Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Yom Ha'Shoah to honor the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. In the 1940's, the Nazi regime murdered six million innocent human beings in an attempt to wipe out the entire Jewish community.

It is of the utmost importance that we continue to reflect upon this tragedy and teach our children about this horrific event, so that we fully understand the importance of embracing our common humanity, so that we recognize the universality of human dignity, and so that we prevent genocide from ever occurring again.

In the first few years of the Nazi regime, Jews were harassed and humiliated in every imaginable way to tear away at their basic human dignity.

This denial of their human dignity and humanity culminated in the death camps, where mass murder was accomplished with a factory-like efficiency that shocks the soul.

Facing a totalitarian state intent on genocide and war, several Jewish underground organizations found the strength to create resistance movements. In the Warsaw Ghetto, these groups launched an uprising that lasted over a month against the entrenched Nazi war machine. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising inspired other uprisings across Europe, including in the Bialystok and Minsk ghettos and in the Treblinka and Sobibor death camps.

The indomitable resilience of the human spirit was also demonstrated in the aftermath of the Holocaust when Jews recreated their lives, rebuilt their families and their culture. This rebirth is epitomized by the creation of the first independent Jewish state in our modern era-- the state of Israel.

In Israel, Yom Ha'Shoah is marked by the sound of a siren, which calls for two minutes of silence. Two minutes when an entire country stands in silent reflection.

I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in observing the lives that have been lost, in honoring the survivors, and in recommitting ourselves to ensuring that such a tragedy is never repeated again.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader for the opportunity to take this hour to discuss some extremely important issues here in the United States. We've just listened to an hour discussion on taxes with actually very, very little specificity as to whose taxes are being cut and exactly what those tax cuts would mean to the American economy and to the people of America.

Normally, when we take the floor, as we do most every week on the issue of the American economy, we talk about making it in America and rebuilding the great manufacturing industry. We've seen over the last 20 years that the American manufacturing industry has declined by some 40, 45 percent, from just under 20 million Americans in manufacturing to just over 11.5 million. In the recent months, we've seen a resurgence of the American manufacturing sector, but nonetheless it is still very, very small compared to what it once was.

If we're going to rebuild the American economy, we do have to rebuild the American manufacturing sector.

I'm going to come back to this tax debate here very, very quickly; but I think we ought to put it in the context of what taxes mean to the American economy, which taxes can be cut and which could be raised.

The key issues in building the American economy are here on this chart, taxes being one of the second pieces. But the rest of them are also important: international trade issues, for example, how do we deal with China and the China currency issue; how do we deal with the importation of extraordinary amounts of material, equipment and goods while at the same time exporting even less and less; how do we deal with that? The energy issues are exceedingly important if we're going to rebuild the American economy. Labor issues, how do we prepare the American labor market? That is the men and women that work in America.

Oh, by the way, I heard something here from my colleagues on the Republican side that just drives me crazy. When they say that half of Americans don't pay taxes, then they say, oh, we mean income taxes. Let's understand that every American worker up to those who earn $106,000, pay 6-plus percent--almost 7 percent--excuse me, 8 percent-- of their total income in taxes. That's the withholding tax. By the way, it was the Democrats who actually reduced the Social Security withholding tax to half of what it was in previous years. So let's understand that every American worker pays taxes.

Now, the income tax issue is another matter, and we'll come to that in a few moments. But Americans who work pay taxes. Let's not forget that in this discussion. In any case, labor is a major issue.

This issue of education is now very much being discussed in America, and I want to really focus on that during this 1-hour discussion. Research is critical to the future of America's economy and, finally, the infrastructure upon which all of this is built. These are the issues that the Democrats have taken up in building and restarting, reigniting the American Dream, reigniting the American Dream so that men and women in this country can get a decent job, earn enough to be in the middle class and raise their families, own a home if they want to own a home, take a vacation when they want to have one, and be able to have health care so they needn't worry about bankruptcy which is, in this Nation, caused more than 60 percent of the time by health care and health care problems.

So trade, taxes, energy, labor, education, research and infrastructure are the key issues in reigniting the American Dream and rebuilding the American economy.

Tax is a major portion of this, and I don't want to forget about taxes. We just heard this 1-hour discussion about it. The question is, who is taxed and who gets the tax benefits? Less than a month ago, our Republican colleagues put on the floor of this House their blueprint for the American economy, their blueprint for how we are going to use government or reduce government, their blueprint on how we are going to raise the tax revenue necessary for the operations of the government.

Very, very interesting because, essentially, what they have done is to take money away from education and give money to the wealthiest of Americans. Those who earn more than $1 million a year would, under the Republican blueprint on taxes, pay less and less. Actually, they would see a tax reduction. Remember, those whose adjusted gross income is over $1 million a year would pay less taxes. They would get a tax break of $394,000 a year, minimum.

Now, if you're a billionaire, the tax cut would be in the millions and millions of dollars. Is that fair? I think not. We just heard Fair Tax on the floor. I must tell you that the Republican proposal, in their blueprint, voted out of the House of Representatives, now the blueprint for the Republican action on this year's and future budgets and appropriations would reduce the taxes for millionaires by $394,000; for billionaires, millions and millions of additional reductions in their taxes. That is not fair.

What we on the Democratic side have proposed is to make certain that the elements that lead to a growing economy and a just society are in place. Let's talk specifically about education. In the previous Congress, the Democrats took up education and said this is a fundamental element in economic growth and social justice. The opportunity to get to the middle class is largely dependent upon the education that a person is able to receive in the K 12 system and in higher education. Specific steps were taken for those in low-income communities whose schools are unacceptable. Specific money was put to those schools through the title I programs so that they could raise up the standards of education and provide those who do not have the family support and those that do not have the economic support to be able to get a decent education in K 12.

Much, much more needs to be done. But that was put in place by the Democrats in the last Congress.

Take a look at the blueprint that passed this House not more than a month ago, the Republican blueprint for the future--cut title I, pull that money away from those low-income communities where the necessity of education must be available to every one of those students. Higher education, another example, in the previous Congress, controlled by the Democrats in this House, the Senate and the President, there was a significant improvement and expansion of the Pell Grants. This is money given to low-income and middle class families to assist them in going to higher education.

Expansion, yes. Community college and part-time students for the first time were given the opportunity to get a Pell Grant so that they can improve themselves in the community college or in higher education 4-year programs, from a little over $4,000 to $5,500 increase as well as an expansion of those who were eligible. This is very important in providing the educational opportunity that students must have if they're going to succeed in a highly competitive world economy.

Secondly, interest rates on student loans, almost every student now attending school, higher education, takes out a loan. The interest rates on those loans were over 6.5 percent.

Now, we did two things as Democrats. We took away from the banks, who were ripping the students off, the student loan program, and put it back into the government, saving billions upon billions of dollars every year; and then reinvested that money back into lowering the interest rates for the students. Not a bad thing, from a 6.5 or 6.8 percent interest rate down to a 3.4 percent interest rate. All of this is designed to make it easier for students who have to take out loans to be able to pay back those debts over time.

We also did a couple of other things for students who had taken out loans, low-income and middle-income families. We changed the way and the timing in which the loans needed to be repaid. We said, you're going to have to

pay no more than 15 percent of that loan each year of your discretionary income, that is, the income over and above food, shelter and clothing, giving students a longer period of time and having to devote less of their money to pay back the student loans. My colleague who will be joining me in a few moments will discuss this in more detail.

In addition to that, we made it possible for the educational system to receive additional money for this fundamental economic development called research. We increased the research for health care, for mental health, for agriculture, and for energy. All of those things are the essence of today's and tomorrow's economy, research being necessary.

Now, what did the Republicans do? In their blueprint, voted on by 100 percent of the Republicans, this was their budget, sometimes called the Ryan Republican budget, every one of those things that we put in place to assist students in getting an education was dramatically and drastically reduced, while at the same time taking money away from students and handing that money to the oil industry and to the millionaires, the multi-millionaires, the billionaires.

Remember, the minimum tax reduction for millionaires is $392,000 a year, while at the same time taking money out of the pockets of students, increasing--not just increasing--but doubling the interest rate on student loans from 3.4 to 6.8 percent, costing every student more than $1,000 a year in additional interest payments on their loans. That's the average.

Now, those that are above average, that number is going to go much higher.

Pell Grants. Reducing the Pell Grants, eliminating from the opportunity to get a Pell Grant more than 1 million students over the next 10 years. Nearly 400,000 students in the United States would immediately see a reduction in their Pell Grants in the year ahead, and 100,000 not being able to get a Pell Grant at all. This is economic fairness? I don't think so. This is wise economic policy? I don't think so.

Giving to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country an enormous tax break and taking it directly out of the pockets of students is bad economic policy, it's bad policy for education, and it will not reignite the American Dream. In fact, it will stifle that American Dream, and we will not stand for that. We Democrats are rising up and saying, no, no, we're not going to do this. We're not going to give to the superwealthy--the billionaires and millionaires--while taking money away from the students of America.

This is an important issue. This is not only an issue about economic fairness; this is an issue about growing the American economy. We know where we stand. We stand for educating the workforce so that they can compete.

Now, joining me is a gentleman from the great State of Michigan who represents Detroit, who has been on this issue from his very first day here in Congress.

Hansen Clarke, I know you want to jump in, so have at it.

Well, thank you very much.

Let's stay on this student loan issue for a while here. This is the reality of student loans. The debt levels, according to the Federal Reserve Bank--and some of this has just been recently updated--student loans comprise a larger portion of the personal debt in America than credit cards and auto loans. Actually, the number recently, just in the last couple of days, has risen to about $1 trillion of outstanding student loans in the United States. The auto is about $700 billion, and then the auto and credit cards about $700 billion. So we're talking about a huge amount of outstanding money. When you double that interest rate, you're hitting right at the gut of every student and those who have graduated. When you combine that with the Republican blueprint of immediately requiring a larger payment on graduation, you're really stifling the economy.

