Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.

As the Ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the various insular territories of the United States, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to the adverse impact of this bill on the 4.1 million Americans who live on

the five U.S. territories--Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas Islands.

Of all the cuts being proposed by this bill today, perhaps none is as cynical, thoughtless and irresponsible as the Republican proposal to repeal Section 1204 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which finally mitigated the profoundly unjust treatment that these Americans in the five U.S. territories have always been subject to under the Medicaid program.

If this proposal is enacted, it would cut total federal funding for Medicaid in the territories by 65% over the next decade--a crippling blow that would devastate the territories' Medicaid programs and drastically restrict the ability of millions of Americans to receive care.

The territories' Medicaid programs are already vastly underfunded. By law, they are supposed to receive a 50% federal funding match, but they get nowhere near it. Unlike the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the amount that the federal government can contribute to their Medicaid programs is capped, and so Puerto Rico, for example, receives less than a 20% match.

The 50 states and the District of Columbia, on the other hand, receive up to an 80% match. Even the wealthiest states--which receive the lowest match rates--get 50%.

If the federal match for each of the territories was calculated the same way they are calculated for the states, each of the territories would have Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, (FMAP) in the 75% to 83% range based on their poverty levels.

The results of this chronic underfunding by the federal government are both devastating and predictable: too many patients in the territories receive inadequate care and too many providers in the territories are not adequately compensated for their services.

Because the treatment of the territories under Medicaid was a travesty from both a moral and public policy perspective, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to partially redress this profound inequality. It provided $6.3 billion in additional Medicaid funding to the territories between the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 and Fiscal Year 2019.

The territories have already begun to use--and will continue to use-- this new funding to increase the number of low-income individuals that can receive Medicaid coverage and to provide beneficiaries with essential health services. Prior to this funding increase, the territory governments could not afford to provide many basic services or to cover many of their neediest residents under Medicaid. Every penny of this money will be used.

H.R. 5652 cuts funding that would merely narrow the inequality gap between the states and the territories. It still would not come close to eliminating it.

It is important to remember that residents of the territories are Americans who, if they are not receiving adequate health care, can relocate to the states and become eligible for fully-funded Medicaid whenever they wish. Thus, treating territory residents like second- class citizens under Medicaid is extraordinarily short-sighted.

It is also important to remember that residents of the territories serve in disproportionate numbers in the U.S. military. Residents of the territories have made tens of thousands of deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa since 2001, and nearly 170 service members from the territories have lost their lives.

The Republicans should explain to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and veterans from the territories why they are ``American enough'' to defend our country in combat, but somehow not ``American enough'' to receive a modicum of fair treatment under critical health care programs.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this mean-spirited bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 248, I was unavoidably detained, but had I voted I would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Republicans to stop being afraid of commonsense initiatives like the National Ocean Policy. Why is that? Well, it's because the National Ocean Policy will reduce bureaucracy and streamline government operations.

Why would anyone be opposed to that? Could it be because Big Oil doesn't want anyone other than themselves to have a voice in how we're using our coastal resources? Is that what this is all about? Is this really just another drill-baby-drill issue where the oil industry has a policy, the oil industry has a voice? What we're trying to say here is that others should have a voice, too. They are America's oceans, not ExxonMobil's oceans.

So following a decade of discussion and shareholder engagement, President Obama established the National Ocean Policy in July of 2010. Creating such a policy was the cornerstone recommendation of President Bush's U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Now, following even more public engagement, we await the final National Ocean Policy implementation plan to come out this summer.

Now, the assertions that the policy will create new regulations, usurp State authority, restrict land use or zone the oceans, are patently false and misleading.

The National Ocean Policy will allow Federal agencies to better coordinate amongst themselves and with other levels of government and all stakeholders to eliminate red tape while managing effectively for multiple ocean uses.

Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control. You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. Our coastal counties make up only 18 percent of the country's land area, but are home to 108 million people, or 36 percent of our Nation's population. These numbers are steadily increasing.

