Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and strong opposition to this bill. The Interior appropriations bill that is before us today is a radical assault on public health, on clean air and clean water, and on our environment.

This bill wouldn't create a single job. Instead of creating jobs and protecting the public health, this bill gives polluters and other special interests license to do just about anything that they want. This might be the single worst bill in this House for our public health and the environment since the days of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay.

In this bill, the House Republicans are undermining the Clean Water Act, creating loopholes in the Clean Air Act, and gutting the Endangered Species Act.

But that's not all. This legislation makes it harder for our States and cities to improve their crumbling water and wastewater systems through the State clean water and drinking water revolving funds.

The legislation blocks the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting us from mercury, soot, and power plant pollution. Under this bill, the EPA will hardly be allowed to do anything about dangerous pollution that threatens our public health.

The legislation blocks the new vehicle standards that will save consumers at the gas pump and would reduce the amount of oil that we import as a Nation. If that wasn't bad enough, the bill decides to prohibit the State of California from setting its own clean vehicle standards.

The legislation also includes an ``extinction rider,'' one of the most aggressive threats to the Endangered Species Act in my career here that would freeze all of the efforts to protect imperiled species across the country.

One of the most offensive aspects of this bill, out of a very long list, is the 80 percent cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. For nearly 50 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has taken oil and gas drilling fields, a finite resource, to invest them in a continuing protection of our resources on land, not taxpayer dollars-- these are taken from the oil companies that drill in the offshore--and they use that money to preserve the national parks, the wildlife habitat, trails, and working ranches and forests.

With this cut, Republicans are breaking the decades-long promise that has been a bipartisan consensus across this country, the promise that we will use these oil and gas royalties to protect important American places for future generations.

Outside of the Republican Conference in the House of Representatives, I don't know anyone in this country who wants to end our commitment to use these fees on Big Oil to protect our parks and recreation areas. These are our public lands. These are the lands that America's families use every summer, use at different seasons and different parts of the country all of the time. These are the public spaces that make us the envy of the rest of the world. These are the public systems that countries from all over the world send people to understand how did we save them, how do we protect them, how do we manage them. We set the standard for the world. As it was said earlier, one of America's best ideas. But now all of that is threatened under the cut to these funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Mr. Chairman, these are a few of my reasons; but there are many, many more why I would strongly oppose this legislation and the very bad, bad ideas that it contains. I would hope that this Congress would reject this legislation out of hand.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, very shortly the United States Congress is likely to consider three ill-conceived and ill-timed trade agreements that will do nothing to create jobs in this country. One of these agreements is with the nation of Colombia.

One of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to promote and protect American jobs and American values. We do this by ensuring that those who receive trade preferences respect essential democratic rights. These are important rights: the right to speak out and protest, the right to organize unions and bargain collectively, and the right of citizens to support political efforts to improve their economic condition without reprisals.

Unfortunately, we see what happens when union members in Colombia try exercise their rights. Death squads are unleashed against union activists and human rights defenders; labor leaders are gunned down in broad daylight. This isn't yesterday's news. The intimidation and violence continue to this day. There have been 17 confirmed killings of unionists in Colombia this year, according to a human rights group. Last year, 90 unionists were murdered worldwide, 49 of them in Colombia. Colombia unionists face the highest rates of murder anywhere in the world.

To overcome longstanding objections to passage of the Colombia free trade agreement, President Santos of Colombia and President Obama signed a Labor Action Plan on April 7. The plan includes deadlines for new laws that could enable workers to form unions as a means to advance social progress in Colombia. This plan has deadlines to restrict the use of cooperatives that allow employers to evade bargaining directly with their workers. It calls for new labor enforcement agencies and the hiring of additional inspectors.