I know you've wanted to talk about this, Mr. Clarke, about the way in which the Republican proposal would actually slow down the economy by denying--well, go ahead. You and I were discussing this earlier.

You're exactly right. I've had my kids graduate from college. Fortunately, they didn't have to take out student loans. We gave them 4 years, and the fifth and sixth year they were on their own.

But the student loans across this Nation, right at $1 trillion now, the doubling of the interest rate, which was in the Republican budget blueprint, will stifle the economy. As those kids graduate, they have to pay off that loan immediately, not just, as we propose, 15 percent of their disposable income, but even a higher percentage. That's money that they cannot use to buy a car. They've got to pay the bank. That's money that cannot be used to start a home or buy a refrigerator or any other economic activity. Unnecessary.

Now, we can't allow that to happen. So what we need to do--and here it is, this is a ticking time bomb for the American economy. This is a ticking time bomb for the American economy. After today, there are just 66 days left before the student loan interest rate doubles to 6.8 percent. Is action being taken? Mr. Clarke, you have a bill in. The Democrats have proposed a bill that would keep the student interest rates where they are now, 3.4 percent, and pay for that by reducing the subsidy that every American taxpayer gives to the oil industry. Over $12 billion of our tax money--your tax money, the public tax money--now goes to subsidize the wealthiest, most successful, most profitable industry in the world, the oil and gas industry.

So we would propose that the Big 5 that get more than $5 billion a year in your tax money to subsidize their fat profits, which over the last decade have been more than $1 trillion--yes, that's right, more than $1 trillion of profit, and you're adding $5 billion a year of your tax money to their already-substantial profits. We would take back that $5 billion and use it to reduce the interest rate on student loans.

Now, the Republican proposal: let's understand, this is a big issue across the United States. It's erupted on college campuses. There is outrage. There is concern. The Republican budget that came out of this House less than a month ago has hit the stone wall. The public doesn't like it. And so today, just late this afternoon, a proposal came from the Republican caucus to introduce a bill to not double the interest rate. Good. Well, how are you going to pay for it? Interestingly, you know

how they're going to pay for it? They're going to take money away from seniors. In the Affordable Care Act there is a provision that allows seniors to get free check-ups, free preventative check-ups.

So the Republican proposal doesn't go to the millionaires, doesn't go to the billionaires, doesn't ask them for any sacrifice. Instead, it says, oh, yeah, we made a mistake on doubling the interest rates, and we're going to pay for it by taking the money away from seniors and their health care. What in the world are you doing? What are you doing? Why would you do that? Why would you take from the poor and seniors more money and give it--while keeping the millionaires, the billionaires and the oil industry whole? I don't get it, but that's their proposal.

Our proposal is to go to those that have extraordinary success, the oil industry, and say: after a century, after a century of subsidization by the American taxpayer, we're going to reduce that. We're going to take that tax money back and we're going to make sure that the students of America do not see a doubling of their interest payment on their student loans.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I thank you, Mr. Clarke. The clock is ticking--not the Clarke clock, but the clock is ticking. Sixty-six days before the student loan interest rates double.

We had a long conversation here about tax policy from our colleagues on the Republican side. They didn't happen to mention the burden that's being placed on students if we fail, and they didn't talk about their proposal to take the money away from seniors and continue to provide support for the superwealthy and the oil companies.

Joining me on this conversation is a gentleman who was the chairman of the Labor Education Committee, now the ranking member, has been an advocate for students and education for more than 30 years here in the Halls of Congress, a gentleman that was largely responsible for those improvements that I talked about early in this discussion. Congressman George Miller and I have the pleasure of representing Contra Costa County. We're neighbors. We've worked together these many, many years. I'm absolutely delighted that you came to join us here tonight. No one knows more about this than you do, Mr. Miller, so let's discuss this with the American people.

Mr. Miller, thank you for the dedication that you've made over many, many decades to education, to the well-being of children and the labor and workforce here in the United States. There are very few men and women that have spent the number of years and have been so successful as have you in making it possible for kids to get an education and for adults to get an additional education.

We didn't talk about all of the elements of the educational system. We've really focused tonight on the student loan, the Pell Grants, and the reductions that the Republican blueprint would impose upon the United States as well as the tax policy that has come from that blueprint, which essentially is a tax policy of continuing to reward the superwealthy while, at the same time, taking away from the struggling middle class, the men and women that are working every single day to keep their food on the table, their family in the house, and pay the mortgage. Now, it's one of the most unfair tax policies that I've ever seen in the many years that I've been involved in public policy. It goes well beyond that.

I want to also make just a couple of points, and if you would just stick around a second, I want to come back to the education of those men and women that are already in the workforce, but I want to make a point here.

Before we took up this 1-hour, our Republican colleagues spent the hour talking about tax policy. They overlooked their own tax policy, just went with some very easy rhetoric about we've got to cut taxes and we've got to make sure the job creators do not have an additional burden.

It was and is a fact that it is the Democrats in this House who actually put forward a very significant stimulus for business on tax policy. It was the Democrats who took and reduced the taxes on businesses that invested in America by allowing American businesses, big and small, to write off 100 percent of every capital investment that they made. That lasted for a year until our Republican colleagues took power here, when they reduced that writeoff to 50 percent. Still good. Still good. It's a better than the normal depreciation schedule, but that has stimulated enormous investment by businesses in improving their capital so they could be more productive and increase their output.

We also took very specific steps among the Democrats to reduce the burden on both businesses and employees when we reduced the payroll taxes. We were unable to continue the business side of that when the Republicans took power here, but we were able to continue the reduction in the payroll tax for employees. Very important: stimulus for the economy, allowing men and women who are working to have more that they could then spend and make ends meet. Those are all things that we did. We ended one other very onerous tax break. This was done by the Democrats in this House in the 2010 session. What we did was to eliminate a tax break that American corporations had for offshoring jobs.

That brings me back to the Make It in America model here. In making it in America, you cannot give a tax break to American corporations for offshoring jobs. It was more than a $12 billion-a-year tax reduction for American corporations that sent jobs overseas. You go, what in the world was that all about? Well, it was in the Tax Code. We eliminated that. I will say for the American public out there that we got precious little support--in fact, no support--from the Republican caucus on this floor when that bill came up for a vote. Wrong-headed and very, very destructive.

These are the policies that create a strong economy: education. A well-educated workforce is the most important element in any economic strategy. It was the American strategy in the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties. It has fallen off, but Members of Congress like Mr. Miller have maintained education, not only in the K 12 and the higher education system but in reinvestment in the workforce: making sure that those men and women who are on the production line and those who have been laid off can go back to school, can get an upgraded education, can learn better skills, perhaps as a welder, or as a computer technician, or for all the other thousands of different types of jobs. It's being able to go back to school in the workforce investment programs, as well as in the Pell Grant programs, that Mr. Miller put forward. It is to allow community college students, part- time community college students, to be able to take out a Pell Grant.

Let's run through them. I've got seven of them up here, but there are five that are critical in any economic development strategy. Mr. Miller has done the education piece and has led that fight. It's education, research, manufacturing, infrastructure, and making sure that you're paying attention to the international world. So those are the five that are there.

Mr. Miller, why don't you help me wrap up here, and then we'll be on our way, and we'll thank the American public for listening to this discourse on how education policy fits in to growing the American economy and building up the American middle class and reigniting that dream.

Mr. Miller, your passion for education was on display in this last discussion. Thank you for that passion, and thank you for the years of service that you have provided to America in leading the fight for the improvement of our education system.

Just a couple of thoughts--not random but specifically on the subject.

Yesterday, I was in Dixon, California, for the opening of a new manufacturing facility. A company, Altech in Birmingham, Alabama, decided that they were going to stay in America for the production of these bucket trucks, which are the kind of trucks that utility companies use that take the worker up to work on the power line, way up on the top of that pole. They decided to stay there, and they're going to hire an additional 100 people to manufacture these bucket trucks in Dixon, California.

In the discussion I had with the manufacturer and the president of the company, I asked him, How are you going to train these workers? And he said, We're going to do it at the community college.

We're going to do it at the community college. The programs that you have put together over the years, with the workforce investment program, meaning that we're investing in the workers, the retraining of the workers electricians, welders, line jobs, well-paying middle class jobs, that's what it's all about.

The most important investment that any society can make is the investment in the education of its people. We need to do more. That education of the workforce, the children, the seniors, the others that are in the field, that investment also entails the individual's participation. The loans that they take out, the Pell Grants that they receive are essential in giving them access, as you so well know. Then when we find a blueprint that passed this House, the Republican blueprint that basically takes away that opportunity, it stifles the American economy.

I share with you your enthusiasm for the newfound awareness of our Republican colleagues, and it only took a week, and it only took three speeches by the President, and they had the ``oh my'' moment. ``We made a mistake, yes.'' But don't double down on that mistake by paying for the reduction in that interest rate by taking away from the vulnerable people of America.

I think not only of the children and their vaccinations, breast cancer and early detection, but also the seniors in their prevention and detection. That's not how to do it. We know better. Your proposal, the proposal of Mr. Clarke of using the resources that we're now giving to the most wealthy industry in the world, our tax money, literally given to the oil industry, we need to recoup that and use that instead for the very future of this country.

We're finished for this evening. It's been a good night. Thank you so very much for joining us.