There's a saying in Washington that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. When it comes to our Nation's oceans, more and more guests are coming to dinner. Fishing grounds, shipping lanes, Navy training ranges, offshore energy production, wildlife habitats, and other uses are increasingly in competition, and the National Ocean Policy will help ensure that everyone has a seat at the table.

Instead of supporting a plan for our oceans, the Republican majority continues to pursue scare tactics, claiming that the policy creates additional regulation and kills American jobs. Yet, they have no evidence that that is the case.

Let's go to what this bill proposes to do. It proposes to slash $93 million from the NOAA budget, threatening the health, the safety, and the prosperity of Americans.

Specifically, the bill calls for a $5 million reduction to the NOAA Coastal Services Center, which helps the States, the localities, and individuals, as well as protects private property and valuable infrastructure by addressing the challenges associated with flooding, hurricanes, sea level rise and other coastal hazards.

Number two: this bill, the Republican bill, seeks to cut $32 million to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has the difficult responsibility of managing fisheries to sustain our coastal communities and ocean ecosystems.

And they also want to cut $30 million, which would be cut from NOAA's Competitive Climate Research budget at a time when much of our country has been experiencing severe drought and other extreme weather. We need to study and understand these extreme weather events in order to protect lives and livelihoods. By sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to act, we do a disservice to the people we are elected to represent.

We know that the oceans are warming, and are warming dramatically because of climate change. Should we study that? We know that tornadoes are now ripping through the Midwest in February, not in April or May. Should we be studying that? We know that people now all across the country are becoming more fearful of these ever-intensifying climate conditions that are threatening the lives and the livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans. Should we be studying this? What do the Republicans say in their budget? No.

So I understand that some of them do not believe that this should be studied. I understand that they do not believe that the ordinary American is becoming increasingly concerned about this change in climate. But I tell you this, they are.

I urge a ``no'' vote against this Republican proposal.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, parev, pari yegak (Hello, welcome.)

Thank you to the Armenian National Committee of America, the Armenian Assembly, the Armenian Caucus, the Embassy of Armenia, and the Office of Nagorno Karabakh for organizing this very important event.

I would also like to give a special thanks to all of the Armenian Genocide survivors and their families who are here tonight.

I am very proud to represent the 7th district of Massachusetts because my district includes the community with the third highest percentage of Armenian-Americans in the Nation.

We have gathered today to remember and commemorate the Armenian Genocide, one of the darkest chapters of World War I, and the first of many genocides we saw in the 20th century.

Ninety-seven years ago, the Armenian Genocide was initiated when hundreds of Armenian political, religious, and intellectual leaders were arrested in Constantinople and then deported and murdered. Unfortunately, these terrible atrocities that occurred in the capital of the Ottoman Empire only represented the beginning of the suffering inflicted on the Armenian people.

Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Empire carried out the deportation of nearly 2 million Armenians from their homes, resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million innocent children, women and men.

This must never happen again.

In order to prevent future genocides, we must recognize those of the past. For many years the House has had before it a resolution which clearly affirms the United States record on the Armenian Genocide.

I have been a strong supporter and vocal cosponsor of this resolution in every Congress, and I remain so today.

Almost one-hundred years have passed since the Armenian Genocide, yet the suffering will continue for Armenians and non-Armenians alike as long as the world allows denial to prevail.

Already, 43 states and 22 nations have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide, and it is long overdue for the United States to do the same.

Unfortunately, the Republic of Armenia's challenges continue even after its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

In the face of ongoing blockades from Turkey and Azerbaijan, the United States must provide assistance to Armenia while working to reestablish the Turkish government's commitment to normalized relations in order to ensure peace and stability in the Caucasus region. I strongly support these efforts.

The Armenian people are true survivors. Despite the reappearing themes of invasions and land loss that the Armenians have dealt with for over 3,000 years, coupled with the loss of between one-half and three-quarters of their population in the early 20th century, the people of Armenia have prevailed.

In fact, I have a wonderful Armenian intern in my office, Victoria Hines. Victoria's grandmother was born on a train in Moscow during her family's journey to America after her mother hid her father from the Ottoman Turks, allowing for their escape.