On the one hand, the labor action plan has important elements that are necessary and valuable, and President Santos is to be commended for advancing this initiative; however, there are major gaps in the action plan. There are no benchmarks to show whether or not the new laws on paper have translated into laws on the ground. Will workers have greater ability to exercise their rights, to organize, to bargain collectively, and to negotiate contracts directly with their employers? Will levels of violence and murders against trade unionists be substantially reduced? Will employers and companies that violate the rights of workers be punished, as prescribed under the new laws?

We don't know if these are merely gains on paper or if they are real. And based upon the accelerated schedule, it appears we won't be given a chance to learn if there will be real change on the ground before we consider the trade agreement with Colombia.

Any trade agreement with Colombia must produce a verifiable reduction in the violence. It must protect human rights. It must end the impunity enjoyed by death squads and paramilitaries. Due to the lack of benchmarks for progress, Colombia could still have a record year of assassinations and the action plan would be declared a success.

Under the plan, the Colombian Government is supposed to be providing expanded physical protections for union activists. I met with regional and national union leaders last month who told me that little has changed on the ground. They told me they haven't received protection.

The action plan calls for hiring additional labor inspectors over the next 4 years to enforce these new laws. There's a program to relocate teachers who have received death threats. There is a program to address the backlog of thousands of union homicide cases that have yet to be prosecuted. And there is no assurance that the actions will be carried out.

Last week, the Ways and Means Republicans opposed efforts to require Colombia to meet its obligations under the action plan as of the date the free trade agreement goes into force. Without this provision, the U.S. has no leverage to assure implementation of the labor action plan. Maybe that is what the multinational corporations pushing this deal want. And since the agreement is being brought to the floor under fast track, Congress will not be able to consider amendments to make the action plan enforceable.

Given this predicament, the least the administration can do is to stand behind its own action plan. The implementing legislation should require Colombia to fully comply with the plan before the agreement takes effect. The administration should confirm that compliance through on-the-ground consultations with labor and human rights organizations. Without real change on the ground, this trade agreement is not fair to Colombian workers. They deserve their basic right not to be subjected to threats and murder because they demand a better life.

This agreement does not fairly represent our Nation's values, and it's fundamentally unfair to America's workers. They can't compete with workers who face death squads for wanting better working conditions. They can't compete with a country that continues to allow thousands of assassins to operate with impunity. It's past time that we, as a Nation, stand up for American values and American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the votes on July 7, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 503, the Lee amendment to reduce funding for combat operations in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the votes on July 11, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 534, the Tierney amendment to restore funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction and Operation and Maintenance accounts, and I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 535, 536, 537, and 538.

Mr. Chair, American children have already been the victims of the Republicans' inaction and spending cuts, and now the Republicans are specifically targeting the children of military families. The Flake Amendment to H.R. 2219 cuts $250 million of critical funding for public schools on military installations.

These schools and families are already in dire need of support. Impact aid is provided to these schools as compensation for the federal activities that render them unable to collect property or other taxes to fund these schools. This is one of the oldest education programs administered in the United States, and these schools and families depend on these funds.

The men and women of our armed services make great sacrifices to keep our country safe. They deserve better from this Congress. They do not deserve to have their children's education sacrificed as well. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Flake amendment to cut impact aid.

Madam Speaker, the effort to establish a lasting peace in the Middle East does not lend itself to a simple up or down vote on a resolution in Congress, and so I rise to offer my thoughts on the resolution before us today.

While I voted in favor of H. Res. 268, because it reinforces the importance of direct talks for a two-state solution, I was disappointed with the resolution regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was brought to the floor today. The fact is that this resolution was made possible because of the absence of a viable peace process.

I am disappointed with the resolution not so much because of the general contents of the resolution, but because this resolution does not treat the issue with the serious and careful consideration that it deserves. It is simply one in a series of votes in the House that fail to address the entirety of the conflict and take instead political shots at one side of the conflict.

