water by businesses and families.

When severe water shortages occur, the economic impact is substantial. In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut down a nuclear reactor due to a lack of acceptable cooling water in the Tennessee River. According to a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, each of the eight water shortages over the past 20 years from drought and heat waves resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses. The Association of California Water Agencies reported in April of 2008 that California is now losing income and jobs due to the State's water supply crisis.

Over 20 Federal agencies carry out research and development on some aspect of water supply, water quality, or water management. Despite spending millions of dollars on research at each of these agencies, an increase in the number of water shortages and emerging conflicts over water supply suggest that we are still inadequately prepared to address the Nation's water management issue.

A new commitment is necessary to ensure that the United States can meet the water challenges over the next 20 years and onward. As chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, I have tasked the committee with advancing this issue through hearings and with legislation to address technological and strategic deficiencies at the Federal level. Our committee held hearings in 2008 and 2009 to examine the problems associated with dwindling water supplies across the Nation and to receive testimony as to how the Federal Government can help meet these challenges.

I am proud of the bipartisan support and collaboration that resulted in H.R. 1145. Ranking Member Ralph Hall has been a champion of produced water utilization legislation, and this bill incorporates research to pursue the goals established in his bill, H.R. 469. We are happy to accept constructive amendments from other Members of the minority, and the bill was reported out of the committee in a strong bipartisan manner.

H.R. 1145 will coordinate national research and development efforts on water and provide a clear path forward to ensure adequate water supplies for generations to come. This bill will ensure that we have an effective national water strategy that uses Federal research and development dollars efficiently and eliminates redundant programs.

H.R. 1145 has been endorsed by the National Beverage Association, by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Water Innovations Alliance, the National Resource Defense Council, Water Environment Research Foundation, the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Food and Water Watch, Water Research Foundation, Alliance Environmental, and Clean Water Action.

In tough economic times, it is imperative that we use every dollar we spend effectively. Coordination of Federal agencies, activities, and strong partnerships with the State, local and tribal governments will ensure that Federal programs are focused on areas of greatest concern and that our efforts are complementary and effective.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me again thank Ranking Member Hall for his help in this bill. We have had a number of hearings over the last 2 years. We have had open forums, we have had witnesses that have presented their testimony. He outlined a variety of legitimate concerns that came about at the committee level, such as produced water and getting a better definition. It was a better bill because of his help, and I thank him for that.

Concerning the Public Lands Act, I will just point out, as I had earlier, that the Public Lands Act, which was in the other body, is an implementation legislation, where this is legislation for research.

With that, I now would like to yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) such time as she may consume, again, an important member of our committee.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am offering this amendment to make important changes to H.R. 1145. A number of my colleagues joined me in drafting language for this amendment, and I applaud them for their good ideas and collaborative efforts. I want to thank Representatives Adler, Bean, Cardoza, Connolly, Halvorson, Inslee, McCarthy, McCollum, Betsy Markey, Minnick, Moore, Pingree, Polis, Scott and Titus.

H.R. 1145 establishes a planning process for the Federal research and development efforts on water. This amendment clarifies that the plan should be revised and revisited as progress is made on the goals identified in this bill.

The bill, as reported from the committee, contained conflicting information about the length of authorization. This manager's amendment corrects this discrepancy and authorizes the initiative for 5 years.

In addition, this amendment identifies additional external groups that the interagency committee and its coordination office should work with, including consumer-related businesses, water managers, and public-private collaborations.

The amendment also adds a number of new research outcomes for the committee to investigate, including polluted coastal waters, changing patterns of water availability, the impacts of invasive species, the emerging contaminants of concern, such as a variety of other disruptors.

This amendment also provides additional oversight procedures to the initiative to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent in the most effective manner.