Despite watching their friends and even their own first-born perish in the genocide, the Tutunjian family, along with the rest of the Armenian people, view the stories of their families as reminders of the importance of preserving the fight for recognition.

The journey of the Armenian people continues today, with our shared responsibility to ensure that the Armenian people are able to build their own independent and prosperous future.

I look forward to continuing to work with the Armenian-American community to address the issues facing this longtime friend and important ally of the United States. Together we can build something positive, something hopeful, something good for the future--an Armenia that is respected and honored by its allies and neighbors.

And this cannot come without universal acknowledgement of the horror that was the Armenian Genocide.

This legislation might as well be called the Cyber Insecurity Bill because it fails to address the reality of cyberthreats already facing our Nation. And if this bill had a privacy policy, it would read: you have no privacy.

They would not even allow the Barton-Markey privacy language to be put in order to debate out here on the House floor.

Let's talk about what the bill does not do. Although the bill would allow the government to tell nuclear power plant operators that a new version of the Stuxnet computer worm could cause widespread Fukushima- style meltdowns in this country, would this bill require the industry to take even a single step to protect American nuclear reactors? No.

Would this bill require industry to even tell the government what it is doing to protect against a cyberthreat nuclear meltdown? No.

Would this bill require industry to even tell the government when it had experienced an actual cyberattack? No.

Now, let's talk about what this bill would do. Could companies share personal information about consumers with other companies, even if that information had nothing to do with cybersecurity? Yes.

Would companies be free from liability if they share that personal information of every American? Yes.

Could the government use personal information to spy on Americans? Yes.

In this last Congress, Fred Upton and I wrote the GRID Act, which passed by voice vote on the suspension calendar 2 years ago.

It would have said to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Do you have the authority to mandate grid security standards against an attack coming in from Iran or from China?

This bill does nothing to protect against the threat at the electricity grid system in this country that could lead to nuclear meltdowns. This Republican Congress still refuses to bring up the real security we need against a cyberattack. We have an all-volunteer Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, brave men and women, but they follow orders. We must give the orders to the electric industry and to the other industries to protect this country against a cyberattack. This bill does not do it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill renaming the Salt Pond Visitor Center at Cape Cod National Seashore as the ``Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Salt Pond Visitor Center.'' I am proud to be joined by the entire Massachusetts delegation in the House of Representatives, who are original co-sponsors of this legislation, along with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who has been the greatest Speaker of the House since the legendary Tip O'Neill. Senator John Kerry (D MA) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

This year, on December 9th, Tip would have celebrated his 100th birthday. Tip lived a life dedicated to public service and lifting up the disadvantaged in society, beginning with his election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1936. In 1949, Tip became the first Democratic Speaker in the history of the Massachusetts State Legislature, serving as Speaker until 1952, when he ran successfully for the United States House of Representatives to fill the seat vacated by Senator-elect John F. Kennedy.

Many of us here who served with Tip remember his warmth, his magnetic personality, and his unyielding support for working families and the middle class. When I was elected to

the House, the very first vote I cast was the vote to elect Tip O'Neill Speaker of the House in 1977. I had the honor of serving with Tip for ten years--his entire tenure as Speaker, which was the longest continuous term of any Speaker since the first Congress met in 1789.

Tip served in public life for 50 years, including 34 years as a Member of Congress. As Speaker, Tip worked with both Democrats and Republicans as a champion of working families. He was a master legislator who dedicated his entire life to Massachusetts and our country. Tip found joy in rebuilding communities, restoring neighborhoods, and helping families get back on their feet. He never tired of helping the middle class, helping students with student loans, and protecting the hard-earned benefits of seniors. Tip was an incredibly insightful public servant with a spirit of service who truly enjoyed the work of the American people.

The squawking of politicians in Washington may have been Tip's weekday passion, but the squawking of birds on the Cape is what brought him weekend peace.

The sweeping arm of the Cape reminds me of Tip's outstretched hand, greeting everyone he met.

