Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Joseph Scher, my constituent and local leader, on his 90th birthday and a lifetime of service to his community.

Prior to moving to Santa Barbara in 1981, Joe was a successful businessman in Chicago, serving as President of the Chicago Chapter of the American Jewish Committee and as Director of the Birchwood Club.

Once in Santa Barbara, Joe continued his commitment to community service, devoting considerable time to local charities and the Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara. His first job at the Jewish Federation was Chairman of the Annual Drive for Funds followed by serving as Vice President for over a decade as well as participating on countless committees within the Jewish community. Under Joe's leadership, the Jewish Federation set a new fundraising record and gradually grew in size and strength. Today, the Jewish Federation is a thriving organization and great source of pride, offering wonderful activities and programs for the entire community.

Joe also dedicated his time and efforts to the broader Santa Barbara community, serving as Chairman of Camarada Pacifica, President of the Santa Barbara City College Foundation, and Director of Speaking of Stories.

Today, we celebrate Joe's inspiring spirit and thank him for his many contributions to the Santa Barbara community. Thank you for decades of service, good will, and achievement.

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

Yes, I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the final--and only-- amendment to this bill. Passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If it is adopted, my amendment will simply be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we are still primarily dependent on oil and other fossil fuels for our energy needs. This dependence does have the effect of polluting our planet, harming public health, and threatening our national security. Recent advances in clean, renewable energy technologies have demonstrated that it doesn't have to be this way. But rather than pursuing this sustainable energy future we know we need, H.R. 5682 and the Keystone pipeline double down on fossil fuels and

push us further down this destructive path.

No matter if you support or oppose Keystone XL, we can all agree that drilling and transporting oil has serious risks. It only takes one small crack, one small mistake, to cause a major oil spill and catastrophic, irreparable harm to the surrounding communities.

In 1969, my home district experienced one of the worst oil spills in U.S. history. I saw firsthand the devastating damage to our local economy, to human health, property, and natural resources. We have seen this happen far too many times since then in communities around the country. The Deepwater Horizon disaster cost 11 lives, billions of dollars in economic damages, and untold devastation to the delicate ecosystem of the gulf.

That very same year, we saw a terrible spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan. This spill was particularly noteworthy because it involved tar sands oil, which is the same type of oil that would flow through the Keystone pipeline. Tar sands is much harder to clean up than standard crude, which is one of the reasons that spill took nearly $1 billion and several years to fully clean up.

Mr. Speaker, history has shown us that there is simply no such thing as a spill-proof well or pipeline. Accidents do happen. In fact, accidents have already happened 14 times on the existing Keystone pipeline. Despite numerous assurances that Keystone XL will be safer and that spill risks will be minimal, safer simply does not equate to safe.

That is why we have the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is funded by an 8-cents-per-barrel excise fee on crude oil and petroleum products. This fund ensures that the oil companies that create these messes also pay to clean them up. But TransCanada is currently exempt from contributing to the trust fund for Keystone because tar sands oil is not considered crude oil for purposes of the program.

If Keystone XL is approved, the pipeline's tar sands oil will literally get a free ride through the United States. If there is a spill, taxpayers and local communities--not those responsible--could be stuck with the cleanup bill. This makes no sense. TransCanada and all tar sands oil companies should have to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund just like every other oil company.

That is why I am offering this very straightforward amendment. My amendment would simply require TransCanada to certify that it will pay the same per-barrel fee for its tar sands oil as it does for its regular crude. It would ensure that TransCanada--and not our taxpayers--would pay to clean up its own mess in the event of a spill.

Mr. Speaker, if we as a Nation--and these are our natural resources as taxpayers--if we as a Nation are going to bear 100 percent of the spill risk, the least we can do is to ensure that those responsible pay to clean it up. This is a commonsense idea that should have bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment to protect American taxpayers and ensure that oil companies pay what is only their fair share, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again.

H.R. 2 is yet another example of the majority's backward energy policy, which doubles-down on dirty fossil fuels instead of investing in a clean energy future. I strongly oppose it. While fossil fuels will undoubtedly be a significant part of our energy mix for years to come, they are really only one piece of a very large energy puzzle.

So rather than focusing on dead-end, shortsighted policies like these, we should be considering comprehensive energy legislation that looks at the big picture. We should be investing in cutting edge research, high-tech innovation, and new clean energy technologies. We should be increasing energy efficiency, modernizing the electric grid, and promoting sustainable energy. And we should be taking action to reduce toxic greenhouse gas emissions and finally embrace the overwhelming science of climate change.

