Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Michael J. Parsons, the President/CEO of First Source Federal Credit Union on his recent election to the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU). Mike Parsons has been a vocal supporter of credit union issues at both the state and national levels.

Mike's election to the NAFCU Board is just one more in a long list of accomplishments that has spanned 13 years as President/CEO of First Source Federal Credit Union, including his previous service as District President for the New York State Credit Union League.

As the President/CEO of First Source Federal Credit Union, Mike has focused on ensuring that his members receive helpful, personal service that caters to the needs of individuals and their financial goals. Through his credit union, Mike Parsons continuously demonstrates First Source's commitment to the financial wellness of the entire community. Most recently, Mike worked to have First Source support the Mohawk Valley Contractor's Guild, described as an ``incubator for the development of small contracting companies in inner city Utica.''

Mike's involvement to improve the lives of others can be further illustrated in his commitment to the Central Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired, School and Business Alliance, the Community at Sunset, and volunteering with the American Heart Association and Upstate Cerebral Palsy Association.

It is because of the good work of Mike and others like him that the credit union movement enjoys the success it has today. Such service is the hallmark of the credit union movement and I wish Mike the best of luck in his new role as a member of the NAFCU Board of Directors.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor the Owego, New York, Fire Department Hose Teams for placing first and second at the Central New York Firematic Hose Races on July 16, 2006, during the 113th Annual Central New York Firemen's Convention in New York Mills, New York.

In a superb victory, Owego's Susquehanna House Company #1 secured the overall points title, successfully defending its title from last year and winning its third and final leg on the overall traveling trophy. Three legs are required to retire the traveling trophy. This year's victory marks the second time the Owego team has successfully retired the trophy. Since the inception of firematic hose races in the 1940's, Owego has won 12 championships. In addition, Owego's Croton Hose #3 team finished second overall.

Team members for the Susquehanna House Company #1 included J.T. Fisher, Patrick Gavin, Tim Gavin, Danny Gavin, and Lou Striley. The Owego Fire Department proudly protects 26,000 residents, and its members participate on a volunteer status. Therefore, the winners deserve to be recognized not only for their excellent performance, but also for their outstanding service to the community as firefighters.

Both teams have donated their prize money, a total of $350, to the Owego Fire Department

Training Tower Fund in memory of fallen firefighter Steve Gavin, who hose raced for Owego teams for 34 years before his passing in the fall of 2003. I commend the winners for this noble tribute in honor of a man who gave so much to his family and community.

On behalf of the entire 24th Congressional district, I congratulate the Owego teams for their achievements, and for their tireless service to the Owego community.

Mr. Speaker, the time for an increase in the minimum wage has not just arrived; it is long overdue. The national minimum wage has not been increased in 9 years. By year's end, 21 States across America will have a minimum wage exceeding the Federal minimum wage. Isn't it about time that we in Washington recognize the need to act, to level the playing field? Of course it is. The way things are going, we are not too far from the day when it will take an hour's labor just to pay for the gasoline to get to the job. Then, if you are like most people and you want to go back home after you work, it is going to take you another hour's wages, 2 hours just for transportation for the minimum-wage worker.

What is left for the other essentials of life, to put a roof over your head and food on your table? Not very much.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we need to act now to increase the national minimum wage.

Madam Speaker, today we have the privilege of honoring our fallen hero, U.S. Army Captain George A. Wood. The bill before us would rename the Pitcher Street Post Office in Utica, New York, the George A. Wood Post Office Building, which is a fitting tribute to a man who paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom and our security.

Captain Wood bravely served our Nation in Iraq where he met an untimely death on November 20, 2003. However, his memory will live on. Every day, Captain Wood will be in the hearts of his family and his friends and his classmates and his comrades and our neighbors by virtue of the naming of this

public facility, this Federal facility in his honor.

He is survived by his wife Lisa and his 6-year-old daughter Maria, and to them we send the Nation's condolences on your great loss of yesteryear and our optimism on a more promising future because of what the Captain Woods do so often for so many.

