Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, taking military action is the gravest responsibility of our government, and I take my role in helping to decide our Nation's policies very seriously.

I support the current plan to engage and ultimately destroy ISIL, but it won't be successful unless we can enlist an alliance of nations within the region that are fully and demonstrably committed to true democratic inclusion and are willing to fight for their own freedom. Mr. Speaker, I don't see how we can ally ourselves with nations that turned a blind eye to having their citizens send money to the very terrorists we are about to engage.

This effort will take time and should include training potential allied military units in nonbattlefield locations and providing appropriate arms to competent and reliable allied military units. Meanwhile, the President must demonstrate America's commitment to the region by using very limited American airpower in conjunction with local military units to help prevent additional ISIL territorial gains.

I do not support the involvement of American ground troops beyond their training mission or the excessive use of American airpower. Both of these are not needed and would likely be counterproductive in the end.

While I support this amendment and I thank the chairman for proposing this amendment, I want to urge my colleagues to consider the long-term effects of authorizing force to our soldiers, to the innocent civilians, and to the sustained stability in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue to express my opposition to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, or BDCP. The BDCPs comment period closed at the end of July and California state officials reviewed comments from stakeholders throughout California as it determines the best route going forward. The result: the state has delayed implementation of the BDCP.

Since being elected to Congress in 2006, I've expressed concerns with this proposal. Building two tunnels that make it easier to ship Delta water south does nothing to address California's larger water issues. We need to focus our investments on recycling, desalinization, conservation, and storage--both above and below ground. Becoming better managers of our water resources will help prepare our state for wet and dry years.

As evident by the BDCPs delay, this flawed plan is based on unreasonable assumptions instead of sound science and has raised red flags from various federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That is why I offered an amendment to the FY15 Energy and Water Appropriations Act to ban the government from funding tunnels taking our water. We must focus our finite federal resources on initiatives that will result in increased water supply and storage capacity, not waste it on projects that take from one region of the state and send it to another.

The BDCP is not a plan that reflects the interests of all Californians; I along with my Delta colleagues remain willing to work with all parties on a statewide solution that considers all stakeholders interests.

Madam Speaker, the average family income in Stockton, California, has gone down 12 percent over the last 3 years. Families are working longer hours for less pay, and this is happening across the Nation. Wages are falling, while the cost of living inches up. That is why Democrats have a plan to put families first.

First, let's put people to work now by fixing our aging infrastructure and providing tax incentives for hiring. Then let's create a workforce of the future by providing universal early childhood education and give more Pell grants to college students.

Let's make sure that women make equal pay for equal work and that families have quality, affordable child care. I ask my Republican colleagues: Why aren't we doing these things right now? Don't the middle class families deserve some help?

There are other critical issues languishing here, such as immigration reform and action on climate change. We need leadership, not inaction. I challenge our Republican colleagues to get to work now to start solving our Nation's problems.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller, as well as the bill's author, Representative Salmon, for their joint efforts and leadership on this bipartisan piece of legislation, H.R. 3136.

Millions of American families share a common goal of sending their children to college. However, the cost of a college education continues to escalate, making it prohibitive for too many middle class families.

Promoting innovative ideas that provide institutions the flexibility will be essential in an evolving education system and learning environment. H.R. 3136 is a step in the right direction.

The bill seeks to change the ways that institutions have historically used credit hours to measure student progress and the awarding of financial aid, among other things.

The bill incorporates new innovative practices in higher education by allowing students to advance academically by demonstrating competence in a subject rather than by spending a set amount of time in a classroom.

While H.R. 3136 specifies a range of criteria that applications must fulfill to run a competency-based project, it is important that military and veteran populations are also taken into consideration.

That is why I am offering an amendment that requires an applicant, under this program, to provide information on the number of veterans and military students it has, and to include how it incorporates those particular student needs into its demonstration project.

Servicemembers and veterans often require flexibility in the pursuit of their education goals. We owe it to these brave young men and women, upon their returning from service, to help them pursue higher education as seamlessly as possible.

I believe that my amendment will help keep track of these progresses that a veteran and the military student populations are making in any new competency-based program, and to hold these programs accountable for the progress of veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Madam Speaker, the current surge of children seeking entrance to the United States and the protection of our laws is a humanitarian challenge that we cannot ignore. The reasons for this surge are complex, ranging from a misunderstanding of the 2008 law signed by President Bush to discourage human trafficking to the consequences of our drug wars.

Our focus should be the interests of the children. Any person in this country is assured due process and the protection of our laws. Shortcutting these protections would be a tragedy and a crime. Each case must be decided on an individual basis, taking the child's best interest into account. Sending children back to be likely victims of murder or other crimes would be morally unacceptable and would cause new waves of refugees.

As in the aftermath of World War II when the United States helped rebuild Europe, taking the moral and humanitarian road will benefit us in the long run, whether this means finding homes for these children in the United States or helping their countries of origin develop the infrastructure to receive them back. This will create safe, friendly, and stable neighbors.