Not only does H.R. 2 do nothing to address the serious environmental problems we face, it also creates new ones. H.R. 2 overrides the expressed will of voters in my congressional district and many other communities throughout the Nation by recklessly expanding offshore oil drilling.

We have seen time and time again the devastating environmental and economic threats posed by offshore oil drilling. That is why voters in my congressional district and California have repeatedly rejected new offshore drilling. Yet this bill ignores these wishes and explicitly requires new oil drilling off the central coast of California and in other areas.

I find it ironic that the same majority that decries ``an overreaching Federal Government'' seems to have no qualms about forcing new drilling upon local populations against their expressed wishes.

I have submitted several amendments to the Rules Committee to address this in this legislation and other problems with this bill, but none of them were made in order. In fact, the majority has prohibited consideration of any and all amendments. No debate, no votes.

And if these weren't enough reasons to oppose H.R. 2, the bill is also completely unnecessary because the House has already passed every single provision included in this bill.

H.R. 2 is nothing more than 13 previously passed bills stapled together with a new bill number on the top.

Even worse, this is the third time this Congress, and the fifth time in 4 years, that we are voting on the exact same offshore drilling expansion legislation.

Stapling old bills together doesn't make this a new idea.

One would think that after nearly 4 years in control of this House the majority would have come up with some new ideas by now. But sadly they just found a bigger staple machine.

H.R. 2 is simply a political gimmick and a waste of taxpayer time and money. This is no way to legislate.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect better from us. They expect us to find common ground and work together across party lines to solve our Nation's problems. And there is certainly no shortage of problems we could be working on right now: strengthening our economy, raising the minimum wage, passing comprehensive immigration reform, making college more affordable, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. And that list does not even include the multitude of energy challenges that this bill completely ignores.

This is what the American people are calling for. They are calling on Congress to stop the political gimmicks, they are calling on us to help create middle class jobs to support working families, and they are calling on us to get to work and build a more prosperous and sustainable energy future for our Nation.

H.R. 2 accomplishes none of these things. This bill is simply harmful energy policy and an embarrassing waste of time.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and join us in working toward a clean, more sustainable, energy future for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise to add my voice to the thousands of citizens who will soon descend upon New York City to call for action to combat climate change. The first-ever People's Climate March will demonstrate robust support for climate action ahead of the United Nations climate summit next Tuesday.

Climate change is the defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy and our way of life in countless ways through catastrophic wildfires, through severe storms and rising seas; and in my home State of California, one of the worst droughts on record threatens water supplies for drinking water and irrigation of valuable crops. This year alone, the drought will cost the agricultural sector $2.2 billion dollars and over 17,000 jobs.

Our Nation is taking positive steps to curb harmful carbon emissions, but there is so much more work that needs to be done. We can't wait any longer. Our children and our grandchildren are depending upon it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize September as Children's Cardiomyopathy Awareness Month.

Cardiomyopathy is a chronic disease of the heart muscle and it increases the risk of sudden cardiac arrest. Sudden cardiac arrest claims almost 300,000 lives in the United States every year. It is the leading cause of death for schoolchildren.

That is why I introduced the Teaching Children to Save Lives Act, which would help teach our students across the country the lifesaving skills of CPR and how to use an AED.

Additionally, I recently introduced the SAFE PLAY Act to help ensure the health and safety of students who are athletes. Some of them have cardiomyopathy as well.

This is an issue facing youth and families all across the United States. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing September as Children's Cardiomyopathy Awareness Month, participate in the first annual AED Hunt on the Hill tomorrow, and to cosponsor the SAFE PLAY Act and Teaching Children to Save Lives Act, because together we can make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of Ralph Fertig from Santa Barbara County, who passed away suddenly on July 18, 2014.

Ralph was a devoted community leader and advocate for sustainable transportation in the Santa Barbara community. He was also the perennial renaissance man, having graduated from Penn State in 1961 with a degree in art and architecture before studying painting and ceramics at Cranbrook Academy of Art, earning a master's in mathematics from the University of Michigan, studying photography with Ansel Adams, and finally earning a second master's degree in photography from the Chicago Institute of Design in 1970.

Ralph came to the Santa Barbara community in the early 1980s to work on graphics and marketing for a computer communications company. It was during those early days in Santa Barbara that Ralph rediscovered his love of bicycling and began commuting by bike to work every day.