Israel is and has always been a close friend and ally of the United States, and rightfully so. We share many goals and values, including a strong commitment to a vibrant democracy and diverse economy. Too often, however, Congress uses resolutions regarding the Middle East as referenda on whether or not a particular Member supports or does not support Israel, even though such support is not in question. That is unfortunate and does a disservice to the effort to establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Obama Administration, like its predecessors, has been working to keep the two parties at the table and to try to ensure that they can make the necessary compromises to ensure that type of lasting peace. Here in Congress, we should be supporting these important efforts, rather than playing political games, given the real-life consequences that this conflict is having on millions of people's lives and on our own country's security interests.

I am glad to see that today's resolution encouraged the formation of a two-state solution through the process of direct negotiations. I am also glad to see that it acknowledges the work that President Obama has done to try and ward off unilateral attempts to break out of the negotiating process. This resolution also importantly notes the violent and harmful actions of Hamas.

Yet I am disappointed that the resolution specifically criticizes the Palestinians for their actions but does not acknowledge that the Israeli government has also not always moved productively toward peace--in particular, through the ongoing construction of new settlements in the West Bank.

Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the failure of the peace talks has provided the opening for an alliance between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and, in their view, a reason for them to go before the United Nations, rather than continue direct talks. I support the continuation of direct talks and do not believe this issue should be resolved before the U.N. But make no mistake that the failure to achieve sufficient progress in talks has provided momentum to this latest effort to seek the U.N.'s involvement. That is all the more reason why Congress should prioritize real progress over political games.

I am further disappointed that the resolution misstates U.S. law, incorrectly claiming that current law precludes the United States from providing aid to the Palestinian Authority if it agrees to share power with Hamas. Current law rightfully provides an exception to the prohibition in order to enhance border security and the peace process.

In addition, I do not believe it would be beneficial to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority. This aid provides Fatah with negotiating leverage among their fellow Palestinians against Hamas. Security experts, including Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and others, have warned against such a cutoff, since it could destabilize the security situation on the West Bank. Fortunately, the language of the resolution only asks that the Administration consider withholding such aid, yet this is still unwise.

Congress could--and Congress should--take the peace process in the Middle East more seriously than it has with this resolution and similar resolutions before it.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during two rollcall votes on June 16, 2011 and was unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 445, and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 447.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 394 on June 2, 2011, I inadvertently cast a ``no'' vote on an amendment offered by Mr. Sherman of California, prohibiting the use of funds made available in the underlying bill from being used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember my friend Byron Leydecker, who passed away on May 12, 2011.

Byron was a good friend, and he was a true champion on behalf of the rivers and fisheries of California. Thanks to Byron's passion and determined advocacy, the Trinity River is today in better shape than at any time since the 1960s.

Byron lived his life with passion. Passion for what he believed and for his friends. He expected a lot of those of us in public service: he would let you know of his gratitude when you met his expectations and his disappointment when we disappointed him. At the end of the day, Byron was fun.

He will be missed by all his friends in California and across the country, and generations of Californians will benefit from his dedication to the Trinity and his tireless belief in the fundamental and lasting value of a healthy river.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record this San Francisco Chronicle article about Byron Leydecker's life and many accomplishments, and I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Byron and in expressing our condolences to his children and grandchildren.

[From the San Francisco Chronicle, May 26, 2011]

Byron Leydecker, Former Marin Supervisor, Dies

(By Peter Fimrite)

Byron Waite Leydecker, a former bank executive and Marin

County supervisor who helped stop development in the Marin

Headlands and, for nearly two decades, drove the restoration

and protection of his beloved Trinity River, died May 12 in

his home in Mill Valley.

Mr. Leydecker, who was 83, had been battling lung and liver

cancer.

Mr. Leydecker was born in Oakland on Aug. 28, 1927. He

served briefly on the battleship Iowa at the end of World War

II before enrolling in Stanford University, where he

graduated in 1950 with a degree in economics. During the

Korean War, he served as a public information officer in the

U.S. Army in Washington.