Tip was a giant of American politics. While he made famous his ``All politics is local'' approach to public service, Tip's influence also was felt on the international level. One of his greatest accomplishments was crafting a peace agreement between rival factions in Northern Ireland. He, along with our late friend Senator Ted Kennedy, worked together to develop the ``St. Patrick's Day declaration'' condemning violence in Northern Ireland.

A public service powerhouse at the state, federal and international level of American politics, Tip embodied the values we strive for as servants of the People's business. As an Irish-Catholic politician from Boston, I am proud of Tip's successful international negotiations that helped to pave the way for peace in Northern Ireland. As an American, I feel privileged to have served with such an historic guardian of America's working families and middle class. And as a citizen of Massachusetts, I am pleased to introduce this bill to forever recognize a great defender of the natural beauty of Cape Cod.

I thank the gentleman. This bill is an environmental atrocity. The majority has allowed an unrelated amendment that would forbid the EPA--forbid them--from requiring the safe disposal of toxic coal waste that contains arsenic, mercury, and chromium. And the majority has allowed an amendment that would provide massive exemptions from the National Environmental Policy Act and smothers the ability of communities to have input into projects that could create toxic nightmares in local neighborhoods. This is what the Republicans are doing out here today. ``EPA,'' Every Polluter's Ally, that's what they want to turn it into.

So what we have on top of that is a provision to build the Keystone pipeline through the United States of America from Canada, the dirtiest oil, by the way, in the world, bring it through the United States, and then to bring it to Port Arthur, Texas.

Now, what goes on in Port Arthur, Texas? Very interesting. I think it's important for the American people to know what happens there. Last year, 73 percent of all of the gasoline that was refined in Port Arthur and in the Houston area was exported out of the United States. Understand what I'm saying? This is oil that was found in the United States, drilled for in the United States, sent down to Texas, refined down there in the Houston and Port Arthur area, and then they exported it. And where did they export it

to--our oil, United States oil? They exported it to China, to the Communists.

The Republicans are here blocking an amendment that makes it possible for us to stop the oil from the Keystone pipeline from being sent to the Communist Chinese. Now, I hear gentlemen out here charging President Obama with being a Socialist, but who would engage in this kind of activity, to pretend that they want to have oil for the United States and for our citizens, and then when I ask for an amendment to ensure that all the oil that comes through the Keystone pipeline stays in the United States, the Republicans say, Oh, no, you're not making that amendment; we're going to tie your hands, Mr. Markey; you can't make the amendment; we don't want you to make us be prohibited from selling this oil to the Communist Chinese?

Now, ladies and gentlemen, that's just wrong. That's wrong. That oil is American oil. That oil should stay in the United States. If we're building this pipeline, it should stay here in the United States. We should not be exporting American oil, with gasoline prices at $4 a gallon, to China and to Latin America.

That's what this whole plot is about, by the way. This is a plot to build a pipeline down to Port Arthur, Texas, tax free, and export that oil out of the United States. That's why the amendment I requested has not been put in order.

I thank the gentleman.

The Republican budget reads like the legislative version of the ``Hunger Games,'' pitting American families in an unfair and losing battle against billionaires and Big Oil.

One, the Republican budget doles out tax breaks that the wealthiest don't need and we can't afford; two, gives away $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil companies; three, abandons grandma and grandpa, forcing them to pay more for health care or forgo coverage altogether; four, takes food out of the mouths of hungry children all across our country.

Just yesterday, Senate Republicans refused to fix a broken system that allows CEOs to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Here in the House, the Republican leadership has called the Buffett rule a hoax. The real hoax is the Republican budget. The GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for Guaranteed Oil Profits; now it stands for Gut and Get Old People; now it stands for Greed Over Principle. One hundred years after the Titanic sank, the Republican budget throws working Americans overboard while saving the lifeboats for the wealthiest.

The ``Hunger Games,'' that's what the Republicans are playing. For the entertainment of the billionaires and the oil companies, we--that is the Republicans--are now going to sacrifice

the programs that help the neediest children in our country. It is a budget that does not deserve the support of any Member of this institution.