It wasn't long before Ralph became known in Santa Barbara as an effective civil advocate for the bike community. In 1991, he joined a group of local cyclists to form a group eventually known as the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition to advocate for the improvement of road and trail conditions. He also began publishing a monthly newsletter that, for the next 20 years, would be the voice of the bicycle community and a powerful force on behalf of pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Ralph made it his mission to attend every local transportation planning meeting to bear witness to the need for more space on the roads for bicycles, and he did this with perseverance, intellectual honesty, and respect. Ralph served as a member of the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition for more than 20 years, attending many bicycling conferences all over North America. In 1998, Ralph single-handedly brought the Pro Bike/Pro Walk conference to Santa Barbara, attracting 540 participants from around the country. He was involved with crafting the City of Santa Barbara's Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and a regional Bikeway Signage Program.

Ralph was keenly aware of how transportation projects impact environmental quality and social equity. In 2010 the Coalition for Sustainable Transportation, or COAST, recognized Ralph with its biggest honor, the Barry Siegel Award, for his contributions to Santa Barbara County in the field of sustainable transportation.

I offer my most heartfelt condolences to Ralph's friends and family, and ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this exemplary American and Santa Barbara County resident.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of an 11- year-old Honduran boy who was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.

Parliamentary Inquiries

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

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer this final amendment to H.R. 935.

If this amendment is adopted, it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee.

The House will have an opportunity to vote on final passage immediately after consideration of this amendment. What the amendment will do is ensure that our children are protected from known chemical threats.

Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that when it comes to pesticides, infants and children are among the most vulnerable to harmful health impacts. Pound for pound, children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more air than adults, and, as a result, they absorb a higher concentration of pesticides.

Infants and children are also exposed to pesticides in unique ways because of how they interact with the world. As any parent can tell you, children and infants crawl on the floor and on the grass, and they put almost everything into their mouths, including their hands, again, putting themselves at greater risk of exposure to pesticides than adults.

And the exposure of infants and children to pesticides poses a greater risk than the same exposure would do to an adult for an additional reason, and that is because children's internal organs are still developing, and their bodies may provide less natural protection from these toxins than adults have.

Simply put, our children are at greater risk from pesticide exposure, so they need greater protection, and that is what my amendment would do. It would help reduce risk by preserving several commonsense tools to protect children and infants from increased exposure to toxic pesticides.

Mr. Speaker, I believe our farmers and mosquito control districts have raised legitimate concerns about these regulations that need to be addressed, and I have supported the underlying bill in the past because I believe the legislative process needs to move forward to find the right solution to these issues.

However, this bill is not perfect. It takes a very broad approach that could be more targeted to ensure that we are doing everything possible to protect our most vulnerable people. Unfortunately, this bill now has come to the floor with no opportunity to consider floor amendments to make these commonsense improvements, and so this is our last--really, our only--opportunity to strike the right balance between supporting our local farmers and protecting our children.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that pesticide exposure can lead to a variety of adverse health effects, especially for children. These harmful effects range from neurological disorders to birth defects to certain forms of cancer. In fact, recent news reports have highlighted more and more examples of potential cancer clusters associated with pesticide exposure.

For example, in Highland, New York, health officials are investigating the cases of six children who, one after another, were diagnosed with the same form of leukemia. Local residents believe that environmental pollution may be the cause and point to the routine pesticide sprayings in the area.

In Kern County, California, local officials are investigating over 20 cases of childhood malignancies, including the death of an 8-year-old boy, that may be linked to pesticides in that area.

In Washington State, local health officials are investigating why roughly 60 people in the Yakima area have fallen ill, reporting difficulty breathing, skin rashes, nausea, vomiting, and headaches, some of whom required emergency hospitalization. In this instance, State health officials suspect these health issues may be related to 15 different instances of spraying in commercial orchards.

These are just a few examples.

Mr. Speaker, I represent an area of California with a vibrant agricultural economy and culture that we all treasure. Our farmers and their families drink the same water as everyone else, so they have just as much at stake in this as anyone. Pesticides are an unfortunate but necessary part of food production, and our central coast farmers do the best they can to navigate the rules and use these pesticides safely, but there is clearly more that could and should be done to minimize pesticide exposure, especially when it comes to our children.

My amendment targets the most toxic of all pesticides, those that research indicates are known or suspected to cause serious health issues in infants and children. I want to be clear. This amendment does not block the use of these pesticides or block consideration of this bill. It simply says that if you are a pesticide applicator, you should minimize your use of these toxic chemicals, monitor any adverse impacts from their use, and report the location and quantities to local permitting agencies.