These are important additions to H.R. 1145, and I ask my colleagues' support on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

Thank you, Mr. Hall. That's a good question. Let me first say that this is a large amendment and we try to deal in a collaborative way in our committee. Unfortunately, everyone doesn't have the privilege to serve on our Science Committee, and there was a lot of interest in this bill. So there were lots of amendments, many of which were incorporated here. As I say, I think we would be better off in a more collaborative way having vetted these. But I think that we have had the opportunity to do that more recently. And let me address your very real legitimate question concerning scaling out this EPA program.

First of all, as I think we all know, 20 or 30 percent of water is lost through various utilities. I was reading a story the other day where several utilities still have wooden pipes from decades back. So this is a voluntary program that would allow the various utilities to ask the EPA to come in and help them with an analysis on how they could be more efficient and save money with their program. So, again, it's voluntary.

I would also say this is just an authorization. If the EPA does not feel they have the resources to do it, they don't have to without a further appropriation, but I think it will help them, again, utilities on a voluntary basis to use that precious water resource in a more efficient way.

Mr. Chair, let me first again concur with Mr. Hall. This is going to be a continuing process. We will go on to a conference with the Senate at a later date, and all of these issues will be reviewed. We want the best bill possible.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from across the Potomac River, Mr. Connolly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), and I want to thank her for her important contribution to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may need to start our close here. We have no further speakers.

Again, I want to thank Ms. Titus, Ms. Johnson, all the others who helped us put together this manager's amendment.

I certainly want to thank Mr. Hall and his staff as we have gone through, really, the last 2 years with hearings in the committee, with workshops, with a variety of different efforts to hear all and come forth with a good bill on a very important issue.

As I mentioned earlier, there's going to be 40 States for the year 2013 that are going to have a water crisis. We need to address this.

Let me say one final thing about this manager's amendment. It's a little larger than usual. There have been some new, but I think, worthwhile items introduced there. I think they need to continue to be vetted. I don't like to just bring things in off the street.

And I want Mr. Hall to know that as we go through the process that we will continue this discussion if there are any concerns about amendments that were incorporated into this manager's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

Let me just thank the gentlewoman for her amendment and her leadership on our committee in terms of space and science. This amendment makes our bill a better bill.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will just quickly say thank you to Mr. Hastings for this amendment. I think it is a constructive amendment. I think it may need some fine- tuning so it can fit best into this bill and the constructs of the bill, but it certainly is constructive and certainly something we should do, and we will work with you.

I will be voting for the amendment, and as we go through the process will be trying to work with you to again make it fit into the bill better so we can go into conference.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank you for this constructive amendment. You have been a leader on water issues in California. I know that is a very sensitive issue there, and thank you for helping make a good bill better.

I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just thank the gentlelady from Florida for this constructive amendment. I think again this helps to make a good bill better, and I urge support of her amendment.

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

If the gentleman would yield, I would like to thank him for this amendment and offer my support and request that the committee do pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the thrust of the gentleman from Illinois' amendment in terms of trying to stop the duplication of programs to save money. We need to be doing that every day. The irony is that this is what this bill does. This bill looks at the 20 agencies that invest in water research, and it coordinates that so we can get our best bang for the buck. It also helps to do away with that type of duplication.

So, as well-intended as the gentleman is, his amendment, I'm afraid, would be contrary to what he wants to accomplish. It would only slow down the process of this coordination and slow down the process of better utilizing our resources and saving that money. So it really is, again, with the best of intentions, but this amendment, I think, would counter that.

Not being a member of the committee, he did not have the benefit of the hearings that we had, of the roundtable discussions that we had, of all the input that we had, and I think that's the reason that he also might not be aware of the wide endorsements of this bill. This bill is endorsed by the National Beverage Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Water Innovation Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Water Environmental Research Foundation, the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, the Food and Water Watch, the Water Research Foundation, and the Alliance for Environmental and Clean Water Action.

Again, we tried to follow his advice and accomplish that, and I think this bill does and has, really, wide and active support. His amendment would only stop that implementation or it would slow it down, which would certainly be counter to his intentions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out that, in section 3, paragraph 3, part of the bill says, ``The technical innovation activities to avoid duplications of effort and to ensure optimum use of resources and expertise.''

