Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for all of his work on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today, Congress has the opportunity to continue the effort to rebuild the American economy. We have made significant progress since January when more than 600,000 people were losing their jobs. Last month, it was 11,000--a dramatic improvement. In fact, in November, a year ago, it was over 700,000 people who were losing their jobs. I don't know what the figure has to be before the Republicans decide they ought to help Americans keep their jobs, to find new jobs, and to get jobs so they can support their families.

The fact is, every day, as to the Recovery Act, which they want to continue to lampoon and the rest of it, more and more economists and more and more fiscal analysts of the markets in this country are telling us that the Recovery Act is the reason that we have moved from a negative GDP to a positive GDP. It is the reason we have saved or created more than 1.6 million jobs. Those aren't our words. Those are the words of the people who are in the private sector who are talking about this market.

What are they warning us about now?

It's not just the traditional jobs. It's a question of--and this comes again from private analysts--whether or not local governments which are somewhere between $200 billion and $300 billion underwater because of the economy, because of the recession and because of their loss of receipts and revenues can create a wave of unemployment that will swamp the good news that is taking place and the news that we hope will get better and that we think will get better. It can overwhelm the positive job numbers that we are starting to see, and it can create that kind of problem.

It also means that, once again, we can see--and what this legislation prevents--is that wave of layoffs in teachers, in firefighters, in police, and in first responders because we know that that's about keeping our communities healthy and safe. It's about making sure that our kids do not become the victims of this economy because of the layoffs, the shorter school days, the larger classes that are taking place, and the shorter school years. The States are going to struggle with this.

We know from the private sector, if you look around at what has taken place in this recession, that the leaders in the private sector decided, in this kind of economy, this is when you want to invest in your future. That is what we are doing. We are investing in the future of our children and of our young people going to college. We are creating additional slots so they can get into community colleges, so that they can get job training, and so that they can have teachers and decent class sizes. That is what this legislation is about.

It's about trying to create job opportunities, and it's about holding onto job opportunities for American families. It's also to make sure that their children do not lose a year of educational opportunity and so that they do not slide back from the progress that we're seeing. All across this country, as the test scores are getting better and as proficiency is getting better among fourth graders and eighth graders, that is the progress that we have made. This recession could wreck it all, and we've seen it all across the country.

Rio Vista, Texas, laid off 15 percent of its teachers. Dearborn, Michigan, just approved 200 teacher layoffs. The LA Unified School District laid off 2,000 teachers and maybe another 1,500 teachers next year.

You can stop that from happening. You can stop that from happening by voting for this legislation.

This is about our future. This is about a jobs program that is paid for. This is about taking the money that was dedicated to working on Wall Street and making sure that it works for Main Street. This is your opportunity so that you can go home and say that you did everything you could to try to maintain the positive direction that the economy is starting to indicate, but we are not there yet.

Again, if you listen to the analysts, it can be overwhelmed by the loss of jobs and by the wave of unemployment that could take place at State and local governments, and our children's educational opportunities can be overwhelmed.

Mr. Oberstar laid out the infrastructure piece that is so important in terms of the investment, not only in jobs, but in terms of the investment in the future of this country in highways and transit. This is about human capital. This is about whether or not we can retain first responders, teachers and whether or not we can retain the growth, economic proficiency, and achievement that our children are getting in school today.

Let's not lose that because, through no fault of their own, the recession whacked their teachers, whacked their classrooms, whacked their school districts, and then all of a sudden, those opportunities were gone. We should not let that happen. We can vote against its happening today. We can vote for a jobs bill that works on Main Street.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for medial reasons today, and missed recorded votes on the House floor.

Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: ``Yes'' on rollcall No. 902 on ordering the previous question; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 903 on agreeing to the resolution; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 904 on Passage of the Reserve Officers Association Modernization Act of 2009; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 905 on Passage of H.R. 2781; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 906 on Passage of H. Con. Res. 212; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 907 on the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair; ``no'' on rollcall No. 908 on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 3961; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 909 on Passage of H.R. 3961 the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009; and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 910 on Passage of H.R. 1834, the Native American Business Development Enhancement Act of 2009

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the great icons of modern environmentalism, Thomas J. Graff, who passed away last week at the age of 65.

Tom Graff founded Environmental Defense Fund's California office in 1971, and over the ensuing decades, he built a record of accomplishment that includes landmark reforms to the way we use water and energy.

It was my great honor and pleasure to have worked with Tom for many years, and my staff and I often relied on his counsel and insights. His ability to think strategically about policy and politics was unmatched, and there are very few facets of California environmental policy over the last four decades that did not feel Tom's influence.

Tom Graff's negotiating prowess and his wisdom were critical to the passage of legislation that I authored in 1992 to protect the Bay-Delta of California: the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. And his work on California energy policy since the 1970's helped lead to the state's pioneering global warming bill, AB 32, signed into law in 2006.

Over his remarkable career, Tom Graff did an enormous amount of good for his fellow Californians--and for the planet and all its inhabitants. But Tom's unique legacy may be the partnerships and friendships that he formed on the way to his many accomplishments. Tom was always able to find a way to work together with those on the other side of the table, and even though his communications skills were incomparable, he knew that long-term solutions were always more important than soundbites.

In closing, I want to express my deep condolences to Tom's loving family, to his colleagues at EDF, and all of those who knew and worked with him--his passing leaves an incredible void. We will miss his insights, his creativity, his unmatched ability to find solutions, and most of all, his warmth and good humor.

I am submitting for the record several articles remembering Tom's life, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life and legacy of a great friend and environmental champion, Thomas J. Graff.

