Floor Statements

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of Mr. Dicks' amendment to remove this destructive and shortsighted anti-wildlife rider from the underlying bill.

The rider would gut the Endangered Species Act, as we've been discussing--a law that has worked for 40 years to successfully conserve our Nation's plants and animals. It would do this by blocking the Fish and Wildlife Service from new listings and bar the designation of critical habitat for currently listed species.

As has been said on both sides of the aisle this evening, this provision creates a one-way path to weakening wildlife protections by allowing the service to delist and downgrade a species' status from endangered to threatened but not to list new species. Unless a species is listed, it receives no protection under the ESA. Currently, the service has identified over 260 species that warrant protection but cannot be listed due to a lack of Federal resources. That's 260 species of plants and animals found across the Nation that are in dire need of assistance and are at risk of disappearing forever.

Mr. Chairman, America's native plants and animals are already in serious trouble--under constant threat from toxic pesticides, air and water pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change; but this shortsighted and irresponsible rider may prove to be the most immediate and serious threat of all, sending countless species into extinction and destroying America's great conservation legacy.

It is our responsibility here to protect and conserve our Nation's most precious resources for future generations, and of course, that's why the Endangered Species Act was written. It codifies our commitment to good stewardship, and it preserves what we hold dear for the benefit of our children and our grandchildren. Since its initiation, we've witnessed incredible comebacks. Animals that were once on the verge of disappearing forever are thriving once again.

Because of the Endangered Species Act and other successful partnerships, bald eagles have returned, not only to Washington State, but to the Channel Islands off the coast of my congressional district. Just a few years ago, a pair of nesting bald eagles produced the first wild-born chicks in 50 years on Santa Cruz Island.

Also on the Central Coast, we've seen California condors and peregrine falcons soaring through our skies once again. The Guadalupe fur seal, which was hunted to near extinction, can now be seen swimming off the Channel Islands. There are similar success stories for the southern sea otter and the blue whale, both found in the Central Coast waters of California; and the return of Island Foxes, whose population dropped down to less than 100, is now back above 1,200.

Mr. Chairman, of course there are so many examples across the country--Florida panthers, gray wolves, grizzly bears--and hundreds more species that have not gone extinct after receiving protection under the act. These species can't wait any longer, and we can't let them disappear forever on our watch.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support Mr. Dicks' amendment to strike this irresponsible provision in the bill. We can and must do better. Our children and our grandchildren are depending upon us.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in strong opposition to this reckless bill and the abundance of extraneous and irresponsible provisions that it contains.

Right now we are down to the wire on defaulting on our debt. But instead of focusing on a way forward, the majority is offering up this ill-conceived piece of legislation, a bill that is polluted--and I emphasize ``polluted''--with unrelated and inappropriate riders that do not belong in a spending bill. The reality is that these riders will have very little impact on our national deficit, but they will have a huge and lasting effect on our health, our environment, and our natural resources.

So why are these programs being targeted? Well, we've seen this before with H.R. 1 earlier this year, and we're seeing it again now. The majority is choosing to reward Big Oil and polluters at the expense of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the wildlife and wild places we hold dear.

Mr. Chairman, it's not an exaggeration to say that this bill drastically undermines our government's ability to protect our environment. This bill jeopardizes the conservation and protection of places like the Channel Islands National Park in my congressional district and the wildlife this special place harbors; closing a quarter of national wildlife refuges across the country, affecting places like the Guadeloupe Dunes near Santa Maria; slashing support for Federal programs that support our outstanding natural areas, like the Piedras Blancas Light Station or the Carrizo Plain National Monument in California; opening up protected and sensitive areas in California's national forest to off-road vehicle use, putting places like Los Padres National Forest at risk; and blocking the protection of wilderness- quality lands.

And as the bill stands, Mr. Chairman, it would bar new listings of threatened and endangered species as well as critical habitat designations. And it would gut the successful Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is our Nation's principal source of Federal funding to preserve irreplaceable lands and waters.

Under this disaster of a bill, the LWCF would be reduced to the lowest level in its 45-year history, an 80 percent cut compared to last year's funding.

And who will benefit from this cut? Not the American taxpayer because this fund is paid for from offshore drilling revenues. Instead, communities will lose important conservation and recreation projects that create jobs and improve the quality of life for working and middle class Americans.