You said a ``criticism'' of your amendment. I hope you didn't take that as a criticism. Again, I compliment the thrust of your amendment, but we have incorporated that here.

Let me also say that there is a synergy oftentimes also with research. NASA and NOAA may be working on a similar project, but because they're working on something similar, you wouldn't necessarily say that it was duplicative and not useful but, rather, that there was a synergy of working together. In our bill, we specifically say avoiding that duplication.

So, again, I think you have the best of intentions, and I think that we have accomplished those. For that reason, I would have to oppose your amendment because it would stop us from getting on to the work of saving money and of having a program that is so important. There are 40 States in our Nation right now that are facing serious water shortages or droughts or water problems between now and the year 2013.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, let me say to my friend from Arizona, you come at this with the right attitude, and that's what we're trying to do. The purpose of this bill is to not only do away with duplication but also to have these 20 different agencies working in a more effective way. But let me explain, again unintentionally, but the impact of your amendment.

Your amendment would require the administration to determine what research, development and technology innovation programs exist in all States, local and tribal governments. In addition to the 50 States, there are over 500 federally recognized tribes, over 87,000 local government entities, and so compiling this information would be an enormous and expensive undertaking. And the gentleman's amendment is silent as to who would pay for this. In fact, the gentleman's amendment is silent as to whether the State, local or tribal governments would be forced to bear some of the costs of implementing this census.

And let me give you a couple of practical problems here. Let's say there was a tribe somewhere that was spending $1,000 working on a desalinization project. Well, that would preempt a Federal effort that could be much more significant and worthwhile.

Another example would be, for instance, if there was a groundwater extraction issue in central Florida, might be dramatically different from a groundwater issue in central Arizona. But if Florida has a program examining groundwater extraction, the Federal Government would be precluded from doing research which might be relevant and helpful to the people of central Arizona.

So again, I think both of us have the same objective, which is what we try to accomplish in this bill.

I would be happy to yield.

As I read your amendment, it says the President in carrying out the activities under subsection A and B shall ensure that each Federal agency participating the initiative shall not request appropriations for activities that are identified under the section. So I think it is a mandate.

But even if it wasn't, let's take that off the table. Even if it wasn't, it still requires all 50 States, 500 Federal recognized tribes, and 87,000 local government entities to have a census or an inventory. This could be an enormous expense.

Again, I think we're in sync, but let me again remind the gentleman that this bill has been well vetted and it has been endorsed by a number of groups, including the National Beverage Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Water Innovation Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Water and Environmental Research Foundation, the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Food and Water Research Foundation, the Alliance Environmental, and Clean Water Action.

So I think this has been vetted. And, again, I think we're on the same wavelength, but I am afraid that the gentleman's amendment would have unintended consequences in causing a great deal of expense to local governments, State governments and entities all across the country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me just say I think two friends can see the same accident and report it differently, both trying to do their best in doing that.

In response to Mr. Shadegg, first of all, in the ``shall,'' the ``shall'' was the President shall not spend any money on this project. So that means nothing could be done there. But, again, the bigger picture is we share the same objective, and that is to try to coordinate this important research to try to do it as economically as possible.

Again, I share that view with him. We tried to accomplish that in this bill, and I am afraid that it would only create additional expense to put so many--87,000 different local governments and agencies through this process of having to inventory whether they are doing anything.

For that reason, I oppose this amendment.

Thank you, Ms. Moore.

I want to concur with Mr. Hall's eloquent support of this amendment. It is an excellent amendment; it is constructive, and it helps to make this bill better. I want to thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion; although I do not oppose the motion.

First of all, let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) for his interest in this bill. And let me also point out, I don't know whether he saw this morning in one of the major newspapers, the headline was ``Drought Conditions Hit California Earlier Than Usual.'' Certainly California has a problem. But not only California, but 40 States by the Year 2013 are going to be experiencing droughts and other problems with water. That's why this bill is so very important.

Now, the gentleman from California, not being a member of our committee, understandably, probably doesn't realize how we work in a collaborative, bipartisan fashion, and how that, during the hearing of this bill, Mr. Rohrabacher, also from California, presented an amendment almost identical to this, and it was accepted unanimously by our committee. Additionally, there are other ongoing studies.

But I do clearly agree that this is an issue of concern. And I think putting an exclamation point is perfectly fine. And for that reason, we will accept this amendment or, rather, this motion to recommit to reinforce the amendment that Mr. Rohrabacher already has put in and is part of the text of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 1145, back to the House with an amendment.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The National Water Research and Development Initiative Act is the Science and Technology Committee's response to a lot of recommendations that were made by the country's top scientists on water research and development.

Our water supply is of vital importance to the health and well-being of our Nation, and this bill, as passed out of the committee and the good work that was done in the committee, demonstrates an effort on both sides to address concerns over water research.

No State is immune to water problems, whether there is too little of it or an overabundance of it. Yet in the last quarter century, our knowledge of water resources has been based on research that was conducted in the middle of the last century. While I support the concept behind the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act, issues remain that need to be further addressed.

I am still convinced that several provisions of H.R. 1145 may duplicate provisions found in H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009, specifically the SECURE Water Act. We have to be mindful to ensure that these two bills complement each other and do not create additional bureaucratic burdens on water research efforts.

In addition to the concerns of repetitious Federal efforts, I am cognizant that the complex responsibility for developing and managing the Nation's water resources are shared between Federal, State, local, even tribal and private interests. Several Federal water laws have recognized States as having primacy over the allocation and use of water. This notion has been further reinforced by Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, we have to be very careful not to undermine the historical responsibility of State and local governments on managing their water resources. It is vitally important that the authorities given in this bill do not supersede or replicate efforts of these at the levels that I have just laid out.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the vague nature and description of the ``National Water Census'' in this bill may be a step toward federalizing groundwater, surface water, and other water resources normally managed by State and local entities. To that end, we offered and passed an amendment in committee to ensure State, local and tribal participation in coordination efforts. Previous efforts to organize water research and management have been generalized in what they call ``top-down'' agendas, with little or no participation from the States or local levels. The intent of this amendment was to encourage a true dialogue between the levels of government.

I am pleased that the chairman included language in the bill expanding the Energy-Intensive Industries Program established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to include ``research to develop water-efficient technologies that increase energy efficiency, including utilization of impaired water sources in production.''

During the full committee markup, questions were posed about the definition of ``impaired waters.'' These questions sought to clarify that impaired waters included water extracted during oil and gas exploration and production, also known as produced water. I applaud this effort and note that as a potentially significant source of water, the language of this bill should be interpreted to be inclusive of all sources of nonpotable water.

As we move forward with today's debate on H.R. 1145, I would like to commend the many Members who offered amendments in order to attempt to make this a better bill. However, there are several amendments that give me some concern. I am very hopeful that today's debate will address any apprehension and allow us to move the bill forward.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise today to speak about this amendment offered by the chairman of my committee, Mr. Gordon, and I may want to ask the chairman a question or so about it.

There are a lot of provisions in the manager's amendment that I support. I support the emphasis of ensuring a role for institutions of higher education. I support the provision that calls for the National Water Research and Assessment Plan to be updated every 4 years, to guarantee that the plan evolves with the growing body of knowledge garnered through our water research efforts, and I also support including the list of regional outcomes, the development of tools to assist local water resource managers.

There are several things that I had some problems about. One, as to whether or not it was necessary to enhance the research outcome number 9, ``Improvement of hydrologic prediction models and their applications'' with the following addition: ``including spatial and temporal variation in natural supply, watershed hydrology, human and ecological demand, and infrastructure.'' But I think we discussed those pretty well in committee and with some interest on how these additions make the research outcome better, but I'm convinced that they do.