Captain Wood was born and raised in upstate New York's beautiful Mohawk Valley. He was an accomplished athlete at Notre Dame Junior Senior High School, and if you are from our neck of the woods, you know those teams are just dynamite. He excelled at both football and track and field.

He was also, and this is very important, a superstar in the classroom. He graduated not just from Cornell University but later earned master's degrees from both the State University at New York in Albany and State University at New York in Cortland.

In the Armed Services, Captain Wood served for 8 years in the 4th Infantry Division in Fort Hood, Texas, and there he became fascinated with the history of our great military. As a matter of fact, Captain Wood dreamed of teaching history and coaching football at the West Point Military Academy. Had he not paid the ultimate price for our way of life, I am confident that he would have seen this dream become a reality.

Captain Wood's discipline, his love of learning and his fine character have made him a model citizen for all of his countrymen and generations to come, a true role model, a genuine American hero.

Both Captain Wood's father and his granddad worked at the Pitcher Street Post Office, so there is a special affinity for the post office in the Wood family, and it would be our utmost pleasure and distinct honor to designate the facility at Utica, New York, as the Captain George A. Wood Post Office Building in honor of a true American hero.

I want to thank my colleagues in the majority and the minority and on the committee for dealing with this very important issue. Oftentimes, as we deal with the major issues that affect so many people around the world, we sometimes neglect the littler things, but they are equally important. They are very personal. They have real meaning for so many, and I thank my colleagues for their support and their cooperation. I urge all of my colleagues to proudly vote ``aye'' for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am watching with a great deal of interest this debate, and I notice the previous gentleman in the well was talking about the need to increase the minimum wage.

Guess what? He is exactly right. And I refuse to cede the issue to one side or the other. There are a lot of us who have looked at that and realized that we haven't had an increase in the minimum wage in 9 years.

Consider the purchasing power of the minimum wage. It is inadequate. We ought to increase the minimum wage. And I am proud to say that I have sponsored a bill that has been in the hopper for 2 years now to increase the minimum wage. It would go up to $7.15 an hour in January of 2007. We should do it. That is not a one-party or another party's issue. It is an issue that makes sense for all thinking Americans.

But I don't think this is the correct vehicle, the right bill to address that subject. I can just tell you, in my capacity as a chairman of a committee I meet on a weekly basis with the other committee chairmen and our majority leader, and I make it clear in no uncertain terms my very strong feeling. And it is not just me, or it is not just one Republican. There are a lot of us who are strongly in favor of increasing the minimum wage. And that is very much on the table, as it should be. It is the right thing to do for the right reasons. But this is the wrong vehicle to carry forward that battle.

And Mr. Miller, for whom I have a high regard and I have worked with on a number of occasions over the years, sometimes to his detriment and mine, but this is the sort of comity that should be more prevalent in this institution. We are in general agreement on what we should do with the minimum wage. So let's get on with the debate on this very important legislation brought by a committee after thorough deliberation, dealing with a very important subject. Let's deal with this subject here and now, and let's reserve our effort on the minimum wage. And I am redoubling mine, and I am sure Mr. Miller and his associates are redoubling theirs. We need it. We need it this year to be effective come January 1 of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, the way the House is handling offshore oil drilling today pretty much defines ``travesty.'' For the first time in more than a generation, we are going to vote on opening the entire coastline of the United States to oil and natural gas drilling. You think that would be considered a rather major matter that requires some thoughtful discussion. But that is not how we are handling it. Instead, we are going to debate legislation that is being rushed through the House.

The base bill we are discussing, and the report on it, which includes the cost estimate, were not filed until Monday. Once folks got a look at the text and the cost estimate, opposition pressure mounted, so the bill needed to be rewritten. That rewriting continued well into the night last evening.

So the rule makes in order a manager's amendment that includes massive changes in the bill that no one was able to see until after midnight.