He worked briefly as a securities analyst and in 1953 got a

job at Chico's Anglo National Bank, which later became

Crocker Bank. By the time he left, he had become the bank's

youngest-ever vice president. In 1962 he helped found Redwood

Bank, where he was chairman of the board and chief executive

officer until the bank was sold in 1981.

In 1963, Gov. Edmund G. ``Pat'' Brown appointed Mr.

Leydecker to the Marin County Board of Supervisors. He won

re-election in 1964. As a supervisor he fought a proposed

development known as Marincello, which would have allowed

construction of 20,000 homes in the Marin Headlands.

Never shy about speaking his mind, Mr. Leydecker could be a

gruff taskmaster. He may have sometimes lacked diplomacy, but

he was amazingly adept at getting what he wanted, said his

friends and colleagues.

He started racing cars in the 1970s and, driving a modified

Porsche, won the 1977 Northern California championship of the

prestigious Sports Car Club of America circuit.

The construction of Trinity Dam and Lewiston Dam in the

1960s and diversions of water as part of the Central Valley

Project were sore spots to Mr. Leydecker, who had fished the

Trinity in the 1930s when it was nearly pristine.

He decided to take action in 1991, when a channel

improvement project by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation choked

the Trinity River with silt. It was so bad that Mr. Leydecker

got stuck in the mud on a side channel while he was fly

fishing. ``He was madder than a wet hen,'' said his friend

Tom Stokely, the water policy analyst for the California

Water Impact Network. ``He called me up and he must have

yelled at me for a half hour. Then he said, 'I've got money.

I can hire a lawyer.' It was the beginning of a long and

wonderful relationship.''

Mr. Leydecker forced the bureau to stop digging along the

river and in 1992 founded the nonprofit Friends of the

Trinity River. The group fought to establish minimum annual

water flows, improve fish habitat and enhance the riparian

ecosystem.

``He was an authentic champion for rivers and fish, but

especially the Trinity River,'' said Assemblyman Jared

Huffman, D-San Rafael, who chairs the Assembly Water, Parks

and Wildlife Committee.

Mr. Leydecker, who always wore a pressed button-down shirt

with blue jeans and cowboy boots, fought until the very end

for Trinity River improvements and against water diversions

in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

``He gave so much of his time and effort that it would be

remiss as his friend for me not to continue that effort,''

said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who once spent several

days hiking and rafting the river with Mr. Leydecker. ``He

had a sense of romance about big rivers and what they bring

to a society.''

He is survived by sons John Leydecker of San Rafael and

Mark Leydecker of Aspen, Colo.; daughters Caroline ``Lama

Palden'' Alioto of San Rafael and Criss Troast of Nantucket,

Mass.; and eight grandchildren.

A memorial service will be held June 5 at 3 p.m. at Marin

Art & Garden Center, 30 Sir Francis Drake Blvd., in Ross.

Donations may be sent to the California Water Impact Network,

808 Romero Canyon Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108.

Madam Speaker, regarding H. Con. Res. 51 and H. Res. 292, both resolutions have imperfections. I strongly support the sentiment behind the Kucinich resolution but do not think it would be responsible to compel action in such a short time period. Regrettably, the Boehner resolution accomplishes little. However, it makes a clear statement that I agree with, which is that American troops should not be on the ground in Libya.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for the votes on June 3, 2011 due to a family obligation. Had I been present I would have voted against H. Con. Res. 51, and in favor of H. Res. 292.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize and thank Nancy Jones upon her retirement from the Congressional Research Service after 36 years of service to Congress. Ms. Jones has worked with issues regarding the rights of individuals with disabilities since she began her career at CRS in 1975, the same year the Education for all Handicapped Children Act, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was enacted. She has been part of every reauthorization of IDEA, working on issues relating to attorneys fees, the provision of services to infants and toddlers, and even the change in the name of the statute. In addition to work during reauthorizations, Ms. Jones has worked with congressional staff to provide insight regarding the implications of other statutes on the education of children with disabilities. For example, she analyzed the implications of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds for these students, especially regarding the maintenance of effort provisions in IDEA, and she has been a part of bicameral, bipartisan briefings in preparation for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization.