I thank the gentleman.

The rise in gas prices is not about Obama. It is about OPEC, oil companies, and Wall Street speculators. Wall Street speculators now control nearly two-thirds of the oil market, up from 11 percent just 10 years ago. Morgan Stanley now controls 15 percent of New England's home heating oil. Experts tell us that as much as 25 percent of the price of oil is the result of excessive speculation, which means American drivers are paying a ``Wall Street speculation tax'' of more than 70 cents on every gallon of gasoline.

Wall Street speculators have turned oil markets into a crude oil casino. Yet the majority actually tried to cut funding for our Wall Street cops, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, by $30 million. Today, Mitt Romney called the administration's efforts to crack down on speculation a gimmick. But protecting Wall Street consumers, protecting Main Street consumers over Wall Street isn't a gimmick; it should be a given.

This motion will give the CFTC speculation cops the resources and personnel they need to put an end to Wall Street's gasoline gambling. Vote ``aye'' on the Tierney motion to crack down on Wall Street speculation and to protect Main Street consumers. Vote ``aye'' on the Tierney motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Chair, the Republican budget reads like ``The Hunger Games''--forcing American families to compete for survival against a plutonium plutocracy. The Republican budget cuts Medicare. It cuts Medicaid. It cuts Pell Grants.

Yet, at the same time, their budget calls for more spending on the weapons of last century's Cold War. More nuclear bomb-making plants. More nuclear missiles. More nuclear subs.

Their budget fails to address the needs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable. It makes no sense. It is insane.

The CPC budget includes my legislation, the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act--the SANE Act. SANE will save $100 billion over the next 10 years by reducing nuclear weapons spending. The CPC and the SANE Act puts people ahead of plutonium.

I urge my colleagues to join me and vote for the CPC ``Budget for All''.

Madam Chairman, millions of Americans around the country are focused on March Madness and the basketball Final Four showdown this weekend. But for our Nation's seniors and the middle class, the real March madness is happening right here on the House floor with the Republican budget. This is the GOP's burden of March madness with its own final four:

First, end Medicare guarantee for millions of seniors so that they're out of luck now in Medicare;

Then you move on and you force Grandma and Grandpa to pay more for all of their coverage or forego it in its entirety;

Next, what you do is you put billionaires first. You protect their tax breaks. You put them right up there on the top of the list of the most important people that need help in America today;

Then, fourth, you subsidize Big Oil by keeping the $4 billion for tax subsidies in the budget while cutting, by 85 percent in the Ryan budget, the subsidies, the funding for wind and solar and renewable energy. Tax breaks for Big Oil; cut the programs for clean energy.

So here is the completed bracket for the Republicans: ending the Medicare guarantee; abandoning Grandma and Grandpa; subsidizing Big Oil; and putting billionaires first. That is the Republican Final Four, and it's also the final answer for America.

Yet, unlike the NCAA tournament, the Republican budget doesn't pit these priorities against each other--they're all winners in the eyes of the GOP. The GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party, but now it stands for the Gas and Oil Party. It stands for Grandma is out of prescriptions. It now stands for greed over principle. This is the real March madness--the Republican budget that makes winners out of Big Oil and billionaires while running out the clock for seniors and hardworking families who are left to fend for themselves.

Vote ``no'' on this Republican budget.

I thank the gentlelady so much.

I think all of us on the Democratic side would agree that if there were a way to streamline and strengthen the FCC's procedures, and if we could find a way to improve the way in which it carries out its duties, well, we would support that. However, the aim of the Republican legislation is not to streamline the Federal Communications Commission; it is to straitjacket the Federal Communications Commission. This is a bill which would severely restrict the Commission's ability to operate effectively.

If this bill becomes law, then the ``FCC'' would stand for ``Fully Constrained Commission''; and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the goal of the Republicans in this legislation. It would establish a separate administrative process to govern the FCC's internal operations that would be different from and more cumbersome than any other Agency's in the entire Federal Government, without producing any policy benefits.