Is this a process we can be proud of? It seems all one has to do around here is use the word ``oil'' for the sanctity of the democratic process to simply slip away. The process we are using today gives new meaning to the phrase ``oil slick.''

Now, some may say, oh, come on, people know whether they are for or against offshore drilling. We don't need a lot of time.

Well, this bill doesn't just allow offshore drilling. It changes all the rules on approving oil drilling in areas where it is allowed. It changes all the maps for State marine boundaries. Did you know that? Probably not, because the new maps aren't publicly available. It changes all the ways that royalty funds are distributed. It gives additional royalty breaks to oil companies. It is a complex bill with many unprecedented provisions that most Members know nothing about.

When we point out these troubling provisions, the sponsors of the bill don't defend them. They try to deny that they are there. The remedy is to read the bill, but we are not giving anyone time to do that.

Did you know, for example, that under the bill if the Secretary of the Interior opposes some future law because it limits drilling in any way, the Secretary can cut off all aid to States to try to get them to see the law his way?

That is an unusual idea, to say the least.

Did you know that the bill subordinates every other use of coastal waters to oil drilling, blocking any effort to use waters in a way that could ever limit drilling in any way? That is what the bill says. It blocks any actions ever that could interfere with drilling.

If the bill ever becomes law, your constituents will be up in arms about just about every provision, because the law gives oil interests the ability to trample everyone else's right.

This is a bad bill that we are considering today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this bill.

First, we should not be opening our coasts, all of our coasts, to oil drilling when we have not taken the first step, not the first step, to conserve oil. Drilling today just depletes oil we may need later. Conserving now means saving more oil year after year after year. But the Rules Committee did not make in order my amendment on fuel economy standards, which at least would have allowed us to have a debate on demand and supply at the same time.

But my opposition goes beyond any general concern about oil drilling because this bill does far more than simply lift the long-standing moratoriums on drilling. This bill basically hands over our coastal waters to the oil interests and makes it hard for States or citizens to do anything about it.

And this is no exaggeration. The bill makes it difficult for States to bar drilling. Then, if a State allows drilling, the bill eliminates fundamental parts of the current process that allow States and citizens to review drilling plans to make sure they are environmentally sound and consistent with other possible uses of the waters. Then the bill blocks any use of the waters that could interfere with drilling. And, finally, to add a constitutional insult to all that coastal injury, it enables the Secretary of the Interior to threaten to withhold funding from States if the Secretary thinks Congress is interfering with oil drilling. This bill is breathtaking in its overreaching.

Whether you are for or against offshore drilling, you ought to be against this bill. Once your constituents find out what really is in it, you will have a lot of explaining to do.

Let me add that the manager's amendment does not do anything to alleviate my concerns. We studied it to the best of our ability. It was only available last night at midnight, and we have studied it. The amendment leaves in place all the unprecedented provisions I just mentioned. It leaves in place at least one new mandatory spending program. It even adds a new penalty to coerce States into opening waters to drilling.

The manager's amendment is also rife with financial gimmickry. It actually increases the revenues denied the Federal Treasury over the long haul. It just delays the phase-in of the revenue sharing to States, but it raises the maximum amount States will get with no requirement, absolutely none, to report how the money has been used.

So this is not a very good bill. As a matter of fact, it is my conclusion that it is a bad bill, even with the manager's amendment. It would make John D. Rockefeller blush.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill; and I want to thank my friend, Chairman Frank Wolf, for working so closely with me on the science portions of the bill.

The passage of this bill may be looked back on as a landmark moment in American history. Now, that probably sounds like a lot of hyperbole, but I mean it. This bill puts us on course to enact the American Competitiveness Initiative, which will double the combined budgets of three key science agencies: the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy Office of Science, which already received appropriations in the Energy and Water bill.