But this assault isn't limited to our lands and wildlife. This dirty legislation is also littered with riders that seek to gut the protections of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, such as preventing the EPA from strengthening limitations on polluted storm water runoff, blocking the EPA's oversight on water used by power plants, and impeding the clarification of which streams and wetlands are protected under the act.

Under the House spending plan, the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds will also see significant cuts. These are the funds established for States to complete water infrastructure projects, projects which create jobs and provide clean, safe drinking water. The riders in this bill, Mr. Chairman, are also an assault on the very air we breathe. They would prevent the EPA from limiting carbon pollution from power plants and other stationary sources, from updating limits on smog and mercury emissions.

One rider would block the EPA from setting new mileage standards for cars, and won't even allow the State of California to set its own standards. Surely we can think of better solutions to solve our fiscal problems rather than attacking our air, our water, and our lands. Sadly, this Interior appropriations bill deeply undermines our important role of passing on an America whose land, water, and air are clean, healthy, productive, beautiful, and accessible for all to enjoy.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible, terrible bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, last year we enacted historic new consumer protections as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

This landmark law created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the first Federal regulator dedicated exclusively to protecting consumers from deceptive practices and potentially harmful financial products and services. Protecting consumers from predatory lending and confusing credit cards is something we should all be able to agree on. It is good for consumers, and it is good for businesses that want to know their competitors are playing by the rules. But the majority has made it clear they don't like these new protections and has worked actively to undermine them.

This week, the House will consider H.R. 1315, a bill that increases bureaucratic redtape and seriously weakens the bureau's authority to protect consumers. Sadly, the majority is yet again choosing Wall Street and its high-paid lobbyists over middle class families. I urge my colleagues to put the needs of Main Street over those of Wall Street and vote ``no'' on H.R. 1315.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the work of the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Preventive Services for Women, who released their critically important final report yesterday. The IOM's recommendations are clear. Women need access to annual well-woman preventive visits, access to screening for domestic violence, gestational diabetes, and a full range of sexually transmitted diseases. They need to have increased breastfeeding support, and they need to have access to contraceptives, all without cost sharing.

In these hard economic times, these recommendations underscore the imperative that women and their families should not have to choose between preventive care and paying their bills.

The IOM was bold. It broke through the extreme politics surrounding women's health and, instead, relies on rigorous science to make its determinations. We must follow the IOM's lead and ensure all women have access to these services, no matter where they get their health care or how much they earn.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall vote on July 18, 2011. I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 601: yes; rollcall No. 602: yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise is strong opposition to H.R. 2560.

This misguided legislation is a ridiculous gimmick that has been dismissed as such by budget and economic experts on both sides of the aisle.

It does nothing to pay our bills. It does nothing to create jobs and grow our economy. And it does nothing to address the rapidly approaching default crisis.

So what would it actually do?

It would destroy jobs and cause economic catastrophe. It protects tax breaks and loopholes for Big Oil and Wall Street by cutting the critical safety net programs seniors, children and American families depend on. And, it would double down on the draconian Ryan Budget, ending Medicare and more than doubling health care costs for seniors.

Rather than wasting yet more time debating a bill that won't pass the Senate and would be vetoed by the President, we should be doing the one thing guaranteed to reduce our deficit immediately--create jobs.

Yes, we must make tough choices to reduce spending and balance our budget. But these cuts must not endanger our economic future. We still need to invest in innovation, infrastructure and education to create the jobs today and in the future and to ensure a well-trained workforce to do those jobs.

Putting people to work and helping businesses grow increases revenue streams and decreases budget deficits. This is the most effective way to reduce the deficit and pay our bills while still protecting our economic future.

This bill, however, would do the opposite by balancing the budget on the backs of seniors, the middle income families and the most vulnerable among us.

Our deficit is a serious problem that requires serious solutions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2560 is not a serious solution, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

My amendment would ensure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not move forward with the license renewal process for the Diablo Canyon power plant, located in my congressional district, until advanced seismic studies are completed and independently reviewed.

Over the last several months, I've called for a short pause in the relicensing effort currently under way at this nuclear power plant until a myriad of seismic questions at the facility are answered. Further studies are needed to demonstrate if the plant's design and operations can withstand an earthquake and other potential threats, including a previously undetected fault line, the Shoreline Fault, which runs within a few hundred yards of the plant. Even PG&E, the plant's operator, has acknowledged the validity of these concerns.

Earlier this year, the utility acceded to my request and asked the NRC to delay the finance issuance of the plant's license renewal while it completes recommended advanced seismic studies of the area. The NRC agreed to review those findings before making a final decision. PG&E also asked the California Public Utilities Commission to suspend proceedings associated with license renewal for Diablo Canyon until the studies are submitted to the NRC.

But, Mr. Chairman, PG&E and the NRC are only talking about delaying the final decision. The relicensing process is still going forward, despite the fact that virtually all of the decisions that would be made about the relicensing of the plant would be affected by what the seismic studies tell us. The cart is clearly being put before the horse here, and we need to rectify this.

My constituents deserve answers to questions regarding the ability of the plant to withstand an earthquake and nuclear accident at the same time and how long the plant would be self-sustaining in the event of such damage. It is particularly pertinent given that in March the NRC confirmed that Diablo Canyon is one of two nuclear power plants in the highest risk seismic areas in the country.

I am, to put it lightly, concerned that the NRC has not taken this seismic risk seriously enough. For example, it has failed to support the recommendations from a 2008 California Energy Commission report clearly delineating that more information is needed to determine the true seismic risk at Diablo Canyon. And just yesterday, an NRC task force review of the Japanese reactor meltdowns determined that our reactors are not sufficiently prepared to respond to catastrophic events or even simple power outages, like the one that triggered the Fukushima meltdown.

The NRC should quickly move to adopt the recommendations of this report as well as the full complement of lessons that can be learned from this disaster, and it should do it before moving forward on issuing new operating licenses to PG&E to run Diablo Canyon long into the future.

Finally, it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that there is no hurry to relicense Diablo Canyon. The current operating licenses run to 2024 and 2025. Surely that's more than enough time to adequately investigate seismic concerns in a thoughtful and transparent manner.

To be clear, I'm not calling for Diablo Canyon to be shut down or for the plant to be denied new operating licenses. What I am doing with this amendment is asking that the relicensing process be paused, briefly, until comprehensive, independent analyses of the seismic issues are completed and that they be considered as part of the relicensing process.

Diablo Canyon provides over 3 million people in California with affordable electricity. It provides many jobs in my district. It's an important element of the tax base of San Luis Obispo County; but this is an issue about safety, and we all agree that safety must be everyone's number one concern here.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would ensure that this is the case.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

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

It is my hope that we can simply all agree to this amendment. It would simply bar the NRC from issuing a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the license renewal of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the NRC does not move forward with the relicensing effort currently underway at Diablo Canyon until advanced, peer-reviewed seismic studies of the area are completed and the findings are shared with the NRC. These advanced seismic studies are needed because the USGS--U.S. Geological Survey--announced in 2008 the discovery of a previously undetected fault line, the Shoreline Fault, which runs within a few hundred yards of Diablo Canyon.

The NRC also recently confirmed that Diablo Canyon is one of two nuclear power plants in the highest risk seismic areas in the country. Without these studies, we cannot say for certain whether an earthquake along the Shoreline Fault or others nearby would result in a severe nuclear accident.

It's important to note, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment only affects the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. It will not shut down the power plant, nor will it stop the relicensing effort or even prevent PG&E, the plant's operator, from gaining new operating licensings to run Diablo Canyon in the future. Instead, it would simply ensure the NRC gets answers to the unstudied and unresolved seismic questions before it issues the draft environmental report.

My amendment is also consistent with PG&E's own request that the NRC delay the final issuance of the plant's license renewal until its seismic research in the area is completed. The NRC has also made it clear it will review those findings before making a decision on whether to grant renewed operating licenses for the plant to PG&E.

Moreover, last month, PG&E asked the California Public Utilities Commission to suspend proceedings associated with license renewal funding for Diablo Canyon until its advanced seismic studies are finished and the findings have been submitted to the NRC. Unfortunately, however, work on the relicensing effort continues, even though the seismic studies have not been completed and won't be for several years and even though the outcome of these studies could very well affect every operation at the plant.

Mr. Chairman, we need answers about the seismic risks at Diablo Canyon and what steps are needed to address them and prepare for any disaster, and we need them before the relicensing process moves forward. So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this straightforward amendment, to ensure an evaluation of the risks that the offshore faults pose to Diablo Canyon.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on July 20, we mark the 37th anniversary of the Turkish invasion and subsequent occupation of Cyprus.