Thank you for bringing your passion for education.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Kelly Kolander, who has served Northern Calif. through the O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. TLC for Kids Sports Program. As his colleagues, friends and family gather together to celebrate these accomplishments, we ask all of our colleagues to join us in saluting this outstanding and giving Company and this businessman.

Kelly Kolander's journey began soon after graduating from The California State University in Fresno where he earned a BS in Heavy Civil Construction. It was there that he began his career in Heavy Construction, working part time and summers for a local firm while going to school. Upon graduation, he continued his career for a few short years in the Central Valley before coming to O.C. Jones as an Estimator in 1987. In O.C. Jones, he found a firm with an outstanding reputation with tremendous experience and top quality people. Today he sits as the President and CEO of O.C. Jones & Sons Inc where he's served since 2006.

While heading O.C. Jones in 2009 the Company searched for a way that they could further their community outreach and support during the difficult recession. The Company's background in Heavy Civil Construction as well as Stadiums and Sports Facilities led Kolander to create the TLC for Kids Sports Program. The TLC for Kids Sports Program allows youth sports leagues to compete for renovations on their subpar facilities that would otherwise go to ruin. It is designed to improve the Community and Youth Sports . . . One field at a Time.

TLC for Kids Sports' Contributions to the community prove to be a great asset in Northern California in the fight to keep sports programs alive and well. Mr. Kolander's work is pivotal in the fight against childhood obesity and diabetes. The newly renovated little fields they have refurbished thus far will surely motivate and keep children interested in America's great pastime.

Kelly Kolander and the TLC for Kids Sports Program have already renovated three baseball and softball facilities in Northern California since 2009. The Tahoe Tallac, Eastridge and Antioch Little Leagues have all benefited from the efforts and charity of the TLC for Kids Program. The Eastridge Little League now has a girls division thanks to the new fields and can now proudly say young boys and girls are part of their organization. Most recently the program renovated the fields for the Antioch Little League in my own 10th district in California. Additionally, TLC for Kids Sports is continuing its efforts in the Community by constructing an Outdoor Classroom Memorial at Las Lomas High School in Walnut Creek to commemorate students Matt Miller and Gavin Powell, who died in February 2011 in a rafting accident. There are also plans to renovate another series of fields and playground area in West Sacramento. Mr. Kolander's contribution to my district is greatly appreciated and does not go without recognition. O.C. Jones and its `TLC for Kids Sports program' work in the 10th District and throughout the Bay Area can only help create a better tomorrow through a more healthy and motivated youth.

The long lasting benefits of Kelly Kolander's TLC for Kids Sports Program not only benefit children now but will create healthy and more motivated adults in the future; they stand as a testament to what diligent work and true commitment to community can produce.

Mr. Speaker, We are truly honored to pay tribute to our friend and dedicated program founder and president Kelly Kolander. We ask our colleagues to join with us in thanking Mr. Kolander and O.C. Jones and Sons, Inc., for their dedicated service to the citizens of Northern California and wishing continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my warmest congratulations today to Anne and Jack Murphy on the occasion of their 70th Wedding Anniversary and Anne's 90th birthday. We join in celebration with their three children and their families including seven grandchildren and five great grandchildren, Anne's sister, Mary Jane, their nieces and nephews, cousins, and lifelong friends.

Teresa Anne McSorley was born on March 23, 1922, at the McSorley Ranch in Chili Gulch, near Mokelumne Hill, in Calaveras County, California, and Raymond ``Jack'' Murphy was born on March 16, 1918, and raised at the Murphy family home on St. Charles Street in San Andreas, also in Calaveras County, California.

The young couple first met at a dance at the Mokelumne Hill Town Hall in 1935 when they were 14 and 18. Jack graduated from Calaveras High School in 1935 and went on to earn a MBA Degree in Business from Stanford University in 1941. Anne, also a graduate of Calaveras High School, Class of 1939, went on to attend UC Berkeley for two years and Munson School of Business, and later worked for the manager of Rexall Drug Store in San Francisco. The couple dated for about three years, became engaged and were married on May 2, 1942, in San Andreas, before Jack became an ensign for the US Navy. Jack served in the Second World War in Alaska, then Europe and finally the Pacific Theater in 1945. Jack Murphy attained the rank of Lieutenant, Senior Grade was given command of the USSYMS 359, a mine sweeper.

Anne and Jack Murphy have three children, Kathleen; Dennis; and Teresa; and raised them in California at homes they made in Park Merced, Santa Monica, Sherman Oaks, and Corona Del Mar. Jack managed the Murphy Hain Company, while Anne devoted her time and talents to her family, her children's Catholic schools and her favorite charity, St. Anne's, until the couple retired to their current home in Roseville, Northern California.

Anne and Jack Murphy teach us all that is key to a long life and happy marriage: love, friendship, mutual respect, faith, patience, humor, rounds of golf, card games, good books, soap operas, time in the yard, hometown memories, world travel, family vacations and trips to the ranch, a cocktail or two, and the value of time spent with family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my highest congratulations today to Mrs. Susan and Mr. Stanley Kramer on their 50th wedding anniversary.

Married June 10, 1962, Susan and Stanley have raised three wonderful sons, including my good friend Doug Kramer. Meeting in the summer of 1959 in Monterey Park, California, they quickly began dating and stayed together during Susan's return to New York to attend Brooklyn College and Stanley's enlistment and service in the Naval Reserve.

On June 10, 2012, they will have stood by each other and at the head of a rapidly growing family for half of a century. The world today is a very different place than it was in June 1962, but the love between these two people is unchanged. They are a shining example to all of us and I hope you will all join me in offering them congratulations and wishing them many more years of happiness.

Madam Speaker, our good friend from the State of Utah posed the question: What do the American people want?

I suppose that most of us would like to hunt on public land and fish, and the underlying bill does that. Unfortunately, tacked on to that bill--should this rule actually pass the House--will be something that I'm sure the American people do not want. And that is the crux of this current debate. The debate here is really about what will be added to the hunting and fishing legislation.

Let's consider for a moment exactly what it is. It is the end of Medicare as we know it. It sets up a program that will, as surely as we are here on the floor at this moment, terminate Medicare. It's also a bill that will immediately double the interest rate on every student loan taken out here in the United States. It's also a bill that will put 200,000 students out of school, out of college because the Pell Grants are reduced. It's also a bill that will take $80 billion a year out of Medicaid, some 62 percent, 63 percent of which goes to nursing homes. So seniors will not be able to get into nursing homes and those who are there may not be able to stay.

What is being tacked onto the hunting and fishing bill here is something that the American public does not want. The American public does not want to see students thrown out of school, does not want to see Medicare end for seniors, does not want to see seniors no longer able to go to a nursing home, does not want to see the food stamps terminated as unemployment increases and as we find some 20 percent of American children in poverty unable to get a decent meal 7 days a week. That's what the American public does not want, but what the Republicans are offering with this rule is precisely that.

We ought to vote ``no'' on this rule. If you must deem, put it in a separate bill and let's have an up-and-down vote on that.

Mr. Speaker, occasionally, we go to remarkable events, and I did so last Saturday.

A couple that had reached the age of 94 and 92 were celebrating not only the gentlelady's birthday but also their 70th year of marriage. When I told people where I had been, they said, ``You've got to be kidding. Seventy years?''

No, they were not married as teenagers, but they were married in their twenties. They happen to be my aunt and uncle, and I love those genes.

So congratulations to Ann and Jack Murphy on Ann's 90th birthday and their 70th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

In its present form, yes.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, those of you that are addicted to late-night C SPAN, you may have noticed this placard which we've used for the last year. If you're not addicted to late-night C SPAN, then let me inform you what this is all about.

This is about rebuilding the American manufacturing sector. Mr. Speaker, if America is going to make it, then we must, once again, Make It In America.

And this is about government policy. This is about the policies that you and I have the opportunity to make here in America so that this great Nation can, once again, become the great manufacturing center of the world.

Is there any one of us in this room that wants to concede American manufacturing to China or to any other place in the world? Is there one of us in this room that's willing to give up the opportunity for this Nation to, once again, be the pride of this world when it comes to making things?

Gentlemen and ladies, it's all about policy. It's about the policy that we write here in the Halls of Congress. It's about how we structure our tax policy, how we structure our employment policy and our educational policy. It's about the laws that we make.

And don't think this is industrial policy that's new. It's not. George Washington turned to his Secretary of Treasury and told Mr. Hamilton, I want an industrial policy for America. And Hamilton came back with eight specific things that needed to be done at the very birth of this Nation to build the American manufacturing sector. And from that start, we grew. So, George Washington set out an industrial policy, put in place laws to build the start of the great American manufacturing renaissance. But let's look what happened.

This chart is not a happy chart. This chart is about the decline. Beginning in

the seventies, we began to see the decline of American manufacturing as policies that were written by this House, by the Senate, signed by Presidents, Democrat and Republican, changed the groundwork upon which our manufacturing sector could be built. And so we began the decline.

Twenty-five years ago, 20 million Americans were in the manufacturing sector. Twenty-five years ago, the American middle class was strong and vibrant and growing, prosperous, able to own a home, able to take care of their family, go on vacation, buy boats, fish--whatever--25 years ago. Today, just over 11 million Americans are in the manufacturing sector. If you were to chart where the middle class is in America, it follows almost exactly this same curve downward.

We have an opportunity today to do one small thing, one small thing: to put in place a policy that will once again lead us back to making it in America, back to rebuilding our manufacturing sector. We can do it here with this amendment that I proposed. It's not going to solve all the problems, and it's not going to employ millions. But if you happen to live in New Mexico, you may want to know that the Elephant Butte Irrigation District has a small hydro facility and able to build in America a hydro facility. They cobbled it together on their own.