These agencies, which are not exactly on the tip of the tongue of most Americans, are keystones of our Nation's economic future. Our Nation will remain strong and prosperous only if we remain innovative, and we will only remain innovative if we have the most robust research and education enterprise in the world. And it is these agencies that help enable the U.S. to lead the world in science, math, and engineering education and in research.

And I want to especially thank Chairman Wolf for supporting education funding as well as research funding in this bill, particularly for supporting the Noyce Scholarship Program at NSF, which attracts top science and math majors into teaching.

I also want to thank the chairman for the way he handled appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I have said repeatedly, and the authorization act we passed last year says clearly, that NASA must be a multi-mission agency. With this bill, the House will be putting money where its mouth is. Without interfering with the lunar mission, this bill puts desperately needed funding back in science and aeronautics.

I would like to see even more money going into science, particularly Earth science, but this is a good start, and I am especially pleased that the bill text includes explicit funding levels for science and aeronautics.

Finally, giving the competing priorities, I think the bill does the best it can for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, although, of course, I hope that, as in the past years, the final numbers are a little bit higher. I appreciate the language Chairman Wolf included in the report, drawing attention to the concerns we all share about the future of the polar satellite program, NPOESS.

So I urge my colleagues to support this forward-looking landmark bill.

Guess what? It all boils down to one thing. This bill is about my favorite four-letter word. And do not get nervous. You can say it on the House floor. You can say it in polite company. That favorite four- letter word is ``jobs.'' We must remain competitive. We must retain as much opportunity for our people here at home. This bill opens the door for that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle/ Shays amendment. As chair of the Science Committee, I oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, and the critical weather forecasting services it provides. NOAA is a partner with the Air Force on the next generation of weather satellites, known as NPOESS.

In May I held a hearing about an Inspector General report on NPOESS. One of the key findings of that IG report was that the contractor received excessive award fees for a problem-plagued program. Over the first 3 years of NPOESS--September 2002-September 2005--the contractor received 84 percent of the award fee available to it, for a total of $123 million. This occurred despite the fact the NPOESS is more than 5 years late and its total costs have risen from $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion. In my mind, that does not represent performance worthy of $123 million in award fees.

Another investigative body, the GAO, found that excessive award fees are not unique to NPOESS, but are a problem throughout the Department of Defense. Mr. Castle's, amendment directly addresses specific recommendations in that GAO report by prohibiting payment of award fees if contractors do not meet expectations.

It is absolutely vital that the major programs like NPOESS succeed. NPOESS will provide our ``eyes in the sky'' for both civilian and military weather forecasting, and we cannot afford to be stumbling around blind. We cannot allow the excessive use of award fees to continue in these major procurement programs and must hold contractors accountable for how they spend taxpayers' money. I strongly support the Castle/Shays amendment and urge my colleagues to also support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dick Lawler, a long- time friend, who after dedicating 35 years of his heart and soul to the field of journalism has reached one of life's greatest milestones, and will finally take his well-deserved retirement.

Dick is known by his peers as someone with an invigorating ability to reach people in a way that leaves a lasting positive impression. Evidence of such can be found in one of Dick's classic euphemisms, ``If it were easy, everyone would do it.'' Those words speak volume to the character of this great man.

That said Mr. Speaker, if it were easy, everyone would have a loving wife, devoted children, and adoring grandchildren. Everyone would raise a family worthy of respect from their friends and peers.

If it were easy, everyone would devote themselves to their community. We would all find the time to help children, serve our neighbors, and make the community that raised us a better place to grow up in.

If it were easy we would all be passionate about our jobs and our professions. Our work would exhibit the enthusiasm we feel every day, and our patrons would recognize the joy we feel from serving them. We would become legends in our own time, and admired for our skills.

If it were easy, everyone would do it.

For over 35 years, Dick has been a consummate journalistic professional who has sought to further hone and craft his skills every day. He is a man who was dedicated to the pursuit of both truth and a good story. A man who sat with Henry Kissinger, Robert F. Kennedy, school children, and shopkeepers equally.