In addition to education issues, Ms. Jones worked on the enactment of the first major civil rights act for individuals with disabilities, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and in the more recent ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA). Prior to the 1990 enactment of the ADA, she participated in regular meetings with bipartisan staff thinking through how the ADA could be structured to best protect the rights of individuals with disabilities while not unduly burdening private entities. Because of her work, she was thanked in the Congressional Record and was privileged to attend the White House ADA signing ceremony. Following enactment, she continued to inform Congress on the Supreme Court decisions about the ADA, and the regulatory and enforcement issues under the ADA. She wrote numerous reports and memoranda and assisted staff in understanding the Supreme Court decisions which were the impetus for the ADAAA and the implications of proposed legislative language.

After Hurricane Katrina, Ms. Jones worked extensively with staff on the question of emergency protections for individuals with disabilities. During another emergency, the H1N1 influenza pandemic, she analyzed the implications of the pandemic on employment issues for individuals with disabilities as well as issues regarding the provision of scarce medical resources.

Ms. Jones has also worked extensively on issues relating to genetic discrimination which ultimately resulted in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). She analyzed whether ADA protections extended to genetic disorders, especially those that have not manifested, and addressed other issues unique to GINA.

This June, Nancy Jones will retire from CRS after 36 years of service. I commend Ms. Jones for her distinguished career and her dedication to ensuring a fully-informed legislative process, especially in matters involving the rights of individuals with disabilities. In any area where she was involved, the development of Federal law and the effectiveness of congressional oversight were well-served.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, a little more than a year ago, 29 coal miners lost their lives in the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia. Our Nation watched with sadness as a small community felt the lash of the worst coal mining tragedy in this country in four decades.

Shortly after the tragedy, our Nation promised these families to get to the bottom of what happened and we promised to make sure that something like this would never happen again.

The good news is that we learned a lot about what caused this tragedy in the last year. Last month, an independent panel of experts appointed by the Governor of West Virginia released the results of a 13-month- long investigation. They concluded that the explosion was preventable. The panel said that the warning signs about dangerous conditions in the mine were ignored leading up to the tragedy. They found that the Massey Energy Company ignored basic safety precautions that the mining industry has recognized for more than a century. Repeated violations had become business as usual, something which the investigation called ``a normalization of deviance,'' where unsafe behavior and conditions became normal at Upper Big Branch mine.

The report lays out how this tragedy unfolded. It may have ended with a sudden explosion, but it was a slow-motion disaster.

The company's inadequate ventilation system allowed explosive gases to build up. Workers were slogging in

neck-deep water that obstructed the air currents needed to ventilate methane gas. The mine's owners routinely illegally changed ventilation plans and used faulty engineering.

In the months before the explosion, miners asked Massey management 561 times to quench the explosive potential of coal dust by applying rock dust, yet Massey only took action 65 times, or 11 percent of the time they were requested to do so.

Water sprays on a mining machine were not properly maintained and failed to extinguish sparks, which allowed a fire to ignite.

Coal dust provided the fuel that allowed a localized fire to trigger a massive explosion that ripped through miles of underground tunnels where miners were working.

Finally, the report found intimidation. Miners were afraid to speak out about their safety concerns. They dared not stop coal production. Anyone who challenged management was considered a nuisance or a threat and their jobs were on the line.

These conclusions are chilling. This report makes it clear that the failure to effectively deal with a reckless operator occurred at many levels:

Our Nation's health and safety protections failed these 29 miners because of the many loopholes in the law that were exploited by the mine industry.

Regulators allowed the mine to operate in a badly engineered ventilation system and failed to force operators to use modern technology to prevent coal dust explosions.

And the mining industry failed these workers because they repeatedly refused to speak out against some of the worst actors within their industry, and have opposed legislation to curtail their misconduct.