If you happen to be from Washington, specifically Deming, Washington, you may know that Canyon Hydro builds small hydro projects and programs and materials. If you happen to be from Alameda, California--listen up my 52 other Californians--Natal Energy builds small hydros. And if you're from Ohio--much discussed these last couple days--Springfield, James Leffel and Company builds small hydros.

We can make it in America. This amendment simply says that any company that applies for one of these small hydro projects must use American-made equipment. This is how we rebuild the American manufacturing sector, piece by piece, law by law--laws like this that require in the public works that we buy America, that we build America, and that we return the great American middle class back to where it should be, at the top of the heap, not at the bottom and not declining.

So, gentlemen and ladies, it's up to us. This is our policy opportunity, in one small way, in one small hydro project to simply say: do it, but use American-made equipment.

We can, once again, make it in America. And Americans can make it when we have policies in place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this important, small, critical amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about two issues here, one of which was discussed by my colleague from California, which is the bill that will be up later this afternoon.

While the rule allows for amendments, some of the amendments that were proposed are not going to be before us. Specifically, this bill is a blatant attempt to do two things: one, steal 800,000 acre feet of water and transfer it to heavily subsidized farmers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley; and, secondly, completely overrule and override State law. That's why, I suppose, States such as Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Wyoming, and the Western States Water Council, which is composed of the representatives of the Governors of 16 Western States, are all opposed to this bill.

This is a terrible precedent. If you care anything about your State's ability to control its own destiny insofar as water is concerned, you do not want this bill to pass because it is a blatant attempt by the Westside Farmers to simply grab water and take total control of the California water system.

It blows away all of the environmental laws of the Federal Government and all of the environmental laws of the State of California and even overrides the State Constitution. I cannot think of a worse policy for anyone to be supporting if you care anything at all about States' rights.

In addition to that, the bill totally destroys the efforts that have been underway to solve the problems that do exist in California water. There is absolutely not one new drop of water in this bill, but there is 800,000 acre feet stolen and delivered to the southern water contractors. For many, many reasons it ought to be defeated.

Briefly on Mr. Bishop's attempt to have his bill heard on this floor: not a bad idea. Consider for a moment the fact that 26 million gallons of gasoline are exported from the United States every day. Something is wrong when that is occurring at the same time we're finding higher and higher gas prices.

I thank the gentlewoman.

One hardly knows where to start, when you take California water law and push it aside and preempt it with Federal water law, really running over the top of the State of California, and then you steal 800,000 acre-feet and transfer it to your buddies--yes, you're going to come up with a lot of reasons why it makes sense. But the reality is quite different.

Let us understand very clearly here that 150 years of California water law is thrown out and a new Federal law is put in place that preempts California water law. The 1994 CALFED agreement was an interim agreement. It was never, ever intended to be a permanent statutory agreement on how water would be delivered in California.

In addition to that, let me understand--yes, I see your little chart over there that you're going to throw up. That was 1994, and it said precisely what we ought to do today. And that is: today, we ought to be working together to solve the problems of California water. And guess what, California is.

But with this law in place, it won't happen. The ability of California to work together to solve its problems are thrown out. What sense does that make unless you want to steal 800,000 acre feet of water and take an agreement that was forged over 20 years ago to solve a problem on the San Joaquin River that is not for year-round salmon flows but only for the spring salmon flows. Why would you want to do that, except you want to take somebody's water?

The water is the water of the fishermen as well as the water of the farmers.

By the way, facts are ugly little things. There are no 3,000 people that lost their jobs, no 60,000 people that lost their jobs. The University of California, Berkeley, the University of California, Davis, and the University of the Pacific all say that the losses were less than 7,000, which almost equaled the loss of the fisheries.

When we get to the end of this story, it is going to be a story of the rest of the Nation. If you happen to be a Western State, if you happen to be a Midwestern State that has a Federal water project from the Bureau of Reclamation, beware, because this is the first-ever attempt to throw aside 100 years of reclamation law in which deference is given to the States over the power of their water rights and their water laws.

Yes, you can say section 4 of this bill deals with that. No, it doesn't. It does not deal with the totality of California law. In fact, the bill destroys that totality.

Western States are opposed to this. The list has been given. Other States, watch out. This is a power grab. This is a water grab. This is an imposition of the Federal authority over the States, and specifically over California.

Yes, Mr. Chairman--excuse me, if I might, through the Chair--you said that there is 100 percent water. No water district except those that preceded the Federal project have 100 percent allocation. Every other water district has shortage provisions in those water contracts.

By the way, whatever power we may have, we don't have the power to overcome a natural drought, which is precisely what is happening in California today and happened during the period that this bill speaks to. It was a natural drought. Yes, there were restrictions placed on the pumps, restrictions that were necessary to protect an endangered species.

By the way, the judge that you cited took a job 45 days after he quit with the water contractor that is supporting this bill. Figure it out yourself. Figure out what is going on here. This is a theft of 800,000 acre feet of environmental water. This is an overturning of California water law, and we ought not do it.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

If you know California water, you know that we can get pretty wound up about it, and the solution for California water is not to be found in this particular piece of legislation. Facts are difficult things to deal with, but they are facts. There has been no manmade drought. There was a very real drought. In addition to that, there were restrictions on the pumping.

Let us understand that the principal advocates of this bill have the shortest straw. They came last in line, and therefore they're not first--they're last. Their contract provided for shortage provisions for a variety of reasons, among them droughts and environmental restrictions. So they should have planned for that. Apparently, they did not.

The losses to the agricultural community were significant to be sure, but at the same time, the agricultural community in the Central Valley prospered, having the best years to any previous year that occurred during this drought period. Certain farmers were shorted--no doubt about that--but they had a contract that called for those shortages.

Now let us understand that this bill has profound implications on every State, some 21 States that have contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill, should it pass and become law, is a signal to every State that you cannot count on State law allocating the water within your district. Instead, it will be Congress that will allocate the water within your State. That is a profound change: 100 years of reclamation law are pushed aside by this piece of legislation. For the State of California, it is a total preemption of State law--a total preemption of State law--and the State constitution is pushed aside.

There is within the California constitution a thing called the ``public trust.'' The legislature and the government of California hold in trust for the people of California the water of California, and this legislation pushes that aside and gives that water to a very special group.

Groups Opposed to H.R. 1837

Statement of Administration Policy

U.S. Department of the Interior

State of Colorado

State of Montana

State of New Mexico

State of Oregon

State of Wyoming

Western States Water Council \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 18 member body, composed of governor-appointed

representatives from the 18 Western states. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elected Officials

California Secretary for Natural Resources

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo

Congressman John Garamendi

Congressman Mike Honda

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren

Congresswoman Doris Matsui

Congressman Jerry McNerney

Congressman George Miller

Congresswoman Grace Napolitano

Congresswoman Jackie Speier

Congressman Mike Thompson

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Newspapers

The Sacramento Bee

The San Francisco Chronicle

The San Jose Mercury News

Water Districts and Local Governments

Central Delta Water Agency

City of Sacramento

City of Stockton

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

Contra Costa County

Grassland Water District

Reclamation District 999

Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Sacramento County

San Joaquin Council of Governments

San Joaquin County

San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors

San Mateo County Harbor District

Solano County

South Delta Water Agency

South San Joaquin Irrigation District

Water Replenishment District of Southern California

Yolo County

Business and Civic Groups

BIA of the Delta

Business Council of San Joaquin County

California Delta Chambers & Visitor's Bureau

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton

The Contra Costa Council

Environmental Entrepreneurs

Hawkeye Marketing

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Stockton Chamber of Commerce

Environmental Groups

Alameda Creek Alliance

American Rivers

AquAlliance

Audubon

Battle Creek Alliance

The Bay Institute

Berkeley Conservation Institute

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Butte Environmental Council

California League of Conservation Voters

California Public Employees for Environmental

Responsibility

California Save our Streams Council

California Water Impact Network

Cascade Action Now

Center for Biological Diversity

Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation

Clean Water Action

Conservation Congress

Coast Action Group

Defenders of Wildlife

Desal Response Group

Earth Law Center

Earthjustice

Ebetts Pass Forest Watch

Endangered Habitats League

Endangered Species Coalition

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Protection Information Center

Food and Water Watch

Foothills Conservancy

Forests Forever

Forest Unlimited

Friends of Butte Creek

Friends of the Calaveres

Friends of Del Norte

Friends of the Eel River

Friends of the Gualala River

Friends of the Lower Calavera River

Friends of the North Fork American River

Friends of the River

Humboldt Baykeeper

Institute for Fisheries Resources

KS Wild

Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper

Madrone Audubon

Merced River Conservation Committee

Mid-Klamath Watershed Council

Mono Lake Committeee

Monterey Coastkeeper

National Parks Conservation Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature Abounds

The Nature Conservancy

Northcoast Environmental Center

North Coast Rivers Alliance

Northern California River Watch

Oceana

Oregon Waterwatch

Oregon Wild

The Otter Project

Palos Verdes Audubon Chapter

Planning and Conservation League

Protect our Water

The Public Trust Alliance

Redwood Regional Audubon Society

Restore Hetch Hetchy

Resource Renewal Institute

Restore the Delta

The River Project

Rocky Mountain Wild

Rose Foundation

Russian Riverkeeper

Russian River Watershed Protection Committee

Sacramento Audubon Society

Sacramento River Preservation Trust

Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment

San Francisco Bay Keeper

San Joaquin Audubon

Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition

Santa Clarita for Planning and the Environment

Santa Cruz Women's International League for Peace and

Freedom

Save the Bay

Save the Frogs!