We may not agree on all the potential impacts of this bill, but surely we can agree that protecting our Nation's infants and children from toxic chemicals warrants our full support. Simply

put, that is what my amendment does. And as a public health nurse, I strongly urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Virginia for yielding me the time and for offering this motion to encourage conferees to swiftly settle their differences on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Congressman Rahall's motion to instruct conferees, so that our veterans are assured the care that they have earned.

For far too long, we have heard stories of men and women facing unacceptable wait times at the VA, and we have heard even more disturbing accounts of misconduct in the very organization our veterans should be most able to trust. In response to this scandal, both Chambers of Congress have passed bipartisan bills to hold the VA and its leadership accountable.

I was encouraged to see this body act quickly to address a very real problem and was pleased to support bipartisan legislation to help solve this crisis, but we cannot allow this momentum to fade or allow disagreement to stand in the way of our veterans getting the care they have earned and so clearly deserve.

This motion to instruct simply urges the conferees to move past disagreements that are stalling this critical bill. It would ensure that the VA can use resources it already has to hire additional health professionals to meet the needs of our veterans. Doing this will enable the VA to cut down on excessive and unacceptable wait times.

As a nurse, I know the importance of having adequate staffing levels filled with our Nation's best health care providers. We need to encourage the VA to bring these experts into the VA to treat our vets in need, and most importantly, the motion supports actions to give VA the resources it needs to improve care and responsiveness at every level while finding appropriate areas to cut back.

We owe it to our veterans to work tirelessly to finish this bill before we leave Washington. Veterans have already waited long enough. Let's not allow this critical bill to stall any longer. It is time to finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Ocean Policy.

Later today, we may consider an amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill to undermine this important policy. The amendment would promote inefficiency in ocean management. It would harm coastal communities.

We depend on the marine environment for many important uses, like food, tourism, and the transportation of goods. These diverse interests often conflict, which is why the National Ocean Policy provides a forum for local stakeholders and Federal agencies to talk to each other and work things out.

Efforts to cripple the National Ocean Policy will prevent local ocean users from deciding what issues are most important for their local communities, and that makes no sense.

Improving the coordination between Federal agencies and local ocean stakeholders is a bipartisan idea that was first suggested during the Bush administration. It should still have bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to support the National Ocean Policy and to reject efforts to undermine this commonsense idea.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall vote on July 8, 2014, and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 369: ``yes;'' rollcall No. 370: ``yes.''

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the Capps-Brownley-Huffman-Lowenthal amendment. This commonsense amendment simply ensures that the American public and State regulators are kept informed of offshore fracking activities in Federal waters.

Last year, a FOIA request revealed that at least 15 fracks have taken place in Federal waters off the coast of California during the last two decades, with several being approved as recently as last year. While we know little about the impacts of fracking onshore, we know even less about the impacts of offshore. Any leak, spill, or blowout offshore would be very difficult to detect and contain, especially considering how little is known about the chemicals being used. Exposure to these chemicals could seriously harm the sensitive marine areas in and around the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and the Santa Barbara Channel, which is where much of this activity is now occurring. Such exposure would not only harm the marine environment, it would also harm our local economy.

That is why I was disappointed that my amendment to simply study the impacts of offshore fracking was ruled out of order. Regardless of your views on offshore drilling, there should be bipartisan agreement that we need to fully understand the impacts of these activities, but the majority blocked debate on this amendment, so we can't even discuss it.

Madam Chair, it is bad enough that offshore fracking is happening without a proper understanding of its impacts, but it is even more troubling that no one even knew that it was happening in the first place. Federal regulators claim they knew about these activities but that they didn't think it was necessary to notify the California Coastal Commission, local officials, or the public. If a spill occurs, the oil and chemicals don't stop at the 3-mile mark where Federal waters end and State waters begin. Whether the spill is 10 miles offshore or 4 miles offshore, those chemicals will flow into State waters, and they will wash up onto our local beaches.

My constituents have a right to know what is happening in their backyards. That is why my amendment would simply ensure that the American public and State regulators, like the California Coastal Commission, are notified whenever a permit to allow offshore fracking is filed. It doesn't slow down or stop these permits from being considered. It simply ensures that all stakeholders know about it and can respond accordingly. If, as the oil companies claim, offshore fracking poses minimal risk, then what is the harm of notifying the public of where and when it is happening?

This is not a partisan idea. Transparency is something both Democrats and Republicans have supported in the past, so I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to increase transparency in offshore fracking.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, having witnessed the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, I know firsthand the devastation a community can experience when something goes wrong on offshore oil rigs.