The State investigation is also a call to action. The panel urges Congress to enact reforms to modernize mine safety technology, give regulators better tools, strengthen criminal provisions, and improve the rights of miners.

Mr. Speaker, with this report and its recommendations, Congress has been warned. We cannot abide by the status quo any longer. We cannot let Washington's pay-to-play politics paralyze legislative action once again. Congress has been warned. We cannot let mine operators game mine safety enforcement by paying lawyers instead of fixing chronic safety problems.

Congress has been warned. We cannot let miners live in fear of being fired for speaking out on behalf of their safety. Their voices save lives.

Congress has been warned. We cannot let decisions made in the boardrooms to put production over safety go unchallenged any longer.

There are responsible mining companies that operate without an avalanche of violations. There are operators who do not make deviant behavior a part of their corporate culture. We want these mine operators to join us to rework the rules that govern this industry.

In the end, though, getting mine reform done depends upon Congress. The responsibility rests squarely here. These disasters are preventable. This report is a very clear warning. We should not--we must not--wait for another tragedy before Congress owns up to its responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for the vote on May 26, 2011, to temporarily reauthorize expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. Had I been present I would have voted against S. 990, the legislative vehicle for the PATRIOT Act, because I believe that law fails to provide for the adequate protection of our freedoms and liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congressman Dan Lungren and Congressman John Garamendi to recognize the sixty-fifth anniversary of the founding of Solano Community College. The College has provided generations of Solano County residents with high quality education programs that prepare a diverse student population to participate in today's local and global communities.

Solano College had its inception in 1945 when the California State Department of Education authorized the Governing Board of the Vallejo Unified School District to establish a junior college on the campus of Vallejo Senior High School. Classes for junior college students started in the fall of 1945 with fewer than 100 students. In the fall of 1957, the Governing Board of the Vallejo Unified School District voted to separate the junior college completely from the high school. Vallejo Junior College began offering summer classes in 1964, and enrollment increased to 1,000 students that year.

In 1965, the voters of Solano County voted overwhelmingly to establish a separate community college district. At the same time, seven trustees were elected to the new governing board, representing the committees of the district.

In the short span of a year, the new board selected a new Superintendent/President, Dr. N. Dallas Evans, and then proceeded to name a committee of fourteen members to select a site for the new campus. An architectural firm, Johnson, Poole, Storm, Lillis and Smith, Architects Associated, was engaged early in 1967 to draw plans for the new campus.

In mid-1967, the board approved plans for a $12.6 million bond issue to be placed before the electorate of the county on October 17, 1967, which passed with an 84 percent yes margin. The committee recommended purchasing 192 acres on Suisun Valley Road in Fairfield. Student enrollment at the new location was over 3000 when it was dedicated in April of 1971.

By 1990, the student population had increased to 10,000, and it became clear that the District needed to expand to the residents of the South County, Vallejo/Benicia, and the North County, Vacaville/Dixon/ Winters. In 1984, the District leased space at the Vallejo Library to provide South County residents with five classrooms for instruction of college courses. By 1992, the student population had grown to over 12,000. In 1996, the District leased space on North Village Parkway in Vacaville, eight classrooms.

In 2002, the College Governing Board authorized a bond issue to acquire a permanent location on 10 acres for its Vallejo Center and build a center in Vacaville as part of a master plan to eventually build a campus on 60 acres of land. The Measure G Bond was passed by voters in November 2002 for $125 million and included renovation of the Fairfield campus. The bond measure work is scheduled to be completed by 2012.

Since becoming the Solano Community College District in 1965, the college has had 15 Superintendent/Presidents, including Interims, Acting and Administrator-in-Charge. The current Superintendent/ President is Dr. Jowel Laguerre.

Today, we invite our colleagues to join us in honoring Solano Community College, its board and staff for sixty-five years of outstanding service to our students and wish it continued success.