Sierra Club California

Sierra Foothills Audubon

Sierra Nevada Alliance

Siskiyou Land Conservancy

South Fort Mountain Defense Committee

South Yuba River Citizens League

Southern California Watershed Alliance

Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance

Trust for Public Land

Tuolumne Conservancy

Tuolumne River Trust

Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth

United Outdoorsmen

Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Council

Waldo Holt Conservancy

Western Nebraska Resources Council

Whidbey Environmental Action Network

The Wilderness Society

Commercial and Recreational Fishing and Hunting Organizations and

Businesses

Ankeny Street Sportfishing

American Sportfishing Association

Auburn Flycasters

Back to Class Guide Service

Bob Sands Fishing

Bob Sparre's Guide Service

Bodega Bay Fishermen's Marketing Association

Bodega Bay Sportfishing

Boyce Image

California Inland Fisheries Foundation

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

California Striped Bass Association

California Striped Bass Association--Sacramento Chapter

California Striped Bass Association--West Delta Chapter

Checkmate Charters

Chris' Fishing Charters

Chubasco Charters

Coastside Fishing Club

Delta Fly Fishers

Diablo Valley Fly Fishermen

El Dorado III Charters

Emeryville Sportfishing

Fishery Foundation

Fish Sniffer

Flash Sportfishing Charters

Flying Fish Charters

Foothills Angler Coalition

Fred Hall Shows

Golden Gate Fishermen's Association

Golden Gate Salmon Association

Golden West Women Flyfishers

G. Pucci and Sons Manufacturing

Granite Bay Flycasters

Hi's Tackle Box

Hog Heaven Charters

Huck Finn Charters

Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers

Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association

Jim Cox Sport Fishing Charters

Johnson Hicks Marine

Kokanee Power

Leisure Sales

Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association

Lovely Linda Sportfishing

Lovely Martha Charters

Lower Sherman Island Duck Club

Mission Peak Fly Anglers

Monterey Fish Market

New Captain Pete Charters

New Easy Rider Charters

New Ray Ann Charters

New Salmon Queen Charters

Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers

Northern California Guides Association

Northwest Guides and Anglers Association

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association

Outdoor Pro Shop

Outer Limits Charters

Outwest Marketing

P Line

Pacific Catch Fish Grill

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations

Pacific Fishery Management Council

Pasadena Casting Club

Pro-Troll Fishing Products

Queen of Hearts Charters

Que Sera Sera Charters

Rapala USA

Randy's Fishing Trips

Recreational Fishing Alliance

Reel Steel Sportfishing

Riptide Charters

Roy Gray & Associates

SalmonAid Foundation

Salmon King Lodge West

Salmon Water Now

Sandy Ann Charters

San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association

Santa Clarita Casting Club

Santa Cruz Fly Fishermen

Save our Wild Salmon Coalition

Sep's Outdoors Inc.

Sierra Pacific Flyfishers

Sir Randy Charters

Soleman Sportfishing Charters

Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association

Sonoma County Abalone Network

Southwest Council Federation of Fly Fishers

Sportfishing Association of California

Spring Creek Guide Service

Stagnaro's Charters

Star of Monterey Charters

StriperFest

Sunny's Electric Marine

Ted's Sports Center

Telstar Charters

Trek II

Tri-Valley Fly Fishers

Trout Underground

Trout Unlimited

USA Fishing

Vance's Tackle

Wacky Jacky Charters

Water for Fish

West Marine

Tribal Groups

Karuk Tribe

Mocdoc Nation

Winnemen Wintu Tribe

Wishtoyo Foundation

Agricultural Groups

Friant Water Authority \2\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Opposition limited to San Joaquin River Restoration

provisions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organic Sacramento

Recreation Groups

Adventure Connection, Inc

American Whitewater

California Outdoors

Camp Lotus

Mokelumne River Outfitters

The O.A.R.S. Family of Companies

River and Rock Adventures

River Runners, Inc.

Rubicon Whitewater Adventures

Sport Sales

Whitewater Connection

Whitewater Voyages

There is always the rest of the story. And while this amendment deals with one of the pernicious parts of the legislation that would have been a perpetual contract, it does not deal with the remaining pieces of the Central Valley Improvement Act, which dealt with the issue of how those contracts were to be renegotiated at the end of 40 years. In fact, those parts of the Central Valley Improvement Act said that, in the renegotiation process, the Federal Government needed to take into account the issues of water availability. You know, maybe there's not that much water available and we need to downgrade, or maybe we need to increase the amount of water, take into account the environmental issues. So those very, very important qualifications on how the contracts would be renegotiated disappeared in the underlying bill.

You did deal with one of the problems, and that is the perpetuity issue, and we understand that. But, nonetheless, there is a very, very serious problem that remains in the negotiation or the renegotiation of the contracts; and, therefore, the amendment, while dealing with one problem, allows the remaining problems to exist. And those remaining problems are how and under what circumstances is the Federal Government to carry out the negotiations; that is, do we take into account environmental issues, fish in the river or not, and availability of water or not.

Sometimes on this floor you just shake your head and wonder if you may have fallen down the rabbit hole and ``Alice in Wonderland'' is really real, where up is down and down is up, and left is right and right is left, and this confusion abounding.

I just heard the most amazing argument I could possibly have imagined, that somehow this bill will stop the peripheral canal. I think not. Perhaps it will because it will totally destroy any opportunity that there may be for California to come together around a comprehensive solution to its water situation.

It just makes me wonder what in the world is going on here, particularly my colleague from California who wants to represent this county of Tuolumne who may want to read his own bill where he wipes out all of the contracting provisions in the Central Valley Improvement Act in which the Tuolumne County Regional Water Agency is given the right to water out of the New Melones Reservoir. That is gone.

By the way, if you happen to care about veterans who might somehow be placed in the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery, their 850 acre-feet of water is also wiped out.

This bill has far-reaching effects. It has far, far-reaching effects in wiping out the Central Valley Improvement Act. It also wipes out the environmental laws, wipes out the water for the Central Valley National Cemetery, it wipes out the water for Tuolumne County. What effect it has on the peripheral canal, I just can't understand other than it will destroy whatever comity and working together there is in California to solve the overarching problems.

By the way, you are stealing 800,000 acre-feet from the delta in this bill. That's water that the delta community needs. That's water that the delta community needs for its citizens, for water quality, and for agriculture.

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

Mr. Chairman, I've heard some of the most amazing things in the last 20 minutes that I'm absolutely sometimes unable to even respond to them.

First of all, let's get a couple of things straight before I go to the amendment.

The water that is delivered by the Central Valley Project either under the CVPIA or under the original law is water that is under contract. It is not a property right. It is water that is granted by reason of a contract between the Federal Government and the individual water districts that take that water. It is not a property right.

Now, certainly the farmers own their property, and that is a property right. But the water is not. And by the way, that water--on every one of those contracts, there is a shortage on most of those contracts, particularly the ones that are not replacing riparian water rights. Those contracts all have shortage provisions, so that when we have a drought--and we certainly have been in that situation in California today, and we were back in 2008 and 2007--there are specific requirements in the contracts to reduce the amount of water.

So all of this poppycock that we've been hearing around here today about 100 percent, it's just not the way it has ever been and never will be unless the contract provisions remain, or if this bill become law, and that's where my amendment comes in. It simply removes from this bill the contract provisions in the bill and goes back to the original law.

Now, the original law, which is the CVPIA, which amended the earlier law, has many, many provisions, and in fact it does provide up to 850 acre-feet of water for the national cemetery in the San Joaquin Valley. That, by the way, is wiped out, and also wiped out by the proposed bill before us is the water for the Tuolumne County regional water agencies. So if I represented those counties, I might be concerned about what was happening here.

Understand that many other provisions of this law are important. We did not know back in 1990 1992 what was going to happen with water. The State was in the process of adjudicating the water rights, the Water Resources Control Board, and so the law took into account their decision.

Now, what's happening here in this bill is the removal of the power of the State to allocate its water, to look at the water resources and to make some sense out of what is happening with water. Apparently, we're not going to care about that anymore, and we're simply going to bring to the Federal Government the power to appropriate water in California. That's precisely what happens here.

Now, there was an improvement. I'll grant the chairman of the subcommittee credit for eliminating the perpetual nature of the contracts that were in the original bill that was brought to the floor. Good as far as it goes. But all of the other requirements that are in the CVPI that are wise requirements about how the water is to be allocated from north to south, from the environment to the farmers, and among the farmers, are all removed. And the power of the State to allocate that water using the Water Resources

Control Board, which has been the traditional method, is also removed. Giving rise to this point that this bill overrides State law. And if you are any other State that has a reclamation project in it, beware. Beware what is happening here in the House of Representatives this day. You, too, could be at risk of some interest group in or out of your State seizing your water.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Well, first of all, if the gentleman would listen carefully, I was always referring not to the 1956 law but rather to the CVPIA, the 1992 law. Indeed, the 1992 law did change for the better, recognizing the unique situation in California where we had both a State and a Federal water project operating and many other appropriators operating on the rivers in California.

Taking that into account, and taking into account the rapidly growing population and need in California and allowing the State to determine what might be done for the need of that water--I would refer the gentleman, if he cares to take a look, at section 3404, limitation on contracts and contracting reforms. This is what you've wiped out in your bill. It specifically provides that the California State Water Resources Control Board, in concluding their review of the California Court of Appeals--in other words, you have wiped out in your bill the ability of the State of California through the Water Resources Control Board to allocate the water, to take into account court decisions. The bill overturns 150 years of California water law and wipes it out.

In fact, the CVPI took very specific account of California law and wrote it into the Federal law.