The marine ecosystem is devastated. Local businesses lose customers, and they lay off workers. Fishing boats are left idle in the harbor.

Given this reality, we owe it to those who suffer the impacts of these spills, these mishaps, to make sure these activities are as safe as possible.

Increasing transparency will strengthen oversight. It will improve safety. This is a commonsense idea that should have bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the House to action.

On Friday, we will mark 1 year since the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform with broad bipartisan support. We also mark 1 year of inaction in this House, where we have not even had one vote on immigration reform.

This is despite the fact that we have had a House bill with 200 bipartisan cosponsors. This is despite the fact that we have a House bill that 80 percent of Americans support, and this is despite the fact that hundreds of businesses, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a variety of religious organizations, are all calling for the same thing: comprehensive immigration reform.

It is not just a moral thing to do, it is the right thing to do for our economy, for public safety, and to reduce our deficit.

The time is now.

I am asking House leadership today: bring this bipartisan effort to the floor for a vote.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

H.R. 4899 is yet another example of the majority's backward energy policy that doubles down on dirty fossil fuels instead of investing in a clean energy future. The bill also specifically targets my congressional district, requiring new oil drilling leases off the central coast of California.

This is the fourth time in as many years that the House leadership has tried to override the will of my constituents and California voters who overwhelmingly oppose new offshore drilling.

Even if drilling in these waters could start tomorrow, it would certainly have no impact on gas prices.

Why is that? Because the low-quality oil off the central coast of California can't be used to make gasoline. It is used to make asphalt.

While I certainly support investing more in our Nation's roads and bridges, this is certainly not the way to do it, so I find it incredibly disingenuous for my colleagues to pretend that this bill would lower gas prices for consumers when, in reality, it is just another big giveaway to Big Oil.

I also oppose this rule because it blocks consideration of two important amendments that I had filed. One of those amendments simply required a study on the environmental impacts of offshore fracking.

We depend on our oceans for such varied needs and values that the least we can do is understand how they are impacted by these offshore activities. Our constituents sent us here to get things done, not to stifle debate, but this rule won't even allow us to discuss this important issue.

The rule also blocks a vote on my amendment to protect the central coast from additional offshore drilling.

This amendment is identical to one which was made in order to be considered on the floor last year, when the House last considered this redundant legislation.

Perhaps the majority believes it is a waste of time to consider something that has already been voted upon. I only wish they would apply this logic to bills that they bring to the floor because, if they did, we wouldn't be here wasting our time with a bill the House already voted on last year.

Stapling two old bills together doesn't make it a new idea. H.R. 4899 is still a bad idea, and it is still a waste of time.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague--my respected colleague--Mr. Waxman for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3301. H.R. 3301 would eliminate meaningful review of the environmental impacts of proposed cross-border energy projects.

The bill dramatically narrows the scope of environmental review to only the cross-border segment of the energy project, that tiny portion that actually physically crosses the national boundary. Now, this makes no sense.

These pipelines, these transmission lines, they are major infrastructure projects. They can span hundreds of miles. They cross through private property, water bodies, farms, and many other sensitive areas, and they carry substances that can catch fire or spill and pollute the environment.

To understand the potential environmental impact of such an energy project, we need to look at the project as a whole. Ignoring the potential environmental or safety risks for every part of the project, except that tiny sliver of land at the national boundary, this defies common sense.

Imagine going to the doctor if you are feeling sick and the doctor gives you a clean bill of health, but he has only looked at your elbow.

That is exactly what this bill does. It green-lights these projects without any meaningful environmental review, and no meaningful review means no opportunity to mitigate potential harm to

public health, to public safety, or the environment. That is just reckless.

The White House has threatened to veto this bill because it provides inadequate time for environmental reviews, and environmental organizations are universally opposed to it.

Thirteen environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, sent a letter emphasizing--and I quote from their letter: ``This legislation could severely limit environmental review and public input to a narrow cross-border segment of projects, thereby precluding review of the full project's impacts.''

Then National Wildlife Federation says--and I quote from their statement--that this bill ``takes a hatchet to the National Environmental Policy Act.''

The League of Conservation Voters warns that this dangerous bill would gut the review process and effectively exempt the projects from the National Environmental Policy Act.

These environmental projects--these energy infrastructure projects will last for decades. We need to understand the impacts of these projects before they are constructed, so that we can protect public health and safety and the environment. Ignoring the impacts will not make them disappear.

H.R. 3301 defies common sense, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.