Now, we know who supports the bill. AT&T, big companies, they support this legislation. We also know who opposes this legislation. Every consumer group and every public interest group in the country says this is a particularly bad bill from a public interest perspective. But if you're AT&T, if you're a big company, you'll love this. This is going to tie the Commission in knots. You can continue to do whatever you feel like doing indefinitely because the Republicans have decided to create the most cumbersome--the most cumbersome--regulatory process of any Agency in this country.

They're a model. They're pioneers here, the Republicans out here on the floor. They want to create the most modern ``redtape, tie them in knots'' agency possible with the hopes that other Federal Agencies would wind up emulating them. And it's going to be the first jobs bill that the Republicans have passed so far in this Congress because this bill is going to create so many jobs for lobbyists, so many jobs for lawyers, and so many jobs for all of the people who are now going to be put to work trying to untangle and untie this mess of a bill of a regulatory Agency that is going to be created by this process.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this bill takes the public interest standard, the public benefits that have always been the test of whether or not the Agency can, in fact, make a decision that ensures that the interests of all Americans are being protected, and turns it into something which is going to wind up with a harmful, drastic departure from current law.

This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Vote ``no.''

I thank the gentlelady very much.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

After 427 days in the majority and having no energy or jobs strategy to show for it, House Republicans are now offering H.R. 2842, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act.

We need legislation that gets hydro projects moving and that gets hard hats down in the ditches again. Instead, Republicans are offering more legislation that is certain to be ditched by the Senate. We should encourage the development of small hydropower projects at existing facilities. In fact, if the legislation simply gave the Bureau of Reclamation exclusive jurisdiction to develop hydropower at Federal reclamation facilities, I would support it. If it mandated that the Bureau of Reclamation institute categorical exclusions for their small hydro projects, I would support it.

But Republicans, they just couldn't help themselves. It doesn't matter the nature of the problem. For Republicans, the problem is always just nature, so they went and gutted environmental review altogether in this bill. That's what happens when your entire economic platform is deregulation and gutting safety and environmental protections. You start waiving environmental review even when the industry you're trying to help isn't asking for it. If the Republicans had simply followed the advice of the hydro industry, we would have a noncontroversial bill that I could support and recommend to all of the Democratic Members that we pass 435 to nothing out here on the House floor this afternoon. Instead, it's ideology over hydrology. That's what the Republicans bring to the floor today.

If Republicans are serious about advancing the hydro industry, here is what they can do: extend the production tax credit, support clean renewable energy bonds, support domestic clean energy manufacturing tax credits, and extend the section 1603 renewable energy grant program.

Here is what those successful Recovery Act programs have already done:

Three companies have received $67 million in tax credits to build hydro-related manufacturing facilities in the United States. Eight companies have received $2 million in grants to support hydro deployment under the 1603 renewable energy grant program. Clean renewable energy bonds have supported $531 million in public power hydro projects across the country.

But Republicans aren't interested in doing something constructive for hydro or for any other clean energy technology. With their oil-above- all strategy, Republicans want to continue subsidizing the oil and gas industry $4 billion annually--$40 billion over 10 years--but shut down all of the clean energy programs that I just outlined. They're going directly after any and all threats to Big Oil and Big Coal, and they're targeting clean energy jobs for elimination.

Republicans on our committee have reported out a bill that would repeal the borrowing authority that the Western Area Power Administration currently has to help finance transmission serving renewable energy projects. Between one project in Montana that is already under construction and three others that are deep into development, there are 11,500 jobs at stake, but the Republicans don't care about those 11,500 jobs.

Then there is the wind industry. Ten thousand American workers have already been cut in the wind industry because the production tax credit is expiring at the end of the year and orders are drying up; 27,000 more wind workers will lose their jobs if Republicans get their way and raise taxes on the wind industry beginning on December 31 of this year.

A clean energy wave is upon us. America needs a vibrant domestic hydro industry, along with a healthy wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass industry, if we are to capture its benefits. Otherwise this wave will crash down upon us and, instead, carry the Chinese and the Indian and German economies to prosperity.