Cyprus has a rich culture and religious history. However, its history has been difficult due to myriad conflicts with its neighbor Turkey, including the occupation, which continues to this day on over a third of the Island.

I want to express my concern about violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Cypriot people. Moreover, reports of the segregation of Greek and Turkish Cypriot people are equally troubling. Any means of violence has simply exacerbated conflicts between the Cypriot and Turkish people, and cannot be an option moving forward.

Cyprus and the U.S. share a deep and abiding commitment to upholding the ideals of freedom, democracy, justice, human rights, and the international rule of law. Infringements upon these American--and Cypriot--principles should not go unnoticed. I remain steadfast in my dedication to correcting these problems and working with others to ensure that Cyprus can flourish for years to come.

Thirty-seven years later, I remain committed to the goal of a reunified and prosperous Cyprus where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace and security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Terry Dressler, recently retired after 33 years of public service devoted to protecting the air quality along the Central Coast of California.

Terry has had a distinguished career in his field, beginning his work with air pollution control in Ventura in 1978. He then worked in San Luis Obispo for almost eight years before coming to serve the Santa Barbara community for more than twenty three years, most recently serving for the last seven years as the Air Pollution Control Officer for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).

As a result of the work of Terry and his team, the County of Santa Barbara has improved its air quality through attainment of federal standards and has made major progress towards meeting state standards. Terry has effectively instituted and enforced programs that reduce stationary, marine shipping, and mobile source emissions while raising community awareness of air quality issues. Additionally, he was instrumental in the creation of the District Community Advisory Council and has worked with its members on state and federal clean air strategy. These initiatives have enhanced the agency's reputation for excellence in local and statewide communities.

My staff and I have worked closely with Terry in his efforts to lead the district towards its clean air mission and I have seen firsthand the great progress and improved air quality standards instituted by Terry and the APCD. His strong leadership and knowledge have directly, and positively, influenced the health of the residents of the County of Santa Barbara.

Terry is recognized as a dedicated public servant who has devoted his career to protecting the health and safety of the citizens of the County of Santa Barbara and the State of California. Terry's accomplishments in the field of air quality and his charismatic presence have left a lasting impact on his colleagues, staff, and community members, and we can all breathe a little easier as a result of his outstanding efforts. I am pleased to commend Terry for his commitment to excellence in the field of air quality, and I wish him a happy retirement surfing the Central Coast.

Madam Speaker, I will vote yes on this resolution because I oppose a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in the U.N.

We all know the status quo in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank is unsustainable. It's bad for Israelis, it's bad for Palestinians, and it's bad for the United States.

I believe that a negotiated agreement between both the Israelis and Palestinians is the

only way to reach a just and lasting peace in the region. But peace will never be achieved with senseless terrorism or soaring speeches or military might. Only through direct, honest, and earnest negotiations will the dream of peace be realized.

That is why I believe that both sides must put aside their preconditions and come to the table immediately.

As former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently wrote, peace will only be achieved ``with the courage to take decisions that will change a reality which is increasingly creating a substantive threat on the State of Israel's stature, on the international support it receives, and on its future as a Jewish democratic state.''

Yet, I'm concerned this resolution--instead of rising to Olmert's noble challenge--is yet another missed opportunity for the U.S. to advance peace in the region.

Just last December this House passed unanimously a substantially similar resolution opposing the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. What are we accomplishing by restating our opposition?

Mr. Speaker, I worry that we have become too engrossed in the rhetorical debate of peace and are neglecting to fully pursue it. We could easily fill this Chamber with the words spoken over the years debating this conflict, but the room filled with actions taken to end it would sadly be much, much smaller.

This is a pivotal moment--a moment that demands bold, courageous leadership from Prime Minister Netanyahu, from President Abbas, and from President Obama. It is a moment that requires everyone--Israeli and Palestinian, friend and foe--to come together and resolve this crisis once and for all.

Congress can and should play a constructive role in this debate. But I'm concerned that repeatedly criticizing the Palestinians--and only the Palestinians--risks pushing Israelis and Palestinians further apart rather than bringing them closer together. Unfortunately, both Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in activities that are undermining peace efforts, and we must not ignore this mutual responsibility for the conflict.

And I'm also concerned that this resolution further isolates the United States and Israel and undermines our credibility as a serious broker for peace. There is no denying that both Israel and the United States are growing increasingly isolated in the international community. As President Obama said, ``the international community is tired of an endless process that never procures an outcome.'' This resolution does nothing to change that.

Rather than spending our time reiterating the already established position against a unilateral declaration of statehood, we should be focusing on concrete measures that advance peace.

We should be looking for ways to help Israel adapt to the new realities of the Arab Spring rather than simply reinforcing the status quo.

And we should be encouraging both the Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate rather than just criticizing the Palestinians for not doing so.

At this critical juncture, with so much uncertainty and unrest throughout the Middle East, the U.S. needs to engage in constructive dialogue with all parties and help them bring this tragic conflict to an end. The U.S. cannot make peace in the region, only the parties can. But the U.S. has always been an indispensable agent in brokering peace.

That is why it is imperative that we reclaim that constructive role and foster a negotiated settlement that ensures the security of Israel, recognizes the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, and promotes U.S. national security interests.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2021, the so-called Jobs and Energy Permitting Act.

I oppose this legislation for several reasons.

First, it gives oil companies a pass to pollute. It exempts offshore drilling companies from applying pollution control technologies to vessels like crew and supply boats, which actually account for most of the air pollution from drilling off my congressional district's coast. It also opens up a loophole for drill ships to pollute with no limits while the ship moves into place. And, instead of measuring pollution at the source, itself, H.R. 2021 allows oil companies to measure the impacts at the shore, with net results of more air pollution overall.

Second, H.R. 2021 does away with proven processes that provide an expert, efficient, and impartial review of air permitting decisions. I would note that in 20 years, the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District has never denied an offshore drilling permit, and there is more drilling off my district than just about anywhere in this country. The local air permitting review process works. We don't need to change it.

In addition, this bill's provision to remove all appellate action to Washington, D.C., is wholly unfair. This limits the rights of my constituents to participate in very important matters affecting their health. It forces cash-strapped local governments to travel thousands of miles to defend their permitting decisions, placing a serious burden on local taxpayers.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly to my constituents, H.R. 2021 poses real health risks to the communities surrounding offshore drilling by weakening local air quality standards. Pollution from the nearly two dozen oil platforms and the vessels that supply them in the Santa Barbara Channel includes high levels of airborne pollutants. These pollutants can cause severe lung problems and other major health issues. That's why our State adopted rules to strengthen air quality standards and help protect coastal residents from this pollution. It makes no sense to block these rules that will help my community clean up its air.

In sum, Madam Chair, H.R. 2021 is a bad bill.

Let me also address a theme that's been repeated on the other side. Supporters of this bill continue to parrot the Shell Oil talking point that it has taken them 5 years to get a Clean Air Act permit for their proposed drilling in the Arctic Ocean. They cite this 5-year delay as the justification for this legislation. This claim might make a nice sound-bite, but it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts.

Here are the facts. First, Shell has pulled its permit applications, modified its proposed operations, and changed its target drilling sites on numerous occasions over the past few years. Shell pulled the permit application for drilling in the Beaufort Sea for 2 years until going back to EPA with a brand new request in 2010. Every time Shell changed its plans, EPA had to adjust its assessment of the potential impacts on air quality and public health. That's what we expect EPA to do. No one wants EPA to take a one-size-fits-all approach to permitting these major sources of pollution.

Second, Shell delayed final EPA action on its air permit for drilling in the Chukchi Sea by submitting insufficient permit applications. That's Shell's fault, not EPA's.

Finally, EPA has prioritized Shell's permit applications and finalized them quickly. The two Shell permits at issue were proposed and finalized within 3 to 4 months of receiving completed applications. Both went from submission of a completed application to a decision by the Environmental Appeals Board within 1 year. EPA now says it is on track to finalize Shell's revised permits by the end of this summer.

If this bill is about addressing Shell's so-called 5-year permitting delay, then I see no basis for this legislation. The truth is that this bill isn't about expediting the permit process. It's about rolling back air quality protections. This bill will create more problems than it purports to solve because it will allow oil companies to pollute more offshore and cut concerned stakeholders out of the very process itself.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I'm offering with Representatives Carney and Castor addresses one of several concerns we have about this bill: its harmful impact on State programs that today are working to issue permits while protecting local air quality.

Last month, the Energy and Power Subcommittee heard testimony from officials of the States of Delaware and California. Both expressed serious concerns about the impact of this bill on local air quality. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources has this to say about the legislation: ``The constraints placed on States' rights and authorities will adversely affect our State's ability to protect public health and welfare from the harmful effects of air pollution.'' The California Air Resources Board also testified that this measure ``could have far- reaching, unintended consequences on public health.''

California and its local air districts in some cases require emission controls that go beyond Federal law, and that is to address our unique pollution problems. For example, emissions from commercial harbor craft and oceangoing vessels represent the largest source of smog-forming air pollution in the entire Santa Barbara County. These emissions account for over 40 percent of our local air pollution. In response, the California Air Resources Board adopted rules to help coastal areas like California come into attainment with ozone and particulate matter air quality standards. But H.R. 2021 would nullify some of these State requirements, and it would increase pollution by preventing our local air quality district from incorporating them into their air permits for offshore drilling production and processing.

It's very critical to our local air quality and to public health that emissions from these marine vessels and offshore drilling are subject to commonsense regulations, and that is why this simple amendment is before us today. It says that if a State with delegated authority wants to enact more stringent air quality protections for offshore drilling, it can continue to do so.

Mr. Chairman, this is about giving flexibility to our local air quality districts so that they can apply the technologies that work best for them--they've been doing so for 20 years--so they can continue their work protecting our air quality and the health of our communities. This amendment says that a one-size-fits-all approach that comes from Washington politicians and giant multinational oil companies is the wrong approach.

I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment. It's common sense. It will allow State and local air districts to continue to do their job to protect the air quality of coastal communities like the central coast of California--nothing more, and nothing less.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my colleague from Colorado, the author of the bill.

Section 328 of the Clean Air Act is what is at issue here today in this amendment. It was created more than 20 years ago, largely at the insistence of California officials. In fact, my Republican predecessor, Congressman Lagomarsino, introduced this legislation because residents were unhappy about uncontrolled air pollution from offshore drilling, as well as local industry and business groups who were upset that offshore sources were basically free to pollute, while onshore sources bore the burden of heavier regulation to try to make up for the degraded air quality. Only two States now have this permission.

I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republicans' misguided attack on Medicare and Medicaid. No matter what the other side says, their plans for Medicare and Medicaid will end them, leaving them as nothing but a shell.

This is a question of priorities. Which is the best choice? Either closing the doughnut hole so seniors, including 7,000 in my district, don't have to choose between their medications and paying the rent, or giving huge subsidies to oil companies?

Or this choice: telling people, including 100,000 in my congressional district who are in their 40s and 50s, to hurry up and save another $200,000 each before they retire so they can pay for health care since Medicare's guarantee is gone?

Or continuing tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires?

The Republican budget is not a plan for our future. It's a recipe for disaster. It ends Medicare and Medicaid, puts our seniors at risk.

Stand up for our current and future seniors. Say ``no'' to the Republican attack on Medicare and Medicaid.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the Agriculture appropriations bill. Instead of helping Americans hit hardest by the recent recession today, we are debating a Republican spending bill that guts critical nutrition programs which literally put food on the table so that millions of low-income women, children, and seniors don't go hungry. This bill hurts low-income seniors through cuts to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. It cuts The Emergency Food Assistance Program, which could cause our local food banks to close their doors. And it slashes the budget of the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, program, the effects of which will leave hundreds of thousands of women and children without adequate nutrition.

WIC not only keeps our low-income families from hunger, but by emphasizing adequate nutrition, the program reduces the incidence of low birth-weight babies, combats the childhood obesity epidemic, and promotes school readiness by giving children the nutritional building blocks their brains need to develop at a critical stage. Moreover, as it links these families to the local health infrastructure, it also increases child immunization rates. These benefits are not just to the child and the family. In fact, the program reduces overall health care costs. For every $1 invested in WIC, we save about $2 to $3 in health care costs just in the first 2 months of life. This is an incredible feat. It's one that should be expanded. Instead, the bill before us slashes these programs, plain and simple, with only one result: more Americans going hungry.

When I asked my local food safety net providers what the Republican cuts would do to our community, the answer was clear: Without this assistance, which choice will it be: rent or food? My constituents have been loud and clear on this issue, Stop trying to cut the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and our children.

I urge my colleagues to start listening to their communities. Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on this devastating bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the Clarke-Higgins-Reichert- Capps Amendment.

This bipartisan effort will ensure funding for the country's urban areas involved in preventing and responding to natural disasters and acts of terrorism.

The Urban Area Security Initiative focuses on enhancing preparedness in urban areas.

It does so by directing federal funds to places deemed to be at the highest risk for man-made or natural disasters.

For example, metropolitan Oxnard--located in my congressional district--has been included several times in recent years due to the strategic assets located in the area.

However, the underlying bill would arbitrarily limit eligibility to 10 urban areas total.

This would eliminate the Oxnard's ability to access the funds necessary to prevent and prepare for all types of hazards.

Mr. Chair, the Oxnard metropolitan area has just as much need to protect its citizens from terrorist threats as any other large city in the U.S.

For example, Oxnard is home to Naval Base Ventura County. This strategic military installation supports ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as important D.O.D. weapons testing programs.

The Port of Hueneme--the only deepwater harbor between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area--serves international businesses and ocean carriers from the Pacific Rim and Europe.

The Oxnard coastline is dotted with offshore oil and gas platforms, power plants and chemical facilities.

And Oxnard is located alongside U.S. Highway 101--the only north- south evacuation route on California's Central Coast.

That's why the Department of Homeland Security has granted millions of dollars to the Oxnard UASI over the years.

It's recognized the need to support this community's efforts to: train and equip first responders, improve interoperable communications, establish fusion centers, and protect critical infrastructure.

It knows it must enhance the capacity to respond to all-hazard events, including tsunamis, wildfires, mudslides or earthquakes.

And it understands that investing in local programs, like ``Ventura Get Ready,'' will help ensure the safety and security of our citizens.

Mr. Chair, we all know this is a tough budget environment and that we need to make targeted investments.

But making more than 50 cities ineligible for UASI funds--regardless of threat and vulnerability levels--is shortsighted and wrong.

These communities contain numerous assets, resources and critical infrastructure that are vulnerable to attack and that are tremendously important to the nation.

Now is not the time to eliminate the eligibility of our threatened urban areas from UASI funding.

We cannot lay the entire financial burden of securing our cities on local authorities, first responders, and law enforcement and expect to adequately protect our citizens and make our cities safe.

Let's remove this harmful UASI language from the bill and ensure our cities have the necessary capabilities to safeguard our communities.

Vote ``yes'' on the bipartisan Clarke-Higgins amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a constituent of mine from the 23rd District of California. His name is Mr. Jack Sutherlin.

Mr. Sutherlin, of Santa Maria, California, served honorably in the Coast Guard during World War II. He was stationed off the California coast. Mr. Sutherlin's brave actions on December 25, 1943, resulted in the safe passage of two escort carriers down the Pacific, along the coast, and into San Diego Bay.

I am very proud to represent Mr. Sutherlin, an example to us all for his dedication to our country and for his lifetime of serving our community.

Mr. Speaker, the debt we owe to our Nation's veterans is immeasurable, and Mr. Sutherlin is no exception. In fact, he's an example of those of that Greatest Generation who served nobly during the Second World War. His actions in 1943 leave me humbled and honored by his sacrifices. We can never repay his service, but we can act honorably on his behalf and behave in a way that is indicative of a grateful Nation.

Singling out events like these are important to remind us that acknowledging our veterans' bravery and sacrifice is never done. Despite the decades that have passed, our country remains indebted to the heroic actions of Mr. Sutherlin and his many brothers in arms.

It's also imperative to remember that we are still a Nation at war and that veterans who served decades ago or just months ago or are serving today deserve our support, our appreciation, and our profound gratitude. Mr. Sutherlin waited too long to be officially recognized, and I'm sure he would agree that all veterans deserve timely and genuine acknowledgements of their service.

I am proud of the work my staff completed to assist Mr. Sutherlin achieve a formal recognition from the commandant of the United States Coast Guard. Just a few days ago, the veterans clinic in Santa Maria, California, hosted a reception and a ceremony where the letter of recognition from the commandant was read and where many of the Coast Guard on active duty stationed at Morro Bay, California, were present to see someone of the generation preceding them being acknowledged.

I consider my work on behalf of veterans to be one of my most sacred responsibilities as a Member of Congress. Veterans like Mr. Sutherlin represent the best this country has to offer, and ensuring his work is recognized is of paramount importance. It's an honor to represent a man of such integrity, conviction, and dedication to his country. I'm proud to include his service in the Congressional Record of the United States Congress.