I guess I would just ask the chairman, how can you ensure that this pilot program that we have set up in here would not change into a burdensome regulatory requirement that's pushed off on the States or tribal units or some of those?

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, history has indicated to me in my long time working with the chairman, I know that as this bill moves through the Senate, we'll be working together on these things through conference and address the concerns that we have raised.

We support the committee, and I thank the chairman for his discussion.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Although I don't necessarily oppose the amendment, I do have a statement.

Mr. Chairman, I actually rise in support of the amendment offered by Representative Kosmas of Florida.

The amendment simply directs the agencies under the interagency committee to assess the impacts of natural disasters on water resources.

We know that national disasters such as floods, droughts, hurricanes and all of that can have a very significant effect on water levels and cause major disruptions in local communities.

In my home State of Texas, we have recently seen the extremes of way too much water in the form of hurricanes and too little, many times in the form of droughts.

It's important that we achieve a better understanding of the impacts of these natural disasters on water resources so that local managers and State officials can plan and manage for future use and economic growth. It simply makes sense that we coordinate efforts at the local, State and national level to achieve these ends.

I have long been a proponent of this type of coordination. During the 109th Congress, I sponsored a bill to create the National Integrated Drought Information System, and I am proud to say the program is currently up and running. NIDIS coordinates and integrates observations so that local water managers can better plan and can better predict for future uses.

While our Nation will always face natural disasters of one form or another, we can do more to mitigate the effects through careful study and careful planning. The gentlelady's amendment moves in that direction, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Washington's amendment. Potential reservoirs and new hydropower should continue to play a major part in our water and energy supplies.

As areas of the country struggle with water shortages or increasing demands on the water supply, we have to be willing to be creative in the ways we address water use and water storage problems. This is a thoughtful amendment and an improvement to the bill. I commend Mr. Hastings for his leadership on this effort.

I am not opposed to the amendment, I recommend its passage, and I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think this amendment is very important to ensure that we assess water supply and water needs for communities and we keep in mind the industries and businesses that employ the folks in these communities.

We don't believe the bill should be about pitting one water user against another, but rather it should help to ensure enough water for all users by focusing on new methods and technologies for conservation and efficiency.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise not in opposition, but to make a statement about the amendment.

I have some question about it, but I don't think I have a question I want to propound to you because we have discussed it. And your amendment would add to the growing list of research outcomes, the improvement of understanding of competing water supply uses and how different uses interact with each other and impact each other. And I know you understand that, and we've discussed it.

I would ask whether or not it means using water for irrigation is competing with industrial uses or the ecosystem management, like releasing large volumes of water from dams competing with the use of water for electricity generation or recreational activities. And we've had some of that at Lake Texoma in my district.

But as we go through and this goes on to the Senate and we have conference committees, and I know you've always been willing to explain your position, and we'll work together on that.

So I'm satisfied with the bill, and I would hope that we pass the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I do not oppose it.

I have some reservations about it, but they're reservations I think that we can work as it goes through and on through the conference committee. I appreciate this amendment, and I do not object to the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Actually, this amendment seeks, as the gentleman has expressed, to return us to the original purpose of the bill by focusing on the duplication that exists among Federal agencies involved in water research efforts and attempting to streamline these efforts. I think we always have to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars as we work through legislation up here.

I support the amendment because I believe it's a good amendment, and it's looking after the taxpayers, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition. Though I'm not totally opposed to it, I'd like to make a statement.

Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the purpose of the National Water Research and Development Initiative was to streamline, organize and coordinate Federal water research and development efforts. Although I support the underlying premise of the gentleman's amendment, I think it's duplicative of legislation we've already passed.

A little more than 2 months ago, this body passed H.R. 631, the Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Act offered by Mr. Matheson of Utah under a suspension of the rules by a voice vote. Because this Matheson bill has not been passed by the Senate, I think we can work through this bill, and I withhold any opposition to this amendment with the understanding that I already know the gentleman, and have worked with him for a lot of years. I know we can work through any problems that we have with it.

So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Representative Shadegg of Arizona. The amendment requires the interagency committee to identify areas of duplication, and I don't like that word ``duplication'' at all. And it recommends to the President ways to avoid such duplication. The amendment also calls on the President to ensure the Federal agencies do not pursue activities already being conducted by States, localities, and tribal units.

And duplication spawns red tape, and the best example of red tape I can think of is Wilbur and Orville Wright's first airplane was a page- and-a-half handwritten contract, and the Osprey, the tilt wing that is one of the most modern airplanes today, just the paperwork on that weighs around 20,000 pounds. That's how bad red tape can actually get.

I think it's a commonsense amendment here that carries out the underlying goal of the bill. One of the main purposes behind creating the interagency program was to reduce duplication across agencies thereby streamlining efforts and saving taxpayers dollars. It makes no sense in these economic times for fellow agencies to duplicate effort in Washington and makes even less sense for them to duplicate activities already taking place in our States and local communities.

I commend the gentleman in offering the amendment, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Representative Moore of Wisconsin. This amendment requires the interagency committee to assess the role of Federal water research funding in helping to develop scientists and engineers at colleges and universities.

One of the goals of the Water Research Initiative is to facilitate technology transfer, communication, and opportunities for exchange with nongovernmental organizations, such as institutions of higher education. Developing collaborative opportunities with colleges and universities will hopefully increase the quality of the research and development of water solutions, but also spur students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math careers, and we are very much in favor of that.

It is vital for the future success and competitiveness of our Nation that we encourage more and more students to pursue these exciting fields. We know that more and more nations are graduating large numbers of scientists and engineers. If we are to remain the leader in innovation and entrepreneurial development, then we need to invest in the young men and women who will design and build tomorrow's solutions.

Representative Moore's amendment simply requires that we examine how water research funding is helping to meet our science and engineering education needs. I support the gentlelady's intent and her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank Chairman Gordon for yielding time to me and for including my amendment in his manager's amendment, and I thank his staff for working with me to make sure that all interested stakeholders, including public-private collaborations such as the Milwaukee Water Council in my district, will be able to interact with and follow the interagency committee's work.

This Federal water research initiative will certainly impact a host of affected stakeholders, not just Federal agencies, including those in my district. The Milwaukee area, which I represent, is blessed to sit on Lake Michigan, and, of course, Lake Michigan is one of the most tremendous resources that makes up the Great Lakes and is one of the largest freshwater sources on the planet.

The Milwaukee area also has a concentration of companies in the business of water and academic prowess in the water research field. An effort is underway, spearheaded by the Milwaukee Water Council, to better align these companies and the academic research strength in the area to create a hub for freshwater science, research, and water technology development. This is why I offer an amendment today to enhance the ability of these key stakeholders like the Milwaukee Water Council to participate in the agenda-setting process created by the bill.

Importantly, the amendment clarifies that public-private collaborations formed around water research and technology development at the State and local levels are important parts of the stakeholder community. This is key. But just don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. The 2004 National Academies of Science report made clear that we must prioritize making the Federal agenda-setting process transparent to the various stakeholders who have a stake in the outcomes of this initiative. The report also noted that one of the weaknesses of the coordination role played by the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, SWAQ, administered by the Office of Science and Technology Policy is that the SWAQ lacks connections, formal or informal, to States, stakeholders, and other users. The SWAQ is invisible to the public at large as well as the research community outside of the Federal agency leadership.

It's so important that in authorizing this office we address this potential pitfall. My amendment that has been included in the manager's package would supplement the great work already done by Chairman Gordon and the Science Committee on this front. It will call for the creation of a public Web site to display important information on the range of reports and activities by this committee, including the posting of notices about opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the Federal water research plan. It's certainly my hope that these steps boost and strengthen the link and interaction between non-Federal stakeholders including the Milwaukee Water Council and the Federal water research initiative.