What's wrong with that? Nothing that I could think about, because California is unique in so many, many ways, and the CVPIA allowed that to happen.

Now, if I might just take a few seconds and clarify a few things.

Yes, indeed, you were talking about the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior. That's me. I did conduct those negotiations.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

We are going around and around here. At the end of the day, I think we need to step back from the heat of the debate and realize exactly what's happening here.

In this particular amendment is an effort to try to make sure that the taxpayers of the United States are adequately compensated for the money that they have loaned for the development of the Central Valley Project and for the money that they have loaned for the specific elements within the Central Valley Project. These are the specific authorized sub-portions of the Central Valley Project. For example, with the San Luis Unit, the taxpayers loaned a vast amount of money.

When you look at the details in this bill, you will find that there is a very artful way of avoiding the full cost of repayment through early repayments. The way in which the bill is written, the water districts are able to pay off their loans without having to pay off the interest, and then going forward, they're not having to share in the ongoing cost of maintenance of the major reservoirs and water facilities.

In other words, they are simply charged with the cost of the water, not for the ongoing operational repair and other costs. It's very interesting, very artfully done and, once again, provides an enormous subsidy to those who have had a very good subsidy for many years. It's not right. It ought not occur.

The amendment before us simply says that, if you're going to get a loan, you are going to have to pay interest.

You will hear this from the other side as they close, Oh, but you are going to be able to get some $300 million. Yes, that money will flow more quickly into the treasury to be sure because it allows the water districts, as a result of the way in which this bill is written, to achieve an enormous advantage. They will be able to get water into the future without having to pay the full cost of that water.

So when you look at it from the total accounting procedures, you wind up with an additional subsidy going to these water districts. It's not right, and it's not fair to the taxpayers.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again we need to step back and really understand the full impact of this particular piece of legislation that is before us. It has profound impact on California. We heard earlier discussion about the delta, two amendments put forth by my colleague, Mr. McNerney, and as he spoke to the issues of the delta and the sensitivity of it.

The delta is the largest estuary on the west coast of the Western Hemisphere, and it includes the San Francisco Bay. It's a very sensitive estuary. It's dependent upon a flow of freshwater at certain times of the year, and this legislation very artfully, in a very complex series of languages and changes in law and word, takes 800,000 acre-feet away from the environment of the delta, that would be the aquatic environment, and delivers it to the water contractors, the south-of-delta water contractors. It's done in a way that it is hard to recognize; but when I asked the chairman of the committee what the purpose was, he stated unequivocably that it was to take the 800,000 acre-feet of water.

The impact of that will be profound. So whatever you may say about the species in the delta, the salmon, the striped bass, the smelt or any other species, this theft of 800,000 acre-feet of water will have a profound and negative effect.

It's water that is there to be used certain times of the year to carry out the necessary protection of species, water that would flow down the river when the salmon want to migrate up the river, water that would be there for the smelt when they are breeding or when they are moving into their breeding habitat.

It is one of the biggest water grabs, at least in the last half century, and it will have profound negative effects. When taken with the other provisions of the bill that wipe out entirely, entirely wipe out the Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the EPA Clean Water Act, all of those are gone in this bill, and now you are taking the water.

California protections for the environment, the California laws that replicate the Federal laws, they too are pushed aside by this bill. Then you wind up taking the water on top of it.

What is left for the delta? What is left for the species in the delta, the fish, the aquatic? What is left for San Francisco Bay? Not much. Not much. That's why this bill is the worst environmental bill in many, many decades. Call it any other way you like, but that's exactly what it is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

The chairman of the committee, if I did say the chairman of the committee, I believe I said the chairman of the subcommittee. In which case if I did, Mr. Hastings, you are quite correct; you were not there. The chairman of the subcommittee was to whom I was referring.

With regard to the effect, you can try to spin this any way you like, but the reality is that in the Central Valley Improvement Act, 800,000 acre feet of water was dedicated to the environment, and it was not temporary; it was part of what was to be done into the future. And the negotiations that ensued following the accord in 1994, those negotiations were specifically designed to reach an accommodation on how to meet all of the requirements of the Central Valley Improvement Act, including what to do with the 800,000 acre feet.

I would point out to the opponents of this amendment that the accord, the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, was never intended to be permanent. It had in fact a 3-year limitation, which led to my involvement when I became deputy secretary to try to work out a solution. And in fact we did. Unfortunately, the Westlands Water District, one of the proposed signatories to the bill, walked away from the table when everybody else was ready to sign. And we have been involved in this imbroglio ever since.

Now, the 800,000 acre feet is indeed taken away from the environment. No matter how you spin this, it's gone. It is the biggest theft of water perhaps in modern California water history--800,000 acre feet. It may be recycled, but the control of it for the environment is lost. The environmental protections that go along with that water are gone. Both the State and the Federal protections, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, California CEQA, all of those are gone as a result of this bill. This is the most amazing override of environmental law that I have ever seen in the 37 years that I've been involved in water policy throughout this Nation. It is remarkable what is being attempted here, and we've got to stop this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to present this amendment. This amendment will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee, but it is an amendment that is important to every Representative in this House if you care about the 10th Amendment and you care about the ability of your State to set its own policies.

Mr. Speaker, every Member in this House should be paying attention to this bill. We read the Constitution the first day of this Congress. The 10th Amendment guarantees that the States have the ability to take care of their own water systems and many other issues that pertain to the States. This bill, this bill overrides State law in California. This bill sets aside numerous State laws in California. This bill overrides 150 years of California water law set in place by the legislature, the governors, by the courts of California, and the Federal courts. This bill destroys the ability of California to conduct and to manage its own water.

I put this map up of California so that you might contemplate for a few moments the impact and exactly what we're talking about. California is a big State, 38 million people, diverse, extraordinary water fights. There's a fellow who lived in California years ago, Mark Twain, and he said, ``In California, whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting.'' And it's been true ever since.

This is the Central Valley of California, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It's where the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River join together in an inland estuary, one of the few in the world. And also, San Francisco Bay. This bill will lead to the destruction of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere, and it does so by overriding California law and the California Constitution.

The California Constitution holds the water of the State of California in trust. In trust. The State of California, the government, is responsible for the care of that water so that it can be appropriately distributed, not only for the beneficial use of consumptive users, cities and farmers, but also, also for the environment.

This bill takes away the laws of the State of California that would provide for the protection of the environment. The California CEQA, Environmental Quality Act, the Air Quality Act, the Endangered Species Act of the State of California, are overridden by this bill. And by the way, the Federal laws also. It takes us back to 1994, to a period of time when we didn't know the science. We didn't understand what the full impact of water diversions and other contaminants and other species would be in the delta.

Since 1994, we have seen the collapse of the delta fisheries. We have seen thousands upon thousands of fishermen, both commercial and recreational, unable to fish. The loss of much. There is a much talk in this House about a manmade drought. That's baloney. It was a real drought. And yes, there were environmental considerations that further reduced water. That water was reduced under contracts that called for shortages in the case of drought.

So what are we talking about here with this bill? We're talking about the usurpation of power by the Federal Government, taking the basic ability of the State of California to regulate its water, to deal with its environmental issues, and causing this House, this Federal Government, to have that power.

Think closely all of you who have a reclamation project in your district, and there are some 18 States, ranging from the Pacific to the Mississippi. You have reclamation projects. Think deeply. Think about what happens when the Federal Government goes to California, the biggest State, and says: We don't care what your laws are; we're going to tell you what to do. Think what that might mean to you in the future when somebody in your State has the power to put before this House a law that runs over the top of your State laws.

If you care about the 10th Amendment, if you care about States' rights, you'd better be voting ``no'' because this is a precedent you don't want to ever see in your State, and we don't want to see it in California. Think deeply, Members of this House, think deeply about what's at stake here. I ask for this motion to pass.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this hour with my colleagues to talk about jobs. How do we create jobs in America? We are now well over 14 months of the Republican control of this House, and not one significant bill has passed this House that would create new jobs. There are many bills to wipe out environmental laws, many bills to wipe out regulations that protect the citizens of the United States from pollution and contamination of one sort or another, but where are the jobs bills? We absolutely have to create the jobs in America.

Today, we are going to take about an hour to discuss how we can create jobs in America. One of the principal ways is to Make It in America: Manufacturing Matters. Manufacturing was the heart and soul of and the foundation for the great middle class, the rise of the middle class here in the United States. It wasn't too long ago that manufacturing in the United States was a big deal. About 20, 23 years ago, we had almost 20 million Americans in manufacturing. It also happened to coincide with the largest percentage of Americans that were in the middle class.

Over the intervening years, we've seen the slow decline until we hit this period of 2000 to 2009, and we saw a precipitous drop to just over 11 million manufacturing jobs in America. That coincided with the decline of the middle class in the United States.

So what we want to do today is to focus on, how can we rebuild the American middle class? One of the principal ways of doing it is to focus on manufacturing and to focus specifically on rebuilding the great manufacturing sector in the United States. There are many, many ways to do this.

My colleague from Oregon is here to join us, and I know that there are many things that are happening in Oregon that speak directly to this, one of which is competition between Oregon and California for the manufacturing of light railcars. I'll let my colleague from Oregon go first, and then I'll pound on him that California is a better place to manufacture light railcars than Oregon. But either way, they're made in America, and that's to the benefit of all Americans.

Please join me, and let's see where we can take this.

Thank you so very much for circling back to the transportation issue. That issue is still before this House. There has been no hearing, and the bill that was put forth by the Republicans simply has gone nowhere. In fact, it hit the brick wall. I'm sure one of the reasons it hit the brick wall is that there is no way to create a modern transportation system in that bill. For example, we both talked about streetcars and light-rail cars. In California, there is a factory near Sacramento that makes light-rail cars. I'm delighted there's a factory now in Portland, Oregon, that is building streetcars. And the factory in Sacramento is also building locomotives.