[From the Sacramento Bee, Nov. 15, 2009]

A Water Warrior Who Won Respect From All Sides

(By Stuart Leavenworth)

A lion of California's environmental movement died

Thursday. Tom Graff, who helped lead the 1980s fight against

the peripheral canal and blocked the East Bay from diverting

water from the American River, finally succumbed to the

cancer that snuck up on him two years ago.

I feel fortunate to have known Graff for as long as I did.

When I returned to California a decade ago, Graff was one of

many people who helped school me on my home state and its

Byzantine water politics.

Graff, a Harvard-educated lawyer with a degree from the

London School of Economics, was not a native Californian. (He

was born in Honduras, the son of Jewish parents who had fled

Nazi Germany). But he knew more about my home state than

almost anyone you could imagine.

I soon learned that Graff was a hero for Sacramento

residents who care about the American River. In 1971, he

founded the California office of the Environmental Defense

Fund in an attic in Berkeley. When the East Bay Municipal

Utility District attempted to tap water from the American

River, Graff was asked by local residents to file a lawsuit.

After 17 years, they eventually triumphed, prompting EBMUD to

reach a 2001 settlement with Sacramento County on a joint

water-withdrawal project further downstream, on the

Sacramento River. He also

helped pass California's climate legislation, AB 32, and

spark a campaign to restore Hetch Hetchy, the valley in

Yosemite National Park that is submerged by San Francisco's

water supply.

Graff will be known for battles he won and lost, but he

never was just a ``stopper.'' Throughout his career, he

advised his peers to go beyond mere obstruction. He wanted

the environmental movement to understand the circumstances

that led to projects they might oppose, and offer reasonable

solutions.

His lifelong crusade was for rational (i.e. market-based)

uses of water. By trading water, he argued, water districts

could collectively cope with shortages without building new

dams. While this idea was anathema to many environmentalists

(those who see markets as evil), it sparked a needed debate

in California on the essential value of water and the waste

that can occur when it is priced cheaply.

I spent a day with Graff last April at his home in the East

Bay, after it was clear his cancer couldn't be cured. His

voice was barely audible, yet he still exuded the good spirit

and humor that drew people to him throughout his career.

Graff and I spent most of the afternoon talking about

California politics, the general dysfunction at the Capitol

and new plans for a canal to divert water around the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

We had lunch at Zackary's Pizza in Oakland, where he

impressed me with his appetite. Graff helped kill the

peripheral canal project at the ballot box in 1982, going

head-to-head with some of his fellow environmentalists and

then-Gov. Jerry Brown. At the time, Graff wasn't convinced

that the canal would be operated properly, with adequate

safeguards for the Delta and its upstream tributaries.

When I talked to him in April, Graff seemed to have turned

a page on that old fight. ``We'd be willing to go there, to a

canal outcome,'' he told me. ``But we would want to know as

much of the terms as possible.''

In particular, Graff said, he'd want to know key details of

how water would be conveyed in such a facility, in wet

periods and dry ones. There would have to be long-term

assurances built into the project's operations so that a

change in the governor's office didn't spell doom for the

Delta and upstream water users.

We exchanged e-mails and phone calls, but I didn't get a

chance to spend time with Graff after that long afternoon. So

I have no idea where he stood on the legislative water

package the governor finished signing the day that he died.

My guess is that Graff, with his expertise in economics,

would be distraught the state is seeking to borrow $11.1

billion from taxpayers for various water projects, including

new dams. As he told me in April, such projects should be

largely paid ``by water users, instead of taxpayers.''

On the other hand, I know that Graff would be proud of a

little-noticed part of policy package--one that requires the

state to assess the needs of the Delta as a public trust

resource.

Graff had sought this assessment for years, especially as

various fish species of the Delta went into deep decline. The

new law means that, before any new studies are launched on a

canal or other alternatives, the state must evaluate how much

water the Delta ecosystem needs in various years and in

various climate scenarios.

Those needs, for the first time, will then become part of

an overall management system for the Delta, its ecosystem and

its various communities.

As for the canal itself, Graff would likely want to reserve

judgment on the project until he could closely examine its

details. How would it be designed, operated and financed?

He'd pay close attention to the new Delta Stewardship

Council that the new law creates. Appointees to this council

could determine if the public trust needs of the Delta are

married with the operational details of a canal, or some

other form of conveyance to move Delta water to the south.

While Graff's views on the water package are intriguing to

speculate about, his views on life are more important.

In his final years and months, at age 65, Graff displayed

more courage than anyone I've known with a terminal disease.

He was never bitter, and always encouraging. He stayed in

touch with friends, devoted himself to his family and managed

to keep track of his life's work.

You'll probably hear more in the weeks ahead about Graff's

legacy--both from old friends and adversaries. He died having

the respect of both.

In the world of California water, that's an achievement in

itself.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for his contribution to this legislation, to the debate in this House, and to the role he has played in informing our Members and the public about this bill.

I want to begin by giving thanks, Madam Speaker, particularly on my committee, I want to thank the staff that have worked so terribly hard, Michele Varnhagen, Megan O'Reilly, Jody Calemine, Aaron Albright, Meredith Regine, and Rachel Racusen, who have all supported this tremendous team and the professional staff of the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, and certainly to my colleagues, Chairman Rangel and Chairman Waxman, and to our subcommittee chairmen, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Pallone and Mr. Stark. It has truly been an honor to have been involved in this debate and sit in the same room with the dean of our House, John Dingell, and to be able to craft this legislation. It is an honor I will remember the rest of my life, and I thank the Democratic leadership for giving us the space to bring President Obama's bill to this House so we can pass it and change America. And I want to thank Speaker Pelosi. Without her leadership, her tenacity and her passion, we would simply not be here today.