I urge Americans to support the humanitarian road that will benefit the children and our country.

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

Mr. Chairman, California, like most of the West and Midwest, is suffering and enduring a devastating drought. This is impacting the livelihoods of our families, our farmers, our small businesses throughout the State. California produces about half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts; in other words, California feeds the rest of the country.

California's Governor wants to move forward with something called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, or the BDCP, which will build two massive tunnels to facilitate shipping water from one part of the State to the other.

I agree with every Californian that we need long-term, statewide solutions to our State's water needs. There needs to be some level of predictability for our families, farmers, and small businesses about our water supply. To do that, we need to focus on conservation, recycling, reuse, and storage. The BDCP does none of these things.

California voters and the State legislature haven't agreed on whether or not to fund this project, which is expected to cost $25 billion, a cost that keeps rising. The project is still in the draft stage. Right now, the plan is already more than 30,000 pages, and final comments aren't even due until the end of July. According to the plan, the Federal Government is expected to contribute $4 billion.

Anyone who follows California water knows it is an emotional issue, one the State has been debating for decades. But the BDCP is not based on sound science. For example, the Delta Independent Science Board issued a report this year that said:

We find the science in this BDCP falls short of what the

project requires. Many of the impact assessments hinge on

overly optimistic expectations about the feasibility,

effectiveness, or timing of the proposed conservation

actions, especially habitat restoration.

The Science Board goes on to say:

The analyses largely neglect the influences of levee

failures and environmental effects of increased water for

agriculture.

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for making time for me to discuss this important issue today, and I hope in the future we can look at this type of funding from the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, our Nation's electrical system is in transition. The infrastructure is aging. It remains vulnerable to physical and cyber threats, and our energy use is changing and evolving every day.

The Nation's electric grid connects Americans with more than 5,000 power plants nationwide and about 450,000 miles of transmission lines. Seventy percent of those transmission lines and power transformers are more than 25 years old, and the average age of the power plant in this country is more than 30 years old.

Between 2003 and 2012, there were 679 power outages, each affecting at least 50,000 people and costing billions of dollars.

The Department of Energy's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability works to modernize our Nation's electric grid and infrastructure by partnering with industry, academia, and State governments to modernize the grid and our Nation's electrical infrastructure.

The amendment Mrs. Ellmers and I are offering increases funding for the Department of Energy's Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability office by $20 million and decreases the departmental administration account by the same amount.

Making smart investments to address issues facing our Nation's electricity infrastructure will have a number of benefits: it will ensure long-term stability in the electricity and energy systems; it will spur innovation; it will help make the transition to more efficient use of electric power; and it will create technical and manufacturing jobs. Ensuring a reliable and resilient electricity grid will reduce costs for businesses and consumers by saving energy.

Grid industry groups such as GridWise Alliance and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, utilities, and manufacturers support this amendment. I urge its adoption.

I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), my colleague and cosponsor, and thank her for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, grid reliability is an issue that we are facing. Just this last year, we faced a physical attack on a substation in the south bay of the bay area. We are seeing increasing cyber attacks. We also have an opportunity to utilize renewable energy more effectively with grid responsiveness with the new technology that allows rapid switching. In other words, this could help transform our country to a more modern, a more reliable, more efficient, and a more economic grid system. So I think the money would be well spent. I urge my colleagues to support the McNerney-Ellmers amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, our future is clouded by ocean acidification. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, ocean waters have seen a 30 percent increase in acidity. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, by the end of this century, the waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven't seen for more than 20 million years.

This will have a dramatic and devastating effect on many marine creatures. It disrupts the calcification process of many species, including oysters, clams, corals, and plankton, putting the entire food chain at risk.

This will damage California's $24 billion fishing industry, which supports 145,000 jobs; and California's $25 million-a-year shellfish industry could also disappear.

We need to take action to prevent the effects of climate change from getting worse. We cannot stand by as we see our environment continue to deteriorate. The cost of inaction is too great. I call on this Congress to act to protect our planet for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding environmental research being conducted at the University of California, Merced.

In the midst of California's worst drought on record, scientists at UC Merced are studying the effects drought, fire, and global warming are having on soil and water resources.

One such researcher, Dr. Berhe, along with her students and collaborators, supported by the National Science Foundation, are investigating the impacts of fire, erosion, and climate change on soil processes.

Extreme drought and other catastrophic events can alter the carbon storage potential of the soil, its water-holding capacity, and lead to high rates of surface runoff.

Research such as Dr. Berhe's is critical for addressing challenges to the soil's ability to sequester atmospheric carbon, water security, and the health of the ecosystem.

Continued Federal support of science and research is needed to provide better information for formulating solutions to the challenges in the world around us.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think this bill is needed. LNG permits are being issued faster than they can be built.

This bill establishes a rigid deadline for DOE to complete its public interest review of LNG export applications. That approach raises significant concerns.

I would like to talk about two of the concerns: climate change and economics.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

No, I don't think that is what it means, Mr. Chairman.