The reason this is happening is that the Democrats, in their recovery legislation, the stimulus bill that gets such bad press--totally undeserved, I might add--actually had a clause in it that American taxpayers' money was going to be used to Make It in America. And that started or propelled both of these operations as cities decided they would use some of their own money, some State money, and some of the Federal money to enhance their public transportation programs.

However, the transportation bill that you brought up just a moment ago totally removes the public transportation sector from the bill. Now I don't know how we're ever going to build buses, trains, and light rail, Amtrak, without the support of the Federal Government.

I know you were deeply involved in this. I heard you talk about this once before--with a little bit of animation. You may want to circle back and pick that up again.

Seriously? I've heard him say a lot of things, but----

Is this Mr. Romney?

Well, you're right on an issue that is very close to my own policies, which is, if it's American taxpayer money that's being used to buy a bus, a light railcar, a streetcar, a locomotive, or a train set for BART in California or the Metro system here in Washington, D.C., then our money must be used to buy American-made equipment. Plain and simple, those are American jobs.

We had a terrible example of bad policy in California. The San Francisco Bay Bridge, Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge, a multibillion- dollar project, the steel in that bridge went up to bid. It's $1 billion or so of steel for the bridge. One contractor put in two bids. One bid was 10 percent cheaper, and that was Chinese steel. The other bid was American steel, and it was 10 percent more. So the bridge authority, in its wisdom, selected the cheaper.

It turns out that cheaper is not necessarily better and, ultimately, not cheaper. It turned out that it was far more expensive. There were serious flaws in the steel, in the welding, and 6,000 to 8,000 jobs were in China rather than in the United States. Ultimately, the cost was higher, and we did not benefit in the United States, even in California, from the increased economic activity that would have occurred if the direct jobs in manufacturing and welding and fabricating that steel were in the United States.

We don't want that ever again. If it's our taxpayer money, from whatever source, then make it in America. Use our money to buy domestic-made buses and trains and steel. We've got work to do.

I put this one up here, not to get away from the transit systems and the public transportation systems, which are critically important, but we've got 150,000 miles of road that need repair. The transportation bill that had been offered by our colleagues on the Republican side doesn't even get close to keeping up with what we need in the highway system and repairing the bridges that are falling down or could fall down across America. We have work to do.

We need to reignite the American Dream, and part of that dream has been the world's best transportation system. Unfortunately, over the last decade or two, we have seen that decline in American status in transportation. Whether we're in the third world or the second world, we're surely not in the first world for highway transportation or for the public transportation system.

We have work to do to reignite the American Dream. This transportation bill that ultimately we must pass, the Senate and the House, we must come together and pass a bill that is adequately funded, that provides for public transportation as well as for the road transportation. Our Republican colleagues are not even close to that. They've got a $75 billion hole in their wallet not filled by the programs that have been put forward.

I know that you've been serving on this committee. You're far more familiar than I am with it. So let's just continue with this for a little while.

That's a lot of swimming.

I would like to have handed this to you as you were talking about the expansion that occurs when you invest in infrastructure. I ran over to get this, but I didn't want to interrupt your discussion.

For every dollar invested in infrastructure investments, $1.57 is pumped into the American economy. That's the multiplier effect that occurs when you invest in this. These are investments that pay dividends year after year. This is the immediate turnaround. You described it so very well. It's the small business that is fabricating, it's the steel mill, and on and on. $1.50. If we invest a dollar today, we get $1.50 back in economic activity, people paying taxes. We recoup much of that dollar investment. That is just the immediate multiplier effect.

Let's say we have an investment in a water system in Portland, Oregon, that is old and needs to be replaced. That's now in the ground, and it's going to serve year one, two, three, and probably for the next century. So it's not something that is used up. I suppose if we were to invest in an artillery shell, and we shoot it off in Afghanistan, well, okay, that is a one-off, one time, and it is gone. Perhaps to good purpose, but gone. You invest in infrastructure in America, you get an immediate return, and it is there for the next generation and the generation beyond.

Excuse me. You're getting too close to my roof. Move on. Don't focus on roofs, because I didn't fix it, and, yes, I got to repair the inside as well as the roof.

We ought not dance around one of the issues involved in this infrastructure. That's, where is the money coming from? How are you going to pay for this stuff?

Our colleague Rosa DeLauro for more than 15 years has made a proposal here in this House that we create what Europe has had for the last almost 30 years now, an infrastructure bank, a way to finance those projects that have a cash flow, the specific ones that you're talking about. The bridge has a toll, has the ability to pay off a loan. The water system has a fee associated with the delivery of water, the sanitation system. All of those are what I call cash-flow projects.

Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut has proposed an infrastructure bank in which the Federal Government provides the initial capital, say a 10- year note. We could borrow at the Federal level for less than 2 percent now on a 10-year note, put that in the bank, go to the pension funds around the Nation, and they all invest in the bank. We may have $25 billion, $30 billion, $50 billion. And in some cases, depending on how robust you want to go, you could have $100 billion of capital available in the infrastructure bank to finance the kinds of projects that have a cash flow associated with them: toll roads, water systems, sanitation systems, airports, bridges.

All of those things are possible. In doing that, you not only create the opportunity to finance those projects and obtain this kind of economic stimulation, but you also have taken off of the general fund of the Federal Government and some State and local governments, taken off their general fund the burden of financing those and are freeing up money for those infrastructure projects that do not have a cash flow associated with them, such as, for example, many of the highways and biways and county roads throughout America where there's no fee associated with them.

We have the opportunity to finance these things if we could just get off the dime. Please, the leadership in this House, move us forward, give us a project that we can actually put in place, an infrastructure bank, and other kinds of projects that will actually create jobs.

We have work to do, and Americans want to go to work and they want things made in America.

I was interested in what you were saying about the use of our Tax Code. The Big Five oil companies in America--Exxon, Chevron, BP, and the other two--have in the last decade made a trillion dollars of profit. Yet at the same time, those Big Five get $4 billion a year in tax subsidies. Our tax money is going to those companies as if they

don't have enough of our money already. They do. If we dial that back and bring that back into the system for infrastructure investment, you could use it, as you say, for transportation because it's associated with transportation. You could use it for clean energy. Let's say you take 3 years of that and suddenly got $12 billion, we could capitalize an infrastructure bank. All of these things are possible if we get away from the notion of continuing to help the oil industry.

The wealthiest industry in the world doesn't need our tax money as a subsidy, and we ought to reel that money back in and use it for things that really create investments in America.

There are other ways we can do this. We had what are called bonds, Build America Bonds. Those have expired, but those were extraordinarily useful for small cities, big cities, and counties to build infrastructure. Many, many things that could be done, but unfortunately we are now 12, 14 months into the current control of the House by Republicans and not one of these things have come to the floor to rebuild the American economy. We have work to do. And we can do it.

I want to just point out that the Democratic Caucus, our colleagues on the Democratic side, have introduced 36 Make It In America bills, different kinds of ways to do it.

My two bills deal with our tax money for transportation. The gasoline tax, use it to buy American-made steel, equipment, buses, and the other one I have is using our tax money. If we're going to subsidize wind turbines and solar cells, we buy American made, and this is a way of keeping the jobs in America.

I know you have some additional thoughts on this, and let's continue on.

With the cows and sheep beneath the turbines.

Thank you very, very much for bringing that issue up. It's one that is extremely important in my district because I do have the two major northern California wind farms in my district, one in the Solano County area and the other one in the Altamont Pass area.

My own history in this goes back to 1978, when I authored the first State law to provide a tax credit for those companies that built the wind turbines way back in 1978. So we've come a long, long way on this, and we ought to get it going.

I notice that you're going to have to go, and I'm going to wrap up shortly after you leave.

We've gone through a lot of things here. I'm going to just bring one more issue, and that has to do with the price of fuel in America today.

Thank you so very much, my colleague from Oregon, bringing us the Northwest perspective on this.

I went out and purchased gasoline this last week when I was back in California, and it was something around the range of $4.15 in one station, another, $4.25. I said, What's going on here? Why are we seeing this sudden rise when, in fact, in the Midwest of the United States, there is actually a surplus of oil? What's happening here?

I think we can look to several different things that are taking place.

One thing we know that is taking place is speculation. Because of the Dodd-Frank legislation, the government now has the power to deal with speculators, and I know the President picked this issue up when he was in Florida last week and said that this is something that a special task force has been set up in the Department of Justice to ferret out the speculation that's taking place in the gasoline markets.

I've also said I'd heard a rumor that the United States is actually exporting gasoline. In fact, we are. We're exporting over 26 million gallons of gasoline a day. You heard that right. The energy companies say, well, the price is going up because of a shortage of gasoline. What are you selling me? There's a shortage when we're actually exporting gasoline? Why are we doing that? Well, we do import gasoline, too, but your imports are balanced by exports. So how does that help America? I don't think it does.

Speculation, the export of gasoline, and you wonder why the prices are going up?

Well, certainly the speculation has to do with the question of Iran and whether we're going to shut down the Strait of Hormuz or not. Well, that's speculation. But the reality today is there's a glut of oil in the Midwest that ought to be used for refining gasoline and diesel in the United States. We ought to make it in the United States and keep it in the United States.

Twenty-six million gallons a day being exported? We'd like to have that in California. We'd like to have that drive down the price in California.

There's not a shortage. There may be a shortage of wisdom. There may be an excess of market-driven policies here, but we have a crisis in the United States, and it is certainly the price of gasoline.