In his private life he has dedicated countless hours to raising funds for children's hospitals and improving our community. It is these good works that have truly endeared him to us. For many years, my wife and I have often been privileged to share the company of his family. From backyard barbeques to cheering on our hometown Utica Blue Sox with our fellow ``bleacher bums,'' Dick and his wife Jackie have always been a treasured part of our lives.

Very little in life is easy, but Dick has always managed to approach life with a grace and simplicity that makes it seem effortless. As a journalist, a father, and a friend, Dick has spent the last 35 years tantalizing us with how easy life can seem when you work hard to reach your goals.

I wish him tremendous success in his retirement from journalism, I know all too well that it is never easy to leave your passion. And if it truly were that easy, everyone would do it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise today to recognize and congratulate America's craft brewers, one of the most vibrant and fast growing class of small businesses in America.

Craft brewers are entrepreneurs and hobbyists who create distinctive beverages in small independent breweries across the country. They represent the best in American ideals by combining a spirit of industrious entrepreneurship with a commitment to quality and civic responsibility. The result is a unique product that continues an enduring American tradition of home brewing that can be traced back to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Craft brewers have come a long way since then. Today, there are over 1,300 independent breweries throughout the country, and their numbers are continuing to grow. For the second straight year, craft beer is the fastest growing segment of the U.S. alcoholic beverage industry. In 2005, craft beer experienced a 9 percent increase in volume, nearly triple that of the growth experienced in the wine and spirits industry.

This industry occupies an important niche in our economy and its continued growth is beneficial to our communities. Not only do craft brewers provide over 33,000 of our constituents with quality jobs, they also support our agricultural economy by purchasing barley and malt and hops grown, processed, and shipped domestically. Furthermore, with over 100 diverse and flavorful beverages, craft brewers' beverages have attracted an international following that has strengthened and increased U.S. beer exports.

In my district, the F.X. Matt Brewing Company has become an integral part of our community. For 118 years, this regional brewery has continually reinvented itself and today is most famous for its line of Saranac beer. The brewery's capacity to respond to market changes and customer demands have ensured its continued ability to provide over 100 high-quality manufacturing jobs in an area that has experienced a decline in this sector.

Continuing the tradition of attention to the local community, the F.X. Matt Brewing Company fosters local pride and involvement through their association with the Boilermaker 15K Road Race, one of the finest in America, which culminates in an area-wide celebration at the brewery, and by hosting what we call ``Saranac Thursdays'' throughout the summer, from which all the proceeds benefit the United Way.

Craft brewers live and work in the community where their products are made, which underlies their continued commitment to local charitable and philanthropic institutions. They have supported children's hospitals, humane societies, chambers of commerce, disease research, and parent-teachers association. In short, they are just good citizens. Craft brewers are committed to promoting the safe and moderate consumption of their beverage, and work closely with their communities to prevent underage drinking and alcohol abuse.

American craft brewers are a testament to this country's entrepreneurial and community-based small businesses tradition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the unique contributions they have made to our culture and economy by supporting this resolution.

Just let me make one last observation. Some people might say, watching the proceedings of this House, why are they spending time on resolutions like this when there are so many really pressing issues facing the Nation? And the answer is very simple. This is a small portion of our legislative week set aside for resolutions just like the ones we are discussing, important to America, not of grand importance, not everybody is concerned about them, but important to certain segments of America.

Tomorrow, we go on with the appropriations bills to discuss things like the war on terrorism. We dealt with homeland security today. We deal day in and day out with critically important issues, but I think it is just proper that we pause on occasion and dedicate a few minutes to saluting, as I am saluting the small brewers of America, and you can salute any small business you want to. They add to the very fabric of our Nation, and I am proud to identify with it.

Mr. Speaker, I am not from the other side, although I am from the other side on this argument. I am not from the other party. I am proud of my party affiliation, but I rise in strong opposition to this bill which would allow oil drilling in a pristine wilderness that was set aside by that radical environmentalist, Dwight David Eisenhower.