Again, I thank the chairman and the staff for working with me to make sure that the stakeholders will have one more tool available.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would urge the Federal Water Research Interagency Committee established under the bill to examine and assess the impact of Federal water research funding on helping to develop the next generation of water scientist engineers.

Quite simply, I call this amendment the Talent Amendment. If we want to develop the best technology, and I believe we will, we need a cadre of prepared scientists and engineers at our Federal agencies and in the commercial-user community.

Without the trained scientists and engineers to do the work, it is really difficult to envision how this important work will get done.

My district is located on Lake Michigan, the only Great Lake contained entirely within the United States of America. And my district is also home to the largest academic freshwater research facility on the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and Environmental Research (WATER) Institute. There is no doubt in my mind that the decisions made under this Federal Water Research Initiative, including funding decisions, will play a role, whether directly or indirectly, in developing water researchers, scientists, and engineers not only in the Milwaukee area, but across the Nation.

I think it is only common sense that we, as a Nation, take a look at how those funds are being used, not only to develop the new technology and tools, but how it is helping or can work to better help train and develop the next generation of water scientists and engineers. That is what this amendment does.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would now yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. Chairman, I would now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Colorado (Ms. Markey).

I have spent the last couple of Earth Days with high school students touring the Water Research Institute in my district, and just spending time with these young people, hoping that they will become our next generation of water scientists and engineers.

I want to just end by thanking Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for working with me on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the committee report for H.R. 1145 states that the purpose of the bill is to coordinate the Federal Government's water programs to ensure they are conducted in an ``efficient and cost- efficient manner.'' There are currently over 20 Federal agencies carrying out research and development on water programs, not counting the State agencies that engage in the same kind of work or those at the county or local level.

While the interagency committee is directed in the bill to avoid duplication of efforts, the bill fails to take the necessary step to implement that directive. It does not in fact provide the committee with explicit authorization to recommend against the funding programs that are duplicated amongst different Federal agencies or initiatives that are duplicated at the State level as well as at the Federal level.

My amendment is simple and straightforward. It has simply two provisions. The first says that they should identify Federal water- related research and development technological innovative activities that are duplicated by more than one Federal agency or program and make recommendations to the President how to avoid such duplication. Simple, straightforward. Simply says where there is duplication, make a recommendation to the President of the United States on how I might avoid that duplication.

The second says to identify Federal water-related research development and technological activities that are duplicative of those conducted at the State and local or at the tribal government level. Again, simple and straightforward.

That is the essence of my entire amendment. It is intended to look at the issue of efforts at the Federal level which duplicate each other and to at least make a recommendation that they be consolidated for reasons of efficiency, and to do the same with regard to State, local or tribal efforts.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that everyone in America is currently tightening their belt. The least this Federal Government can do is to look--and that's all my legislation does is require the government to look if those things are duplicated and eliminate that duplication where it can be done efficiently.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

My concern about the comments of the gentleman, I would share those comments. I am concerned about the cost of such an effort, but nowhere in the legislation that I have offered is there, in fact, a requirement that all duplicative programs be researched or that a certain amount be expended to do that.

But more importantly, in the gentleman's remarks he's at least twice said that the duplicative programs would be eliminated, and I would simply suggest that in the wording of the amendment we offered, we make no such requirement. There is no requirement, for example, if there were a program being conducted by a tribe and also by the Federal Government that it must be eliminated or one that was being conducted by the State of Arizona versus the Federal Government, that it must be eliminated. Indeed, the language of the amendment as written simply says they are to make recommendations to the President on how to avoid simple recommendations on how to avoid that. And in addition, it leaves the issue open with regard to conflicts with State and local implementation to simply say there is, in fact, a duplication without requiring any elimination that, for the very reasons the gentleman has noted, indeed, to have Arizona researching water recharge and Florida doing it with very different situations makes all the sense in the world.

Could I ask how much time I have remaining?

I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to respond to the point about the language of the bill or the amendment as offered because I think there is a clear misunderstanding here. The language that was referred to, ``the President shall not request'' or the ``President shall instruct the agencies participating shall not request appropriations for those activities'' is not applicable to the actual duplicative conduct. It is to the research to determine what is duplicative.

There is nothing mandatory in this amendment. We intentionally wrote it to say it would be a simple recommendation of the President to eliminate duplication. The prohibition is on requesting further funds to do these activities because in the course of doing the activities, we believe that can be done as part of the other work under the legislation.

But just to be very clear, the ``shall'' language does not refer to duplicative efforts. The amendment does not offer binding language to say, if it's duplicative, you cannot engage in it. And that's simply a misreading of the language of the bill.

I would urge my colleagues to support this. I believe it's a straightforward provision that would save the taxpayers money. It is simply advisory. It asks these agencies to take a look at areas that are duplicative. I think it's the least we can do under the circumstances.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, to put it bluntly, the people of the San Joaquin Valley are experiencing an economic disaster, the scope of which is unprecedented. In fact, it has surpassed the worst levels of the Great Depression. Indeed, over the past 2 years, I have pleaded with this body and State officials and my colleagues here in Congress to avoid this man-made disaster.

In January of 2008, I testified before the Water and Power Subcommittee and asked that the Democrats that controlled Congress overturn a court-imposed, man-made drought in California.

In February, and again in June of 2008, I asked the Governor and Interior Secretary to declare states of emergency and focus State and Federal resources to develop new water supplies to avoid this economic disaster.

In July of 2008, I again returned to the Water and Power Subcommittee to testify about the unfolding disaster and pleaded that the committee take action to increase the water supply. Despite my pleas, this Congress and our President have done nothing.

Unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley now averages close to 20 percent, with some communities nearing 50 percent. An economic disaster is not looming for the people of the San Joaquin Valley, it is here, and it is here as a direct result of government action, namely, the use of precious water resources in an attempt to value fish over families.

There is a solution to the poverty and economic havoc confronting the San Joaquin Valley, but it doesn't come from a new study of an old problem. Relief won't come from a long-winded stump speech, a chant at a water rally, or an impassioned speech on this floor. It has to come through legislative action by this body.

I have introduced a ``no cost'' bill that would provide immediate relief to suffering Californians. And just last week, Secretary of the Interior Salazar announced $260 million of stimulus money to address the crisis in California. But not $1 came to mitigate the effects of the southern San Joaquin Valley.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should be outraged. They expressed outrage for the last administration's alleged failure to deal with the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, but they have said nothing about the current administration's failure to undertake a single act to address this ongoing disaster.

The folks in the San Joaquin Valley have had to resort to finding assistance from food banks. I'd like to draw your attention to this picture here. Kristian Reyes, age 3, and his brother, Kelvin Reyes, age 5, were turned away from a local food bank just recently. Additionally, there was an additional 50 families that were turned away that day.

Let me make it clear. We're not asking for a $1 billion bailout. We're not even asking for $1. All we need is this Congress to move emergency legislation that would allow the delta pumps to return to historic export levels.

Unfortunately, the underlying bill does nothing to resolve this crisis. Therefore, the Republicans have had to resort to offering a motion to recommit that directs the President to account for the economic impacts of cutting off water to families and dedicating this precious resource to a 3-

inch minnow called the Delta Smelt that I want to draw your attention to. This is absolutely ridiculous. This is a national disgrace when the breadbasket of the world cannot even feed the people that live and work there.

When a government is unable to provide citizens access to a reliable water supply, the government has failed. We need to be part of the solution, not the problem.

It's time to stop valuing fish over families. Pass this motion to recommit, and send a message to the people of the San Joaquin Valley that, at a minimum, you are willing to own up to the problem that this Congress has created.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.