A lot of discussion about ``drill, baby, drill.''

Okay. Let's understand that we are now drilling and producing more oil in the United States this year than in the previous 8 years. That's right. Right back to the Republican administration, when George W. Bush was in power and the Republicans controlled both Houses, the drilling of oil was at an all-time low. As we've come into this period of time, we've seen the production increase to the highest it's been in the last 8 years, and more to come.

But the opening of the Outer Continental Shelf, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and others will have nothing to do with the near term, that is in the next 5 to 10 years, because of the length of time it takes to produce from those new areas.

By the way, you don't need to waive every environmental law in the Nation or in the State to go get that oil. Off the coast of California, with directional drilling, you don't even need to get onto the ocean to get to the oil. You can drill from the land, reducing

the risk to the marine environment to near zero and access oil that's 6 miles offshore. We ought to be looking at those things.

There is one other thing, and I think I will wrap with this so that my Republican colleagues, if they need a little time to get here for their next hour, have fair warning.

Natural gas, it's an extraordinary asset for America. Natural gas is readily available. We're producing more natural gas in America now than ever before, and we're discovering that we can get even more. We're looking at an extraordinary asset. This is an American asset. It is a strategic asset. It is leading to the creation of jobs in America right now.

In my own district that I share with Representative George Miller, in Pittsburg and on the Antioch city boundary line, we're seeing Dow Chemical coming home, bringing jobs back to America, investing large sums of money--millions and millions of dollars--in that facility because of the low price on natural gas. All across this winter in every part of America we've seen homeowners' heating bills, not soar, but actually decline. Yes, it has been a warm winter, but the price of natural gas for heating in the North Atlantic States, in the New England States, across the Midwest, and even in California is at an all-time low. The average last year was $4.30 when, just 5 years before, it was in the $10 to $12 range.

So we're seeing an incredible opportunity for America. Energy is the foundation of our economy. When you have a ready supply in abundance, you ought to recognize that as a strategic asset. Yet in committee after committee, in my own Natural Resources Committee, I've seen my Republican colleagues put forth bills that would export natural gas, that would take this strategic asset and send it overseas because the energy companies can get a higher price overseas. They don't need a higher price. They're doing quite well, thank you. What we need is a reliable, low-cost energy source in America.

Do not allow--do not allow--by legislation or by executive order the export of natural gas from the United States. There is a little bit that now goes to Canada or to Mexico under the NAFTA agreements, all of that in pipeline; but just this last week, one of the big Wall Street hedge funds decided to invest $2 billion in a Texas scheme to build a liquefied natural gas export facility. Well, I suppose it's nice to build it; but by golly, that's America's strategic asset that's going to be sent overseas.

Be aware of what's happening here. If you send that gas overseas in any large quantity, you're going to drive up the price of natural gas in America. So American farmers are going to pay more for their fertilizers, and we're going to see home-heating prices throughout the Nation rise as those exports of this strategic asset rise. We're going to see that Dow Chemical is going to make a different decision about whether to come back to America to take advantage of the low cost of natural gas or whether it's going to say, okay, America is so screwed up in that it's taking one of its most basic strategic assets and selling it for the highest price.

I think back on the story of Esau, in the Bible, when he sold out his birthright for a bowl of porridge. We ought not do this. We need an energy supply in America that we do have available to us.

So, with that, if my Republican colleagues are anywhere nearby, they can claim their hour.

We've gone through some very, very important things here--the Make It in America agenda and 36 Democratic bills that would build our economy, that would cause us to come back and rebuild our great manufacturing sector. It will happen. It's government policies that over the last 25 years have caused the American manufacturing base to erode, policies such as tax breaks for American companies that would send their jobs offshore. We stopped nearly all of that before the Democrats lost power here in Congress.

So we ask our Republicans to work with us in putting into law these 36 bills that will cause us to rebuild the American middle class, to reignite the American Dream and to give the middle class the opportunity to engage in manufacturing.

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

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

Thank you.

We're all for geothermal. There's nobody on this side that's opposed to geothermal. We think it is a really good resource. In fact, in my own history way back in California, the first geothermal wells were drilled when I was on the Resources Committee in the State. We did it well. We required an upfront review of the potential wells, and we continued to do that in California. And it turns out that this particular law would waive the NEPA requirements, simply a categorical exemption for geothermal test wells. It's not necessary, and not wise.

Already the Bureau of Land Management rapidly approves thermal test wells with a very quick environmental review to determine if there's any potential problem in that particular area from that particular well. In fact, about 72 applications had been made, and 47 had been done very quickly. Why were the others not done? There was a potential problem. Perhaps they were near somebody else's resource, perhaps they were in an area that was environmentally sensitive, perhaps they were in an area where you could draw down a naturally occurring hot spring or a geyser.

So there are reasons for the review, and there is no reason for a categorical exemption unless, of course, you want to somehow, bit by bit, terminate NEPA, which seems the strategy of the Republicans here, just nibble away enough so that NEPA has no meaning.

I would draw the attention to the majority here that the natural gas industry obtained an exemption for natural gas fracking from the EPA regulations. The result, at least in Pennsylvania and in New York, was extraordinary trouble for the natural gas industry.

So let's not rush forward here. There's a process in place that provides for an exemption, a very quick process to determine if that particular well is appropriate and allowed to go forward. Where there's trouble, don't do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask the remaining time.

It sounds good, doesn't it? Until the well happens to destroy the neighbor's well or until the well happens to destroy one of the many hot springs or geysers that exist in public parks, national parks. It sounds good until you begin to understand the implications of what happens when there is no environmental review.

Oh, yeah, it sounds good. But I will guarantee you this, that if this exemption goes forward, it will only be a matter of time before there is a major controversy over the exploration of a well and the effect on surrounding resources. If that's what the majority wants, then go ahead. The result will be a huge blow-up such as we now see with fracking.

We don't need that. What we need to do is rapidly expand our geothermal production in America, and there are many different resources available to us. I would just remind my friend from Colorado that the kind of geothermal he's talking about is not the deep well, hot geothermal, but rather a geothermal that uses the ambient temperature of the soil several feet deep into the ground. That's a different kind of geothermal situation.

What we're talking about here is tapping a hot portion of the Earth and extracting from that the energy that's possible. Do it with care, because there is the potential for very serious problems if you do it incorrectly. Take a look.

And, by the way, to our knowledge, the geothermal industry is not interested in this exemption. There may be some company out there; but in testimony before the committee, it was clear that the geothermal industry said, We don't need this; things are moving along the way we want them to move along.

Understand that there is competition between geothermal companies. One person may be on this side of the geothermal resource, another on the other side, a third entity comes in and tries to extract the oil, the energy in a test well, and, voila, now we've got conflict. Without a review, those things will happen. There is no need for a categoric exemption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I suppose it's time to just finish up this debate, so I yield myself the balance of my time.

A quick quote from Paul Thomsen of Ormat Technologies in committee representing the geothermal industry at the legislative hearing June 23, 2011:

If we can get to an implementation that is consistent with

what the current policy currently is, we would be very happy

with that and I don't think this necessarily requires a total

exemption from NEPA.

Let it be that. We'll go on. They don't need an exemption. And it was just stated that if you've got an area, a resource area, what difference does it make if somebody drills within that area. I can tell you what difference it makes. In California, regarding the geysers--a huge resource, one of the very first in the United States--it makes a great deal of difference where somebody else drills in your neighborhood, because that drilling can dry up your resource.

It is exceedingly important to understand the geology and understand the environmental risks associated with exploratory and then the development. No need for an exemption unless, of course, you want to, once again, nibble away at NEPA until it's not worth having at all, which apparently is the strategy we're seeing from this committee and these numerous amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

My good friend and colleague just asked a very good question: Why don't we have a good American energy policy?

You won't get it with this bill. This may be the worst American energy policy I've ever seen.

Oil shale, are you kidding me? There is no way that you're going to see oil shale developed within the United States at any time probably in our lifetimes. It didn't work in the 1980s. It's not likely to work in the next two decades. So what's this all about? And by the way, if you happen to be from Colorado, Utah, Arizona, California or New Mexico, you'd want to go, Whoa, wait a minute. Oil shale? That takes a lot of water. We don't have enough water, and you're going to use it for that? I don't think so.

Come on. Let's get real here. We do need a real energy policy.

You're going to open up ANWR? There are some very special places in this world, and ANWR happens to be one of them. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge happens to be one of those places. You're not going to open it up. And by the way, as for those of us from California, my good friends on the Republican side are always talking about states' rights. They're always talking about states' rights. Your little piece of legislation here strips away the right of California to take care of its own coastline. It's not just authorizing the offshore drilling. You take away California's coastal zone management powers, stripping away from Californians--all 38 million of us--our ability to take care of our own coast. Something is terribly wrong with this piece of energy legislation.

You're going to fund the transportation with this while stripping money away from the Land and Water Conservation Fund? How does that work? How does that work? And by the way, the money won't be there anyway.

This is not an energy policy--this is a stupid policy--and there ought to be 435 reasons. Each and every person in this House is affected in a negative way by this piece of legislation. There are 435 of us who ought to say, Put this aside just as we have discovered the underlying bill on transportation has found little support and has to go back and be reworked because of its insufficiencies.

This is no way to fund a transportation bill. This is no way to treat California. This is no way to have an energy policy for America. Yes, we do need an energy policy, and we do need to have many different elements to it; but we don't sacrifice those special places like the California coast, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, like Bristol Bay, like the coast of Florida, like the east coast of the United States. We do not sacrifice that for an energy policy that doesn't solve the problem that this is purported to solve.