Reclaiming my time, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released its multiyear report on the state of climate science. The world's leading climate scientists examined the peer-reviewed science and confirmed that climate change is already happening on all continents and across the oceans and will get much worse if we don't act.

The impacts of runaway climate change will be severe: reduced crop yields, more heat waves and diseases, decreased water availability, and more extreme weather events.

That means that we need to scrutinize the energy infrastructure decisions that we make today because of their impacts on climate change in the future. Every decision to build a new LNG export terminal has climate implications. We need to understand and weigh those effects. Otherwise, we risk locking in infrastructure that will produce carbon pollution for decades to come or creating stranded investments that must be shut down before they have paid for themselves.

Natural gas combustion for electricity does emit less carbon pollution than coal, but natural gas production

does result in gas escaping, and natural gas is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We need to consider the effect of carbon emissions in the United States.

In addition, liquefying natural gas and shipping it overseas is an energy-intensive process that will result in some significant domestic carbon emissions. For example, the direct emissions from the Sabine Pass process will represent 2 percent of the entire State of Louisiana's emissions.

The Energy Information Administration's modeling shows that LNG exports would increase domestic natural gas production in the United States. Of course, that is obvious. This could increase emissions of methane, which is, as I mentioned, a potent greenhouse gas, unless we take very severe measures to control that pollution at the wellhead and throughout the natural gas system.

In a carbon-constrained world, we need to understand all of these domestic emissions' impacts and how they compare with emission impacts abroad. The DOE has taken a first step to begin looking at these issues but has not completed a rigorous study of the effects of the different levels of LNG exports on carbon emissions.

We need to make sure we understand the effects on climate change of major energy infrastructure investments that will last for decades.

My second concern is economic. Shipping natural gas overseas will raise domestic natural gas prices. That is basically the law of supply and demand--unless that law is no longer valid.

Manufacturing is seeing a domestic renaissance here in this country because of natural gas prices being lower. This is domestic manufacturing. We want to make things in America. We want to make it in America. We want to continue to see that renaissance. We want to see manufacturing increase throughout the country and throughout the States.

Therefore, I oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of Scott Hewell, a police officer in Stockton, California, who died as a result of injuries in the line of duty.

On May 28, Officer Hewell and his partner were headed to assist another officer with an armed suspect when their car crashed. Both officers sustained serious injuries, and Officer Hewell, sadly, died on June 11.

Only 33 years old, Officer Hewell was a graduate of San Francisco State University and joined the Stockton Police Department in September 2012. He was well-liked on the force. He trained at the Sacramento Police Academy and worked with the Sacramento Sheriff's Department.

Officer Hewell was the 11th officer to die in the line of duty in Stockton, the first since 1993. Our law enforcement officials risk their lives every day to work to protect ours.

Our community mourns the loss of Officer Scott Hewell, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family. I ask my colleagues to remember Officer Hewell and all the fallen officers and to thank our first responders for their service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on my Republican colleagues to focus on the things that the American people sent us here to do. Today, I want to talk about protecting our veterans.

We owe it to our veterans to do everything we can to restore their confidence in the VA health care system. The plan announced Monday by the VA is a step in the right direction, but we must do much more.

I stand on behalf of the veterans in my district. They are still waiting too long and driving too far to see a doctor and waiting far too long for their claims and appeals to be processed. We need to see Congress spend its time getting to the bottom of the VA's dysfunction and giving the VA leadership the tools they need to fix these problems.

This is something we should do right now, instead of spending time on yet another series of politically motivated hearings on Benghazi. I call on the Republican leadership to use our House resources to investigate the real causes of the delays and work to find real solutions that will serve our veterans. That is a plan the whole House could get behind.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment my colleague Mr. Garamendi and I are offering simply decreases the funding for the Farm Service Agency by $11 million and increases it by the same amount. The intent of this amendment is to ensure

that $11 million goes towards the Emergency Conservation Program, or

Mr. Chairman, our farmers need the assistance right now. I am glad that the House appears to be ready to take a vote.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Brandin Cooks, a native of Stockton, California, who was selected by the New Orleans Saints in the first round of the NFL draft.

Our region is proud to see one of its own achieve his childhood dream. While there are many young men who set the goal of becoming an NFL athlete, it is an incredibly difficult task to make it to that level. According to the NFL's Players Association:

Of the 100,000 high school seniors who play football every

year, only 215 will ever make an NFL roster. That is a mere

0.2 percent.

Since he was a child, Brandin loved football and worked hard to develop his skills. He started playing for the North Stockton Bengals youth football program, then Lincoln High School and Oregon State.

Brandin earned the Biletnikoff Award his junior year as the Nation's top receiver and made history at Oregon State. This past February at the NFL Combine, he ran the fastest 40-yard dash--in 4.33 seconds.

Brandin credits his mother, Andrea Cooks, as his inspiration for becoming one of the Nation's elite college receivers.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Brandin Cooks and wish him a long and successful career in the NFL.

Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 265 on H.R. 4660, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should have voted ``nay''.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa