Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2005, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011, a bill important to many families in Hawaii.

H.R. 2005 reauthorizes the landmark Combating Autism Act of 2006, which significantly increased both the depth and breadth of the federal response to the national and public health emergency posed by autism spectrum disorders (ASD).

Since passage of that law, we have made tremendous strides in federally-funded and directed research. It was the detailed surveillance by the federal Centers for Disease Control under the act that identified the increasing prevalence of autism: 1 in every 110 American children--including 1 in 70 boys--is diagnosed with an ASD, making it the nation's fastest-growing, serious developmental disorder.

I've heard from a mother in Kailua on the island of Oahu who credits the 2006 law for providing her family with needed medical attention and assistance for their autistic child. H.R. 2005 builds on our good efforts.

I became a cosponsor of the bill because I believe it supports hope and opportunity for a brighter future for families not only in Hawaii but across our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in support of the H.R. 2005.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2587.

In Hawaii, we believe in fairness and respect. We believe that working men and women should be able to come to the table, have a voice in their workplaces, be able to negotiate for fair wages and benefits. This belief helped build the middle class in Hawaii and across our country.

Right now, what working men and women need most are champions in their corner, champions who are fighting for real jobs. Instead, this bill takes aim at our working families. It's another direct assault on them and on workers' rights.

Let's face it. Companies today can move their business operations for any business reason at all except for an illegal one. Today, retaliating against workers who want to organize and join a union is illegal. This bill changes that. It says companies can go ahead. You can move your jobs to other States or even to other countries to punish your workers who want to organize and have a voice. This would have a chilling effect on any attempt by workers to ask for a seat at the bargaining table. Workers have already taken big hits in their paychecks and in their retirements over the years.

We should not make it easier for businesses to game the system. I urge my colleagues to fight against this bill and to stand with the working men and women of this country.

Aloha.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2587. In Hawaii, we believe in fairness and respect. We believe that working men and women should be able to come together to have a voice in their workplace, to be able to negotiate fair wages and benefits. This belief helped build the middle class in Hawaii and across the nation.

Right now what working men and women most need are champions in their corner: champions who are fighting for jobs. Instead, this bill aims its fire at our working families. It's another direct assault on workers' rights.

Because companies today can move their business operations for any business reason at all, except an illegal one. Retaliating against workers who want to join a union is illegal. This bill changes that.

It says companies can go ahead and move jobs to other states or even other countries to punish their workers. This would have a chilling effect on any attempt by workers to ask for a seat at the bargaining table. And that's just wrong.

Working men and women have already taken a big hit in their paychecks and retirements over the last few years. We shouldn't be making it easier for businesses to game the system.

I urge my colleagues to stand with working men and women to fight this bill and end these attacks on workers' rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Continuum of Learning Act. Learning does not start in kindergarten or first grade: learning begins at birth. Decades of research have shown that quality early learning is foundational to success in school and in life.

Economists, educators, business leaders, law enforcement officers, and military generals agree on the importance of quality early learning. By the time they enter kindergarten, children from low-income families have developed only half the vocabulary of their well- advantaged peers. By investing early, we can close achievement gaps early and prevent future costs for special education, dropouts, crime, incarceration, and dependence on social services later in life.

A continuum of learning from birth through the early elementary grades can strengthen students' success in the K-12 system and beyond. The Continuum of Learning Act updates the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) to strengthen connections between existing early learning programs and the elementary grades.

I have conducted numerous teacher listening sessions and heard from hundreds of educators throughout Hawaii about their needs. Educators want more support in doing their jobs.

This bill, developed with Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, and my original cosponsors Walter Jones of North Carolina, Jared Polis of Colorado, and Don Young of Alaska, helps educators from Head Start, other early childhood education programs, and elementary schools work together so young children have a successful transition into the elementary grades and beyond.

The Continuum of Learning Act of 2011 does not contain any new spending or create any new programs. It is a research-driven approach that integrates early learning considerations within states' and school districts' existing K-12 plans. This will strengthen the early education efforts for our nation's 21.2 million children under age 5, some 86,000 of whom are in Hawaii.

Without spending any additional taxpayer dollars, this bipartisan legislation helps our keiki (children) in Hawaii enter school ready to learn and increases their success in the early years. That early success puts our students on the path to graduate and compete for the best jobs. It is part of our shared legacy for our keiki, to give them a brighter future.

The Continuum of Learning Act makes a set of changes that I hope will eventually be included in a bipartisan reauthorization of ESEA. Specifically, the bill calls for: States reviewing and revising their early learning'guidelines for children ages 0-5 and additional standards for grades K-3, including core academic areas and social and emotional development like appropriate classroom behavior. Hawaii's Good Beginnings Alliance already developed strong early learning guidelines for preschool children in 2004; creating or revising state teacher certification or licensure in the early elementary grades and younger to reflect the specialized knowledge and skills to teach children in the birth-to-8 age span; providing training--including joint professional development--to early education and elementary school teachers in child development and best teaching practices. The plan also calls for elementary school principals and administrators to participate in professional development geared toward better developing elementary school curricula for young learners. Many states currently are under-utilizing the use of education funds for this purpose; promoting coordination between early childhood and Head Start programs and elementary school teachers so children have a supportive transition from pre-school to elementary school. For example, a child who receives help on language skills or visits by a social worker in preschool can continue receiving that help, if needed, when he or she gets to kindergarten; assisting elementary schools in being ``ready schools'' so all children have the quality teaching, supportive services, and family engagement needed for their success. I thank Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina) for introducing the Ready Schools Act, which is included as part of this legislation; encouraging schools in need of improvement to use early childhood education as a strategy for improving student achievement.

The Continuum of Learning Act was developed with input from numerous national and Hawaii organizations, including: the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the world's largest organization of people working with children from birth through age 8. Twenty thousand people participate in Hawaii AEYC activities each year; the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), representing the principals of 33 million children in preschool through grade 8. More than 200 of Hawaii's public schools serve elementary-age children; the National Head Start Association (NHSA), supporting Head Start providers nationwide. In Hawaii, 3,300 children are enrolled in Head Start; Pre-K Now; First Five Years Fund (FFYF); the National Women's Law Center; Zero to Three; First Focus Campaign for Children; Center for Law and Social policy (CLASP); Early Care and Education (ECE) Consortium; High Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Additional organizations supporting the legislation include: Mission: Readiness, a bipartisan group of retired generals advocating education for military preparedness; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a bipartisan organization of criminal justice leaders who understand the importance of early education in preventing delinquency and crime later; and Mental Health America of Hawai'i because the bill calls for identifying and responding to emerging behavioral challenges of all young students.

Gary Kai of the Hawaii Business Roundtable, whose members believe very strongly in the importance of early childhood education, has pointed out that research shows that the highest rate of return for investments in human capital occurs in a child's earliest years. That's why he says ``this education initiative will help to prepare children to succeed when they get to kindergarten and to be successful throughout their entire school career. Our businesses need the best educated workforce possible and they realize that our children must be able to compete internationally.''

I encourage my colleagues to support the Continuum of Learning Act.

Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall No. 671, ``no;'' rollcall No. 672, ``no;'' rollcall No. 673, ``yes;'' rollcall No. 674 ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to Speaker Boehner's flawed plan to address our urgent need to raise the debt limit and our longer term challenge of reducing our nation's debt.

First, the Speaker's plan is a short-term band-aid, when our economy and markets need certainty. Under the Speaker's plan, we would be back where we are now in a few months, facing yet another possibility of defaulting on our debt. We should pass a debt limit extension that will take us through 2012. Playing with the creditworthiness of the United States is a game that never should have been started.

Second, this bill virtually guarantees cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security while protecting oil companies and the wealthiest in our country from any pain or paying their fair share. Billionaires are not being asked to pay more in taxes; loopholes that benefit the few are sacrosanct. But the programs seniors and children rely upon receive no such consideration.

Finally, this bill ignores the central problem facing our nation today: we need to put more people to work so they can afford to buy the products and services that will get our economy growing at a healthier pace. We need to make investments that will pay long-term dividends. Cutting funding for infrastructure, education, and child nutrition are short-sighted decisions that will hurt us in decades to come.

The people of Hawaii want Washington to change its ways. They want a compromise. They'd like a plan that is fair and balanced. They want us to reduce the deficit by cutting wasteful spending. They also want the wealthy to pay their fair share. Most of all, they want us to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Congresswoman Hanabusa's bill to designate the post office in the neighborhood of Kahala in Honolulu as the Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building.

Cec Heftel, as he was known to everyone in Hawaii, is remembered for his keen business sense, his pursuit of excellence as a broadcaster, and his decade of service representing Hawaii's 1st Congressional District. He passed away in February 2010.

In looking over the legislation that Congressman Heftel introduced during his tenure, I was interested to see that he introduced forward- looking bills to provide incentives for renewable energy and to establish a comprehensive research and development program for domestic hydrogen fuel capability. He also introduced legislation to restore the wartime recognition to the Filipino veterans of World War II to entitle them to the benefits they earned. The Congress finally acted on this issue in 2009, giving these veterans a measure of long-awaited justice.

I am sure that the naming of the post office in Cec's memory in the community where he lived means a great deal to his widow, Rebecca Heftel, his children, grandchildren, and his many friends, former colleagues, and employees.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, beside me is a picture of the Cuyahoga River in 1952. The river is on fire.

The reason for this fire is that the river was heavily contaminated with flammable industrial waste. This water was dangerous to drink, needless to say, and to swim in. Fish and wildlife could not survive here. Flooding in this river would have spread pollution onto the shore and into neighborhoods. In short, this pollution was dangerous for the health of the people and the communities that depended on this river.

It was incidents like these that helped raise public awareness of the dangers of water pollution. Ultimately, that awareness became government action, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in 1970 and of the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.

The EPA's purpose is simple: to protect human health and the environment. It does this by ensuring minimum standards for water quality nationwide while acting as a referee between the States.

Despite this important mission, this bill slashes the EPA's budget by 18 percent from current levels, so of course I rise to speak against this underlying bill. It also includes a number of riders that will prevent the EPA from carrying out the duties it is already legally required to perform. I don't know why the majority is so keen on undermining the vital mission of the EPA. I hear them talk a lot about the costs of certain EPA regulations; but what about the cost of getting rid of these regulations?

One serious cost that would go up is the cost of public health. The impact of polluting our air and water isn't a speculative matter. We know that it will make people and communities sick. More mercury in the air we breathe means more deaths and debilitating illnesses. More water pollution means families and communities will be subjected to a variety of health risks. In short, more pollution means rapidly escalating health care costs.

Another cost is the cost to our environment. Our rivers, coastlines and wetlands are the places that we take our children to experience the wonders of our country. This is where their interests in the natural sciences and the outdoors are kindled. Polluted waters and coastlines mean less wildlife, poorer fishing and a lot less beauty in this world. We have to remember that we are merely stewards of our natural resources and that the cost of polluting those resources isn't only borne now; it will be borne by future generations.

Finally, the EPA helps to ensure a fair playing field for businesses. This helps keep their long-term costs manageable. It's a simple fact that a few dollars in prevention is far, far cheaper than expensive cleanup costs later. For those who disagree or question that, I encourage you to contact BP Oil. That company will--and should--be paying for their damage for years to come.

So those are the costs the EPA helps to mitigate. That's why we need the EPA. We need a referee that is empowered to make sure that everyone plays by the rules and protects our natural resources. If we pass this bill, we are essentially ejecting the referee from the game of calling out misconduct on certain players, which will only encourage more misbehavior in the future.

Take a look at this picture. Is that what we want?

This bill is so flawed, there is little hope for it. I hope that my colleagues will reevaluate their approach to this legislation, will pull it from the floor and go back to the drawing board.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunities Act of 2011. I would like to thank Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa and Congressman Don Young for cosponsoring this important bill.

This bill does two things. First, it reauthorizes a section of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) that supports programs that create homeownership opportunities for low- income Native Hawaiian families on Hawaiian Home Lands. Second, it would continue and expand access to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) section 184a loan guarantees, which would reduce the cost of homeownership for low-income Native Hawaiian families and would also reduce risk by lowering monthly mortgage payments.

The Congress has a long and bipartisan history of supporting Native Hawaiian housing issues. The Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunities Act of 2011 continues that tradition.

Passed by Congress in 1996, NAHASDA reauthorized a system of housing assistance provided to tribes by HUD through the Indian Housing Block Grant program. This program provides funds directly to tribes for housing development and other new approaches to create housing.

In 2000, the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant was established under NAHASDA to allow another indigenous group support for affordable housing activities. Funds for this grant are administered by the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the entity charged with carrying out the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The funds are used primarily to develop infrastructure on Hawaiian Home Lands, which tend to be in the most isolated parts of the state.

In 1921, Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act with the purpose of establishing a homesteading program to place eligible Native Hawaiians on lands in Hawaii designated for such purpose. The law was passed at the urging of the Territory of Hawaii's Delegate to Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole. Some 204,000 acres were set aside for the purpose of providing Native Hawaiians with land.

With the passage of the Statehood Act of 1959, the control and administration of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was transferred from the federal government to the newly formed State of Hawaii. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands was created in 1960 to administer the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.

While homeownership rates in Hawaii are typically lower than national rates, homeownership rates for Native Hawaiians in the state are even lower. In Honolulu, 38 percent of Native Hawaiians own their homes compared with 48 percent for non-natives. This disparity continues in other areas of Hawaii, where 51 percent of Native Hawaiians own their homes compared with 60 percent for non-natives.

Native Hawaiian households in Hawaii are also more likely to be low- income than non-native households. Owner households on Hawaiian home lands are among the poorest of Native Hawaiian households with approximately 25 percent having incomes at or below 50 percent of the median income for the given area.

There is a continued need for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant. I urge my colleagues to support the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunities Act of 2011.

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Dicks-Fitzpatrick-Thompson-Hanabusa amendment to delete the Extinction Rider that was improperly added to this legislation. This rider, which has no place in an appropriation bill, prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service from spending any money on listing new plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act, designating critical habitat, or upgrading species from threatened to endangered.

This is a big deal to me because Hawaii happens to have the highest number of endangered species of any state in the nation. This is due, in large part, to the unique species that evolved in Hawaii because of its location 2,400 miles from the nearest land mass. In fact, Hawaii's 33 endangered bird species represent 42 percent of the U.S. bird species listed as endangered. All of these live in my district. For example, we have a beautiful endangered forest bird called the Hawaii `Akepa. Thanks to the Endangered Species Act, the populations of this bird are currently stable on Hawaii Island, although it is very rare on the island of Maui. The `Akepa and the other 32 Hawaiian bird species listed as endangered are threatened by loss of habitat, a warming climate, and the onslaught of introduced species.

In fact, 69 of the 265 candidate species for addition to the Endangered Species Act--26 percent--are found in Hawaii. Most, like the `Akepa, are found nowhere else in the world.

Another example of an Endangered Species Act success is the threatened Hawaiian green sea turtle--or honu as we call it in Hawaii. In the 1970s, before being listed, the Hawaiian green sea turtle was in steep decline because it was regularly hunted and eaten. Since being protected by the Endangered Species Act, the numbers of green sea turtles have increased dramatically--by 53 percent over the past 25 years! Despite this success, the honu remains vulnerable because its primary nesting habitat in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands could be lost to sea level rise caused by climate change.

As members of Congress, we have a special responsibility to protect and be stewards of the land, the water, the air, and the species with which we share this world. There is no recovery from extinction. Each time we lose a unique creature or plant that evolved over thousands or millions of years, we make the world a poorer place and rob future generations.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 612, 613, and 614, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on all three.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1315, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011.

Today is the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It is also the first official day of work for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

For the first time, the United States will have a financial regulator whose sole purpose is to protect consumers. From now on, there will be a cop on the beat watching out for predatory lending practices and unfair fees. Scam artists taking advantage of seniors, young people, and our men and women in uniform will be stopped. And, it will prevent honest businesses from having to compete with unscrupulous ones.

It will help consumers across the country get a fair deal.

I recently spoke with a young man in Hawaii who this agency's work would have helped. He was sold a $700,000 home at age 19. He

worked in construction and, at the time, business was booming. He was told by his lender that he qualified for the loan and that everything would be fine. He was inexperienced in purchasing real estate and trusted that the lender had his interests in mind. He was wrong. He no longer has that house, and today that young man's credit is so damaged that it will take him years to rebuild it.

This happened all over the country, and our economy is still reeling. But you wouldn't know that based on the legislation we are considering today. In fact, this bill seeks to limit the independence and effectiveness of the CFPB before it ever gets up and running.

First, it gives the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is primarily made up of the heads of the federal financial regulatory agencies, significant authority to block CFPB regulations. The FSOC's role is for the heads of these agencies to work together to identify and address serious risks to the whole economy--their primary responsibility is not consumer protection. This bill would reduce the threshold of votes required to overturn a CFPB rule from two-thirds to a simple majority and prevent the CFPB's director from voting.

Second, it replaces the single, independent CFPB director with a ``collegial'' commission. According to the Committee's report on this bill, such a structure is necessary for a better functioning agency. However, the Committee report fails to point out that the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve Board, and other financial regulators are ``collegial'' commissions. Before the economic crisis these ``collegial'' bodies all had consumer protection responsibilities in their portfolios--but too often, those responsibilities fell to the bottom of the to-do list. The Federal Reserve was given the authority to regulate mortgages in 1994--but it took them 16 years to rein in risky loans.

Last, in a prime example of Washington double-speak the bill prevents the CFPB from taking over the consumer protection authorities of these other agencies until it has a Director. That is odd given that this very bill eliminates the Director position in favor of a commission.

Proponents of this measure say these changes are for the ``safety and soundness'' of the financial system. ``Safety and soundness'' in this case is really code for ``what's good for Wall Street's profitability is good for consumers.''

We all know that's not true.

Congress gave the CFPB sole responsibility for consumers so that other regulators will be able to focus on their primary jobs. The simple fact is that this bill would help reinstate regulatory gridlock and silence the voices of consumers--the opposite of what Dodd-Frank intended.

We have to remember that the cause of the crisis wasn't too much regulation--it was too little. I strongly oppose this legislation, and urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2560, which should be called the Cut, Cap, and Default Act. This is not a serious attempt to deal with our debt or the looming threat that the United States could default on its obligations. If the concern of the supporters of this legislation was truly our national debt, they would not be working to pass a bill that would virtually guarantee default on our debt. This may provide some political cover for certain members, but it is not a serious response to the problems of our economy.

To raise the debt limit, this legislation requires two-thirds of both chambers of Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment

that games the system by making it far easier to slash federal programs like Medicare (with a simple majority vote) than to raise taxes on the wealthy or eliminate special interest loopholes (a higher than majority, two-thirds of members must agree). Unneeded tax breaks for oil companies or loopholes that benefit hedge fund managers would be protected, but Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and other programs that matter to the middle class and the most vulnerable members of our community would be on the chopping block. In addition to our social safety net programs, this bill would force cuts in programs ensuring public safety, investing in education and infrastructure, and protecting our environment.

Under this bill, multimillionaires could rest easy that they wouldn't lose the generous tax cuts they received under President George W. Bush. But poor seniors who need Medicaid to be able to get nursing home care would be out of luck. Pell Grants that enable middle and low income students to go to college would have to be cut. Nutrition programs for children and the elderly would be curtailed. Government efforts to protect clean air and water and to protect the wildlife, especially endangered species, would suffer.

It has long been the goal of some to ``starve the beast,'' that is, to cut taxes to the level that government services they feel are unnecessary are eliminated. These ``services'' include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, environmental regulation, and the U.S. Department of Education to name a few well-known targets.

I recognize the need to get our debt under control. But we are in the process of recovering from a devastating recession brought on by the policies of the very people calling for cuts in spending today. We have to raise the debt ceiling because we have less revenue due to the Bush tax cuts, billions spent on two wars, and critically needed efforts to pull our economy out of the nose dive it was in at the end of the Bush administration. Holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage is not the answer to our problems. We need to come together and take the responsible action of raising the debt limit and then move on to addressing the most serious crises facing our nation: stimulating job growth and getting our economy moving again.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that only 18,000 jobs were created in June and more than 14 million people are still looking for work--many for over six months.

As members of Congress, our focus must be on pursuing policies that will rebuild our economy by providing these Americans with opportunities to work hard and succeed--the very idea that underpins the middle class.

This legislation is a missed opportunity to respond to the jobs challenge in a serious way. Instead of investing in our infrastructure and supporting innovative new job-creating industries in the renewable energy sector, this bill under-invests in both these areas.

For example, this bill reduces funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $491 million--or 27 percent below the already abysmal FY2011 funding levels and 59 percent less than what President Obama requested.

The bill also cuts funding for the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) by $88 million, which is 44 percent below current levels and 81 percent less than requested. ARPA-E is modeled after the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which has been a catalyst in technological innovation since its creation in 1958.

Together, these programs fund crucial research and development in a variety of renewable technologies with the goals of ending our national dependence on fossil fuels, more efficiently powering our homes and businesses, and lessening the cost of energy for families.

These types of investments are incredibly important in my home state of Hawaii. We are the most oil dependent state in the nation--we must import 90 percent of the oil products that fuel our cars, homes, and businesses. So when the world markets that set the price of oil gyrates--as it has in recent months--our economic growth and quality of life are significantly impacted.

So renewable energy isn't just a feel-good idea--it's an economic and national security imperative both for Hawaii and our nation's future. Cutting funds that provide incentives for the private sector to continue innovating and growing jobs in this sector may seem penny- wise; but it is most certainly pound-foolish.

I am also disappointed that this bill fails to make a real dent in our nation's water infrastructure needs. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has given our nation's overall infrastructure a grade of ``D.'' ASCE also estimates that Hawaii needs $1.97 billion to meet our water infrastructure needs. While I understand the need to carefully prioritize how we spend precious federal dollars, I believe that infrastructure should be at the top of that priority list. Infrastructure investments create jobs, strengthen our communities, and improve public health.

These are just two areas where this legislation fails to improve our economy, help rebuild the middle class, or lay the groundwork for our future prosperity. As a whole this bill is a disappointment, and I strongly oppose its passage.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 576, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Royce

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by Mr. Markey, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.

Many of us have seen iconic images of the Cuyahoga River burning in the 1950s. Sadly, this was not an isolated event--the Cuyahoga caught fire numerous times. The reason for these fires was that the river was heavily, heavily contaminated with flammable industrial waste.

This water was dangerous to drink and to swim in. Fish and wildlife could not survive. Flooding in this river would have spread pollution onto shore and into neighborhoods and homes. In short, this pollution was dangerous for the health of the people and communities that depended on the river.

It was incidents like these that helped raised public awareness of the dangers of water pollution.

Ultimately, that awareness became government action--including the creation of the EPA in 1970, and passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.

The EPA's purpose is simple: to protect human health and the environment. It does this by acting as a referee between the states-- working to ensure minimum standards for water quality nationwide. These standards help to ensure an even playing field for states and businesses, while preserving safe, adequate water supplies for our children and communities.

The underlying bill we are considering, the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act'' is deeply flawed, primarily because it seems to forget a critical point--watersheds, coastlines, and waterways don't always end at state boundaries.

Our amendment is also simple. It preserves the EPA's current role in protecting certain bodies of water. Specifically, water bodies that provide flood protection for communities, valuable fish and wildlife habitats, and coastal recreation.

Our rivers, coastlines, and wetlands are the places that we take our children to experience the wonder of our country. This is where their interests in the natural sciences and the outdoors are kindled. And this is where we should expect them to be safe from chemicals, industrial waste, and other pollutants.

Our amendment will help to preserve the natural resources that transcend state boundaries--and benefit the health and vitality of communities across the nation.

I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting this amendment.