We are about to make history, and the reason we are about to make history is because many of us have so much confidence in the great things that America is capable of achieving. America has been challenged throughout its history to achieve great things on behalf of Americans, on behalf of the world community. We have risen to that challenge. But throughout that history, one challenge has eluded us: the challenge to come and to finally provide access to affordable health care for all of our citizens, for all Americans, to provide them the kind of security that they would know with this legislation, to provide them the understanding that never again will they live in fear that they will be without health care, for whatever circumstances take place in their lives.

And every Member in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle have encountered our constituents over our public careers as they have told us terrible stories, dramatic stories, painful stories, sad stories, about how their family has been crushed, or their friends or their neighbors that they care about or work with, by circumstances beyond their control. How, when one circumstance leads to another, how in America today when the layoff notice comes, you are also on notice that you will lose your insurance. Your world is turned upside down immediately. You struggle to find employment or retraining. You struggle to refigure your family's finances. And you know if your children are sick, they won't be able to go to the doctor--you won't be able to afford it. If your spouse is in the middle of treatment, that treatment can be curtailed, no matter what the illness, no matter how important the treatment is. It can go in a flash.

We cannot continue to ask American families to continue to live on that edge of uncertainty, of insecurity, of the possibility of fiscal ruin. A small event, because of the lack of health care, can explode into the life of a family, into the life of a community when it happens over and over and over again.

But this legislation says that's not going to happen again in our future. We are going to become the architects and the builders of a system that will provide care to these people, will provide services to these people, will provide security for these people so that these American families can go to work with confidence. They can buy a home with confidence. They can think about their kids' education with confidence, and know it will not be all wiped out in a flash because their insurance was canceled.

That is what this legislation is about. We can talk about all of the internal merits and the back and forth. But at the end of the day, for the first time in our history, we deliver to all Americans the security that their family will have an opportunity to continue on a stable financial track and that they can make the kinds of plans that we want to make for our children, our grandchildren, that their neighbors might be able to make.

But in America today, because of the absence of this policy, because of the absence of a comprehensive health care bill that provides universal access, because of the failure of a bill that will help families that are struggling to meet the demand to pay the premiums, because of that failure, as The Wall Street Journal said, we pay a huge price in innovation because people know they will be penalized if they start a new business, if they take an idea and try to take it to fruition, if they switch jobs for a better opportunity maybe career- wise but that doesn't have insurance, if they want to go to work for a start-up where they can't provide insurance.

Let's give America for the first time health care security for their families, their friends, their kids, and their neighbors.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this historic legislation to fix our broken health insurance system and finally bring affordable health coverage to every American.

We are truly on the verge of making history.

Never before has the House or Senate approved a bill to guarantee every American access to affordable health care.

Never.

Not that we haven't tried.

The fight to reform this Nation's health care system has spanned nearly 100 years, across generations and many great leaders, from Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to President Clinton to my own personal hero, Ted Kennedy.

But time and again these efforts were stymied by special interests.

The need for reform is dire.

Hundreds of thousands of people are losing insurance each month.

At least 36 million Americans have no coverage at all--including nearly 50,000 people in my district in Northern California.

Over half of all personal bankruptcies are due to a medical incident.

Businesses are choking on bloated health care costs.

Innovation is being stifled. Our competitiveness is undermined.

But this year is different. This time is different.

The American people literally cannot afford to wait any longer, and today we will cast a history-making vote to guarantee all Americans access to quality, affordable health insurance.

We must not fail again.

An unprecedented effort by the House led us to this milestone.

Three committees and our diverse Caucus worked together in an extensive and coordinated fashion, with one purpose--to fulfill a decades-old and yet still urgent promise.

We engaged the public in one of the most transparent debates of federal legislation in history, including over 2,000 events across the U.S. since July alone.

The result is a bill that reflects what we have heard from workers and families, from small business owners and economists, from seniors and college students, from doctors and nurses.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act will directly meet the needs of Americans and the goals that President Obama set for reform:

It lowers costs for families and businesses,

Protects people's choices of doctors and health plans, reduces the deficit, and

Ensures access to quality, affordable health insurance for all Americans.

For the first time in U.S. history, all uninsured Americans will be able to purchase quality, affordable coverage through a new Health Insurance Exchange, where they will be able to choose from a menu of options: a public health insurance option or several private plans.

And for those that already have insurance, our bill will grant them the security of knowing that their coverage will always be there.

Never again will Americans worry about losing their health care if they change or lose their job.

Never again will someone be denied health care coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Never again will a patient have to worry about their insurance company rescinding their policy when they need coverage the most.

Never again will a small business owner have to worry about unpredictable and unaffordable premiums.

Our bill, H.R. 3962, will end the many injustices that workers, families, and businesses face in today's system.

It will finally make health insurance work for consumers--not insurance CEOs.

Let me be specific about what our reforms will mean for the American people:

No more co-pays or deductibles for preventative care;

No more rates increases because of a pre-existing condition, gender, or occupation;

An annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses;

Guaranteed affordable dental, hearing and vision care for children;

Lower prescription drug costs for seniors;

Young people will be able to stay on their parents' insurance through their 27th birthday; and

A ban on lifetime caps on what insurance companies will pay, so patients will never again be one treatment away from medical bankruptcy.

As I mentioned earlier, this legislation meets our commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Every piece of this bill is fully paid for through a combination of revenue raised by placing a surcharge on the wealthiest Americans and savings generated by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient.

These reforms will strengthen Medicare for seniors and shift our system's focus from quantity of health procedures to quality of care and producing healthier outcomes for patients.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that our bill will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade and slow the growth of health spending, leading 11 chief health care economists to declare our legislation ``vital to the Nation's fiscal and economic future.''

As with previous efforts to reform health care, this bill received an enormous amount of public scrutiny.

In the last few months, opponents of health reform have conjured up every falsehood imaginable about this bill in an effort to scare the American people and once again try to stymie reform.

But as I said, I believe that this year is different. Our legislation has been tested in public and the momentum continues to grow in support of the bill.

The American people have seen through the lies and distortions.

And they are not fooled by the hoax of an 11th hour Republican bill that is nothing more than a cruel rebuke to the needs of the American people.

Their bill would do nothing but maintain the status quo and guarantee insurance profits at the expense of tens of millions of hard working Americans.

The public understands the true meaning of our bill.

They know it will cover 96 percent of Americans.

They know that, under our bill, if they lose their job they will continue to have health coverage for their children, spouses and families.

They know that this bill means that if they have cancer, the insurance company can no longer pull the rug out from under them while they're in the middle of treatment.

They know that this bill will protect them, through any economic cycle.

Nearly 50 years ago, as he was fighting to expand health care benefits, President Kennedy said,

All of the great revolutionary movements of the Franklin

Roosevelt Administration we now take for granted. But I

refuse to see us live on the accomplishments of another

generation. I refuse to see this country and all of us shrink

from the struggles which are our responsibility in our times.

We must not shrink from the struggle for health reform, which is our responsibility in our time. This is our moment to revolutionize health care in this country.

We have arrived at this historic moment thanks to the hard work of so many people.

I would like to thank my good friends and colleagues, Chairman Rangel and Chairman Waxman, and our three subcommittee chairs, Rob Andrews, Frank Pallone and Pete Stark, and especially Dean Dingell. We could not have had better teammates in this journey.

I would also like to thank the Democratic Leadership, our Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, the Majority Leader, Mr. Hoyer, our Whip, Mr. Clyburn, and all the members of leadership for the countless hours they spent working with the committee chairs to arrive at this point today.

And of course we could not have completed the work on this bill without the work of our incredibly talented staff, who worked long nights and weekends for months on end. They are the unsung heroes of this process, and I know all our colleagues join me in thanking them for their extraordinary work.

From my staff I would like to thank Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Danny Weiss, Michele Varnhagen, Megan O'Reilly, Jody Calemine, Tico Almeida, Meredith Regine, James Schroll, Rachel Racusen, Aaron Albright, Amy Peake, Courtney Rochelle, and Mike Kruger.

Finally, I'd like to pay tribute to my mentor and friend, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Health care was the cause of Ted's lifetime. Our effort would have been impossible had he not carried the torch of justice and equality for all those years.

I know I am not alone when I say that I sincerely wish Ted Kennedy could be with us today to see his dream of quality, affordable health care for all become a reality.

Madam Speaker, this is the most important bill I have ever worked on during my many years of service in Congress.

I could not be prouder to have helped to write this bill, to encourage each of my colleagues to support it, and to cast my vote in favor of the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

We stand at the doorstep of history.

Let us go in.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).

If I could inquire of the Chair as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our new Member from New York (Mr. Owens).

Will the gentleman yield?

As he has already acknowledged, when he was Chair and he went to conference many times, he could not guarantee anything. You will take into this House, if that amendment should pass, that will be an expression of this House on that subject, on that amendment. We will take that with the full dignity of that vote into that conference committee.

Mr. Boehner, if you can speak for the Senate--nobody else has been able to.

I will not guarantee that. You know the nature of the conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our new Member to the Congress from California, Congressman Garamendi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the committee.

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans' health care plan was a plan for a fire department, they would rush into a burning building, and they would rush out and leave everybody behind. If their plan was an evacuation plan, it would be like Katrina. When they got all done evacuating people, they left them all behind.

They say their plan is inexpensive. They say their plan saves somebody money. But 10 years from now there are as many uninsured as there are now.

At the end of their watch, after 12 years of control of this Congress, 8 years of control of the White House at the same time, they left behind 37 million Americans without health insurance. That is what they left behind on their watch. Now they come forth with a plan for the future, and over the next decade they are going to leave behind 50 million Americans.

Want to buy it? Want to try it? Want to sell it? Come on, America. Buy this one. You are guaranteed to be left behind if you are left behind today.

What a plan. Ha. God save us.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from California, Chairman Waxman, my friend from Minnesota, Chairman Oberstar, and my friend from Mississippi, Chairman Thompson, for their work in bringing the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act to the House floor. They deserve great credit for crafting legislation to improve security at facilities around the country.

One particular concern that this legislation can help address is the risk posed by bulk quantities of chlorine--one of the most powerful disinfectants available, but a potentially dangerous chemical when transported by rail through our neighborhoods en route to wastewater and drinking water utilities and the conventional bleach producers that often supply them.

Federal estimates are that a release of chlorine from just one of the 36,000 annual rail car shipments could result in up to 100,000 casualties. Many water utilities are shifting to bleach, which is as effective as a disinfectant but less dangerous to ship, store, and use. However, bleach made using conventional manufacturing process also relies on chlorine shipped by rail.

I am pleased to have learned that there is a safer alternative, the use of which I believe should be greatly expanded. That alternative is bleach made using only salt, water, and electricity, eliminating the need to ship chlorine across the country. This safer bleach is just as effective as conventional bleach and can be produced at costs competitive with the cost of conventional bleach.

This technology is being implemented at locations around the country, including in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and in my congressional district in Pittsburg, California. Also, Clorox Corporation just this week announced plans to shift all of their bleach plants to use a method that would eliminate the transport of chlorine by railcar to its facilities across the country. The elimination of chlorine transport by rail is welcomed by security advocates and the railroads that bear the liability risk from transporting chlorine.

H.R. 2868 calls for identification of chemicals of concern and the use of inherently safer technology by the highest risk water utilities. Clearly, chlorine is one of these chemicals of concern--perhaps more than any other chemical used by water utilities.

However, simply changing from chlorine to bleach as a disinfectant may not solve the problem.

Chlorine railcars could continue to pass through neighborhoods to the nearby conventional bleach manufacturers, who may argue that the cost for them is too high to shift to a safer process.

For this reason, I believe that we must look at the entire supply chain and the procurement process as we work to eliminate or mitigate the consequences of a terrorist attack. In order to fully achieve Congress' intent in passing this bill, the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Homeland Security should work together to evaluate this problem and develop a policy that will lead to safer utilities and communities by reducing the hazardous transport of chlorine.

Once again, I appreciate the work of Chairman Waxman, Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Thompson on this bill and I look forward to working with them and the industry as we go forward to help reduce the risks associated with the transportation of chlorine across our country.

Madam Speaker, regrettably, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 867, a resolution condemning the recently issued ``Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,'' commonly known as the Goldstone Report.

I do not believe that the House should be asked to vote on this resolution when it has not come before the Committee on Foreign Affairs for even one hearing and was brought to the House with little notice under procedures typically reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Given the subject matter of this resolution and the diverse range of views expressed on it from many organizations and individuals, including individuals in my own congressional district, I do not believe this resolution can be described as noncontroversial.

The military conflict in the Gaza Strip last winter resulted in devastating consequences to innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians. It is critical that the international community evaluate the events of last December and January in a factual, unbiased manner. To this end, I am pleased that H. Res. 867 recognizes the numerous problems in the original resolution passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council authorizing the Goldstone Report, as that original resolution wrongly singled out alleged Israeli abuses and ignored the harm caused by Hamas' rocket and mortar attacks on the Israeli people.

However, I have serious reservations about other aspects of H. Res. 867.

No congressional hearings have been held on H. Res. 867 or the Goldstone Report. On an issue of such importance, Congress must do its due diligence and ensure that we have a full understanding of the facts before being asked to vote to condemn the report and its authors.

Furthermore, I am concerned that H. Res. 867 implicitly criticizes the Goldstone Report because of the initial Human Rights Council resolution. Justice Richard Goldstone, who oversaw the Goldstone Report, is a distinguished jurist with a long record of support for human rights. Most notably, Justice Goldstone was a prominent critic of the abhorrent apartheid regime in South Africa. As H. Res. 867 notes, to his credit, Justice Goldstone extended the original mandate for the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict to include an evaluation of Hamas' rocket attacks on civilians in southern Israel, among other issues.

Regardless of one's ultimate evaluation of the report, it is important to recognize the changes that Justice Goldstone was able to make to it and evaluate his report on its own merits.

I fully support efforts to provide clarity, honesty and accuracy to the debate about the conflict in Gaza, just as do many of my constituents who have contacted me this week urging me to oppose this resolution. Hastily voting on a resolution to condemn this report without the ability to properly evaluate its findings does not serve this purpose.

Also, I do not believe that this resolution aids the important effort of achieving a two-state solution to help end the ever-present violence and strife in the region. President Obama has taken admirable steps to bring the two sides to the negotiating table, after years of neglect under the Bush administration. Yet, this resolution today does not aid the administration in that effort or further the peace process. In fact, I believe this resolution undermines the ability of the United States to further push both sides toward serious peace negotiations.

The House can play a constructive role in promoting peace and understanding in the Middle East and I look forward to supporting such efforts. Regrettably, due to the concerns I have stated above about specific aspects of this resolution and the process under which it has been brought to the House, I must oppose the resolution.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, during my recent trips back to my congressional district, I spent time with many small business owners who are still in business and who are able to continue to keep their doors open, but they do so by cutting back the health care benefits to themselves and to their workers. In some cases, they're getting rid of health care, and they lament that fact because they are very fond of their workforce. They believe that they're very productive and that they've helped them, but they simply cannot afford it.

They're part of a larger movement in this country of businesses, both large and small, to get out of the health care field and to stop offering these benefits, in some cases, to new hires and, in some cases, to all of their employees. We're seeing this with a record number of companies. Why are they doing that?

It's for the same reason that families are struggling. It's because the costs of health care continue to go up and up and up. It's crushing America's families and it's crushing America's businesses.

That's why we're going to have in the next couple of weeks a vote on health care in this House and in the Senate, and we will send a bill to the President's desk so that, finally, we will have real competition in this system and so that insurance companies will no longer run this system for their fun and profit.

The time for change is coming. It is time now for health care for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today and invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Judge George D. Carroll of Richmond, California, for his many years of service to the community. Judge Carroll has provided remarkable leadership to the citizens of Richmond and his legacy will be forever recognized as the Richmond Courthouse is renamed in his honor on October 16, 2009.

George Carroll was born on January 6, 1923 in Brooklyn, New York. He served in the United States Army during World War II and was stationed in Italy. Judge Carroll subsequently used his GI Benefits to attend college and law school, graduating from Brooklyn College in 1943 and Brooklyn Law School in 1950. Following his admittance to the New York Bar, he ran a private practice in New York from 1951-1952.

In 1953, Judge Carroll moved to Richmond, California and his trailblazing legacy began. The same year he moved to Richmond, he became the city's first African American lawyer to practice law; serving in private practice until 1965. Judge Carroll continued to break racial barriers in 1961 by becoming the first African American elected to the Richmond City Council. From 1964-1965 he served as Richmond's first African American Mayor, a position unprecedented in any large American city. And finally, Judge Carroll became the first African American County Supervisor for Contra Costa County, California. Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown appointed Judge Carroll to the Contra Costa Municipal Court in May 1965 making him the first African American Judge to be appointed in Contra Costa County, where he served until his retirement in 1985.

Judge Carroll is a founding member of the Judicial Council of the National Bar Association and a lifetime member of the NAACP as well as the Sigma Pi Phi and Omega Psi Phi Fraternities. He is a former member of the Charles Houston Bar Association, California Judges Association, American Bar Association, American Judicature Society, World Association of Judge of the World Peace Through Law Center, Board of Governors of the United Bay Area Crusade, Richmond Boys' Club and the Neighborhood House of North Richmond.

Madam Speaker, as a result of Judge Carroll's leadership, advocacy and promotion

of equal rights, we as a community have benefitted tremendously. I am delighted to have this opportunity to recognize Judge Carroll's tireless efforts and ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating him as the Richmond Courthouse is officially renamed The George D. Carroll Courthouse.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I want to thank Ms. Matsui, Ms. Slaughter, and the entire Rules Committee for their support.

Today's bill responds to a request for assistance from the State of California and local water managers to expand the supply of water in our drought-stricken State. It does no more than that. It is good for our economy. This bill will create thousands of jobs. It will reduce the stress on our oversubscribed fresh water system. This bill expands the water supply of six Bay Area communities, including my own congressional district.

This bill authorizes additional water recycling through the successful Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI program. Title XVI allows local water managers to treat wastewater and use the clean recycled water for other purposes within their jurisdiction. This bill would add 7.2 million gallons of water per day to California's water supply, enough water to meet the needs of 24,000 households.

My bill is one of a series of water recycling bills that have been approved by the House this year and in recent years to expand the water supply in Republican and Democratic districts alike throughout the West and the Southwest. They have been passed without controversy, without amendment, without debate on the larger California water policy needs.

This year alone the House has passed by voice vote and overwhelming majorities five local water bills the same as this legislation to provide for this recycling and this reuse. Why has the House done that? Because across the State of California, the water users in that State recognize the extent to which we can recycle and reuse water. We take immediate pressure off of the entire California water system, both the Federal system and the State system.

This is an investment in which there is unanimity that it must be made. When you talk about doing this, you are talking about helping the Central Valley, because you release the pressure. When you do this, you are talking about helping the Delta.

Clearly the cities, the agencies in southern California, believe this is important to their future. That is why the cities have put up the money to match the Federal effort. That is why my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come forward and asked for this legislation. That is why they have been approved overwhelmingly on a unanimous bipartisan basis, because they are critical to the long-term water needs.

You cannot help the Central Valley if you cannot relieve the stress on an oversubscribed system. It is just that fact. The pumps are on. The pumps have been on for months. But what they would suggest you do is, you devastate the San Francisco Bay Area. We have already lost tens of thousands of jobs, from the fisheries, from the ice stores, from the gas stations, from the tourist businesses, from the loss of the salmon running from Monterey, the midcoast, all the way up to the Washington border. Those jobs have been impacted.

This is not a good situation. That is why I said I haven't lost many lawsuits that I have supported. The point was to check your guns at the door and see if we could work together. And this has agreement--it has unanimous agreement of the water agencies across the State that this is helpful. This will make a difference. That is why they have supported all these projects.

We can start to work together, water agencies that today are down at the Department of the Interior trying to see if we could get things done that the last administration prohibited the Bureau of Reclamation from doing, such as entering new fish screens within the Delta that we think will save 250,000 acre-feet of water. 250,000. Does that sound familiar in the valley?

But the last administration would not let the Bureau of Reclamation take those projects, even though they would be paid for by State funds. That is the importance of this legislation. This is about whether or not we as a State come together from the Oregon border to the Mexican border and solve this problem across all of our needs, which is agriculture, which is business, which is municipal use of water.

We have the potential to do that, and these pieces of legislation are critical. That is why, up until now, the House decided on a joint bipartisan basis that we would get these bills as fast as we can to the Senate and hopefully get action and get these projects underway, because the cities have already put up the money, the engineering is done, the projects are cleared. That is why many of them were eligible for stimulus money, because they are ready to go. They have been waiting to go. They have been waiting, in fact in many cases a number of years, because the administration wouldn't put up the money until the stimulus bill of this year.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 830, I call up the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2442.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power.

Madam Chair, I appreciate your support for my legislation for helping to expand California's water supply. Is it true when the House considered the water recycling bill for Mr. Gallegly of California just last month no amendments were sought by the minority and none were included, in his water recycling bill, and that was approved by a voice vote?

Madam Chair, is it also true that so far this year the House has approved five water recycling or water reuse bills for Members of the minority party and that no amendments at that time were sought for any of those five bills, that those five water bills were each approved under suspension of the rules, either by a voice vote or by a substantial majority vote?

I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Chair, if I can pursue further, finally, is it true that when my bill, H.R. 2442, was considered by the Water and Power Subcommittee in the full Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, no amendments were offered by the minority or the majority and the bill was reported out by unanimous consent?

I thank the gentlewoman for engaging me in this colloquy, and I also want to thank her for her groundbreaking work in bringing water recycling and reuse to the forefront of the consideration by the Bureau of Reclamation as an important source of new water in California and throughout the west and southwestern United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I have no further speakers, so I'll reserve until time to close.

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

First of all, I want to begin by thanking Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman Rahall, the Chair of the full committee, and Chairwoman Napolitano of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, for their support of this legislation for supporting the expansion of water supplies in drought stricken regions of our country.

At the end of the day, after all of the debate, this is legislation to provide for water reuse and recycling. Water reuse and recycling is desperately needed in our State of California. This is a policy that is supported throughout the entire State, including the valley, throughout southern California and northern California. Every part of the State understands the extent to which we can continue to create new supplies of water through use and reuse, recycling, that the entire State benefits.

Someone said, well, I was here in the drought and it wasn't this bad. We've added almost 16 to 20 million new people to the State of California since the last serious drought. We didn't do much about water policy during that time, but we've now put together a coalition from people who have battled over the years, Metropolitan Water District, Contra Costa Water District, L.A. County, San Diego County, the Central Valley.

Why are they coming together? Because they recognize how valuable reuse and recycling will be in the State of California going forward to meet the needs of its growing economy, of its diverse economy, of the importance of agriculture, of the importance of bringing new businesses to California, of developing and make sure we have clean water available for high technology industries throughout the State. That's why this bill, this policy speaks.

It speaks to so many areas of the State. It speaks, this policy speaks to Orange County and San Diego County and L.A. County and Riverside County and Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County and Monterey County and Alameda County and San Joaquin County. Why? Because it's important that we take the pressure off a system that's oversubscribed not just in drought years but every year. But we can get by in a normal year. We can't get by in the third year of the drought.

Now, my colleagues have suggested that somehow this is the bill in which we should settle California water issues. I find it rather interesting in February of last year when we passed the South Orange County Recycled Water plan for Mr. Calvert there was no discussion of this. There was no suggestion of amendments. There was no suggestion that this was high noon on California water.

When we passed the Lake Hodges Surface Water Improvement Act in April for Mr. Bilbray, no discussion of amendments, no need to settle these issues here. They never asked for time. They never asked for amendments. They didn't ask for a vote. They did it unanimously and by voice vote.

The Magna Water District for Mr. Chaffetz in Utah, no suggestion that we should take the Utah bill and battle it out over California water. No suggestion that somehow we were going to do something other than that.

In September, just a month ago, with Mr. Gallegly, for the Calleguas Municipal Water District, no suggestion of this. No requests for amendments. No debate in the committee on this.

And then, again, last month, Mr. Walden from Oregon, no suggestion we're going to take the Oregon bill and settle the California issue. Why? Because we know what's going on in California. We have a very difficult complex problem. The legislature, our State legislature, has been struggling with it for 2 years. They're in special session right now. They're locked in, and they don't know whether they will have the votes or not to do that. But people are getting together to try to solve it.

When this new administration came in, because I don't remember you asking for this in the first year of the drought or the second year of the drought or going into the third year of the drought, but Mr. Obama's been in town, what, 10 months, and somehow it's his problem. But when his administration did come to town, and when he did have a Secretary of the Interior and he did have a Secretary of Commerce, they immediately focused their attentions on this problem. And what did they do? They met with a cross section of our delegation to see how they could bring the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior together, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They sent millions of dollars to the valley to try to give relief to the farmers. They've supported our efforts.

I've supported the efforts to change the law that I wrote 10 years ago, 20 years, so we can have water transfers from east to west in the valley. That's people working together. That's not people just standing back and sniping at bills as they come through and pretending like they want to make policy or they want to change policy that's just political sniping. But it's interesting that they chose not to snipe on any Republican bills. They just decided they would snipe on this bill.

But at the end of the day, at the end of the day, this legislation is about whether or not we can move California into the future, whether or not we can continue to have economic growth, whether or not we can use the technology that's now available to us to provide for recycling, to provide for reuse of water. This bill alone supplies enough water for 24,000 households. That's not counting the legislation that we've provided for southern California, for Orange County, for San Diego, for San Bernardino and the projects that are waiting.

This bill was criticized because there's a $600 million backlog because the last administration would never release any money. We would have loved to have had the attention. We would have loved to have had the attention of the Bush administration's Secretary of the Interior to help solve this problem. What did she do? What did he do? They let some Under Secretary wander around changing the science, so we lost almost 18 months and we had to go back to redo all of the science because they changed it and they got caught at it. Criminal charges were pending at one point.

So what are we talking about here? The suggestion that somehow this all comes together around this bill is to forget history, to forget the inattention to this problem we've dealt with over the last 8 years, and to suggest that somehow that this can all be settled here. What this bill can do is make a major contribution to relieving the urban pressure on the system by creating this reuse and recycling of water.

And that's what the projects that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that's what they were contributing. This was one piece; we hope it grows. We think it will become more valuable.

It is bipartisan and has been from the very beginning. When I asked for stimulus money to go to recycling, I asked the administration, I said, do it on the

basis of their priorities, do it as they're standing in line. Some cities have been waiting a long time for this; they may be further along. Just let them come as they come up in line.

This isn't partisan; this is about whether or not people want to solve problems. You want to make political points, all well and good; but the circumstances won't change, the circumstances won't change across our State.

H.R. 2442 is supported by a number of agencies, municipalities and organizations, including: Association of California Water Agencies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Dublin San Ramon Services District, City of Mountain View, Redwood City, City of Palo Alto, WateReuse Association, Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Iron House Sanitary District, City of Petaluma, Santa Clara Valley Water District, North Coast County Water District, and City of San Jose.

October 5, 2009.

Representative George Miller,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Miller: The Association of California

Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to write in favor of H.R.

2442, legislation to expand the Bay Area Regional Water

Recycling Program. As you know, ACWA's 447 public agency

members are collectively responsible for 90 percent of the

water delivered in California for residential and

agricultural uses.

Since H.R. 2442 contains local projects with regional as

well as national benefits, the legislation meets the criteria

established in our blueprint ``No Time to Waste: A Blueprint

for California Water''. In particular, the projects in H.R.

2442 will allow for a direct response to help mitigate

current and devastating drought impacts in California. In

this regard, ACWA encourages the House of Representatives to

move expeditiously and pass important water recycling project

legislation.

As California's water supply challenges multiply, ACWA

appreciates your efforts to provide federal resources for

local projects to assure water supply reliability. Thank you

for sponsoring this legislation.

Sincerely,

Timothy Quinn,

Executive Director,

Association of California Water Agencies.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order that the motion to recommit contains a nongermane instruction in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.

Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point of order. That action by the previous Congress does not make it germane to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Mt. Diablo Peace & Justice Center, an invaluable institution in the San Francisco Bay Area that will be celebrating its 40th Anniversary on October 19, 2009.

Founded in 1969 by the late Andy Baltzo, the Mount Diablo Peace and Justice Center was initially known to most residents of Contra Costa County as simply, ``The Peace Center.'' Its goal was to provide residents of the East Bay with a voice against the escalating war in Vietnam as well as a focal point for issues of social justice.

After our troops returned from Southeast Asia, members of the Peace Center recognized that the quest for peace and justice is never ending. The Center turned its attention to issues of nuclear arms reduction, military disarmament, and avoidance of U.S. entanglement in the conflicts in Central America.

Instrumental in the early development of the Peace Center was the work of a core group of committed peace activists including Arne Westerback , Louise Clark, and Sheila Pedersen.

Over the years, the Center expanded its focus to include a wide range of programs that addressed raising peaceful children and race awareness. The larger community continued to have a voice through the Peace Center and has benefited from organized non-violent protests against military conflicts, including most recently the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These protests take the form of peace marches, demonstrations, and a unique war memorial known as The Crosses of Lafayette. Much national and even international attention was focused on the local community when multi-denominational memorials were erected on a highly visible hillside one for each American military service member who has died in the current conflicts. It's a silent but powerful reminder to all who pass by of the human toll of war.

The Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center also provides inspirational classes in non-violence that continue to benefit the community as a whole. With its access to nationally known speakers, educational forums, and film series, the Center is able to promote peace and justice through a variety of mediums. Students, parents and teachers have access to a wide range of programs that include the Art and Writing Challenge and Youth in the Military, a counseling service for young people on national service alternatives to the military. Through local food collection and distribution, The Center also addresses the needs of the poor living in our local community.

As our world becomes seemingly smaller, the Peace Center is once again broadening its program. Currently, plans are underway for an International Peace Youth Camp which will bring outstanding teen leaders from around the world to the Center. Once at camp, they will have the opportunity to get to know each other and learn new methods of co-existence through cultural exchange.

Today, dedicated Peace Center leaders such as Barbara and Ed Tonningsen and Bob Hanson continue to bring the lessons of non-violence to our community and beyond.

I applaud the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center for its strong, principled, and ongoing voice on the issues of peace and justice and I am proud to bring this organization to the attention of my colleagues. Congratulations to past and present members who have kept the Center viable and dynamic throughout the decades. As you celebrate 40 Years of Peacemaking, I wish you continued success.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this conference report and the rule that enables it to come to the floor. I want to thank the chairwoman of the committee for bringing this matter to the floor. I also want to thank Chairman Obey and Chairwoman DeLauro for their work on this conference report.

This legislation makes some important changes in child nutrition. First, this extension recognizes that hunger does not take a vacation during the summer. This extension provides $85 million for pilot summer food service program demonstration projects that will help expand benefits for low-income children during the summer.

Secondly, the extension provides support to States to help increase the number of children who are automatically enrolled in the free school meals and to help reduce administrative errors in that program.

Third, we are responding to the calls of school food directors across the country by including funding for school food service equipment grants in order to improve the quality of school meals. The program was created in the Recovery Act and was immediately successful. The demand in fact outpaces resources 6-to-1.

Fourth, we know that promoting nutrition in school is not enough. Today almost 12 million children under 5 regularly spend time in child care, and that is why this bill invests $8 million in competitive grants to improve the quality of meals and promote health in child care settings.

And finally, this bill supports our ongoing commitment to promote breastfeeding among the WIC population with $5 million to incentivize States to achieve and sustain higher rates of breastfeeding.

These programs are a sound investment in the nutritional health of our children and come at no expense to the taxpayers because of the savings made elsewhere in the bill.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 743 on passage of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of this important legislation to provide 2.6 billion gallons of water per year for drought-stricken California.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I want thank Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman Rahall for bringing this legislation to the floor, and thank Ranking Members Hastings and McClintock for their consideration.

This bill, H.R. 2442, represents a very exciting opportunity for California. With the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009, we are bringing an innovative new program online that reduces our state's demands for fresh water from the Bay-Delta.

The six new water reuse projects authorized in today's legislation are projected to save 2.6 billion gallons of water per year.

The six water projects contained this bill add enough water to the system to meet the needs of 24,225 households--that's the equivalent to serving every household in Pittsburg and most in Bay Point.

These projects will help the cities of Concord, Dublin, Petaluma, Redwood City, Antioch, and throughout the Palo Alto area including Stanford University.

But more importantly, these water projects will help the state as a whole.

This bill--and others like it, is a critical piece of the puzzle. We cannot solve California's water situation without a significant investment in recycling wastewater and putting it to beneficial use.

This program is a smart and efficient way to conserve water supplies, lessen our impact on our natural resources, and create jobs and support local businesses.

Today's bill expands on a successful partnership that the Congress has already authorized--in total, the 14 water reuse projects that the Bay Area partnership is building will produce nearly 100,000 acre-feet of water per year.

The bill before us today allows us to take some of the pressure off the Bay-Delta, and it authorizes cities across the Bay Area to join in a strong Federal-State -local partnership that is providing our region a sustainable and reliable clean water supply.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2442.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during the proceedings today in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX or under clause 6 of rule XVIII.