Let us vote down this bad bill before us and move on to the real policies that will help America's hydro sector.

I thank the gentlelady.

While this bill directly affects the State of California, even though the State of California opposes the legislation, it is also opposed by representatives of the other western water interests--the State of Montana, the State of New Mexico, the State of Oregon, the State of Wyoming, the State of Colorado--which have all joined California in saying they don't want this bill.

Why are they all saying that? They are saying it because of the precedent that it will set in upsetting settled water rights in the West.

Now, to address that issue, the Republicans have inserted in the bill language that says this bill does not set a precedent in upsetting all the water rights in the West, as it upsets all the water rights in California. So, what's that like? Well, in 1929, the Belgian surrealist painter, Rene Magritte, painted a painting of a tobacco pipe. Under the pipe, he painted the words, ``This is not a pipe.'' But of course it was a pipe--or at least a painting of a pipe. This bill has a similar surrealistic quality to it.

The bill states that the violence of this bill in upsetting water rights is not a precedent, that nothing that happens in California will be a precedent for any other State--which is why of course all the other States are opposing the bill because of the precedent that it sets. This bill sets the precedent to upset all those other arrangements. Others in the West who may wish to restructure water rights elsewhere around the West will look to it as a precedent. So I would say to the majority: nice job, but no cigar.

Clearly, this bill does set a bad precedent, and we can't get around that fact just by putting in the bill that it does not set a precedent. You are, for all intents and purposes, taking all of those arrangements set up over generations and in one bill--opposed by all those States-- upsetting the apple cart and setting a brand new era. And you cannot get around it by saying in the bill: This does not set a precedent.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment along with Ms. Matsui and Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Our amendment is simple. It would ensure that State law is upheld and that the best available science is used when making decisions about the complex California water system.

Instead of using cutting-edge science, the Republican bill would take us back to 1994.

So let me ask you: Are you willing to give up your 2012 iPhone for a 1994 brick of a cellular phone? How about giving up your Prius for a Yugo? Or using a phonebook instead of Facebook? Would you rather fold a map or use Google maps? The answer to those questions is easy.

And so is this one: Would you trade the science of California water in 2012 for 1994 science? If your answer is no, if your answer is you want to use the best science, today's science, in order to ensure that we protect the water users and the environment, then vote ``yes'' on our amendment.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) so he can explain why the radical coalition that we have also includes the Governors of seven States that don't like this bill.

May I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on either side.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui).

Would you be able to tell us, Mr. Chairman, who has the right to conclude debate?

And could you again tell me how much time I have remaining?

I yield myself that 1 minute in order to just say this.

If we don't do anything else here, at least we should say that we're going to use science, we're going to use the best available knowledge about science to ensure that this legislation does not invoke the law of unintended consequences, that we understand what we're doing. And I don't know why the Republicans have this aversion to using modern science; but I will tell you this, that this is going to be a defining vote here on the House floor. Do the Republicans actually believe in science? Do they want modern science to be used, or do they want some science from two decades ago to be used?

The importance of using science is that it doesn't depend on one man. It relies on hundreds and thousands of scientists testing each other's works. The Republican bill would ignore 18 years of work by hundreds and thousands of scientists to reach today's consensus because they want that old science in order to take care of the special interests that cannot live within the advances made and the knowledge about the implications of what would happen under their bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a provision in H.R. 3630 that will help ensure a competitive, creative, and consumer-friendly wireless marketplace. As more and more Americans use mobile devices to surf the web and communicate with others, it is imperative that they have a choice of providers that have sufficient spectrum to meet these growing demands. Because H.R. 3630 gives the FCC authority to hold voluntary incentive auctions of broadcast spectrum, it is important to ensure that there is no question about the Commission's authority to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition. Fortunately, the H.R. 3630 conferees included a provision that specifically confirms that authority. As an exception to a provision in the bill that prohibits the FCC from preventing persons from participating in auctions, this savings clause gives the FCC the flexibility to adopt spectrum rules in the manner that most effectively promotes competition--in connection with a particular auction or otherwise. I commend the conferees for including this provision.