Is there any greater evidence that we are, as President Bush has said, addicted to oil? Astonishingly, this Congress has not voted on a single conservation measure since gasoline hit $3 a gallon, not a single one, and yet poll after poll shows that conservation measures are the preferred option of the American people for dealing with high gasoline prices, the preferred option by a long shot.

The American public is thirsting to get their hands on fuel-saving technologies that companies are refusing to provide, and we have responded with nothing. Perhaps we have forgotten that our constituents are people, not companies.

The proponents of this bill would like to point out that if this legislation had been passed 11 years ago, ANWR would now be producing oil. Well, I would point out that if Congress had not blocked higher fuel economy standards 11 years ago, we would save far more oil than ANWR would produce. All those savings would increase as ANWR was being depleted.

We really are classic addicts. We would rather keep seeking our oil fix, our heroin, with all its attendant dangers, than shift to conservation, our methadone.

We are a Congress of prodigals who refuse to return home. Instead, we roam the world, laying waste to new territories to continue our spendthrift ways.

We ought not just oppose this bill, we ought to be ashamed of it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill; and I want to commend Chairman Hobson for the outstanding manner in which he has brought this House to this point, cooperating fully, minority, the majority, cooperating fully with the authorizing committees, and how refreshing that is to see us working hand in glove in common cause.

This bill is very important in the priorities it sets. The President's American Competitive Initiative is fully funded; the President's advanced energy initiative, which is fully funded, except for wise reductions on nuclear reprocessing.

I want to thank Secretary Bodman and Under Secretary Orbach for the long-needed attention they have brought to science programs at the Department. They are two of the finest senior public officials in this or any administration, and we are very fortunate to have them at their post.

As the National Academy of Sciences points out in the report, rising above

the gathering storm, the U.S. must substantially increase its investment in basic research and the physical sciences to remain competitive. This bill responds to that message. This bill is a good bill. I urge its full support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This amendment has a very clear purpose, to ensure that the Clean Water Act, one of the most vital and effective laws, to ensure that the Clean Water Act protects as many waters as possible.

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued guidance that, sadly, has the effect of limiting the application of the Clean Water Act. There is no good reason to do that. The guidance goes beyond any limitation that was necessary because of the Supreme Court ruling in what is known as the SWANCC case, and the guidance is not even helpful. The Government Accountability Office has documented that the guidance is actually causing confusion and inconsistent interpretation of the law. Some guidance.

The guidance is so misguided, that 2 years ago, 218 Members of this House, a bipartisan group, wrote to the EPA asking that the guidance not be implemented. Our call went unheeded, so we need to send a stronger message here and now.

We need to block the implementation of this guidance to protect our Nation's waters. This amendment will not prevent EPA from issuing new, more thoughtful guidance; but this amendment will prevent a rollback of the Clean Water Act.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

I know the sponsors of this bill mean well, and I know they think they have written a narrowly tailored, environmentally protective bill. But, unfortunately, they have not. I am not questioning the sponsors' intent, but I do have serious problems with the product of their actions.

Let me start by emphasizing that I am open to efforts to expedite environmental procedures for true emergencies or in other clear cases where current laws are needlessly burdensome. I helped negotiate the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and I supported its passage. That act and the preexisting laws which were improved to be both responsive and responsible has enabled us to respond in a meaningful and timely way to Katrina. But the bill before us today is far broader than that act and all other current law and contains few, if any, of their environmental protections.

Here are some things that could happen that you should know about H.R. 4200: First of all, it can be applied to a wide variety of situations far beyond the normal definition of an emergency that requires immediate action. Under the bill a catastrophic event includes slowly developing problems like drought and insect infestation, problems that can be addressed through processes that allow for true analysis and review. Not only that, the bill applies to situations in which damage may not occur for many years, again a situation that needs to be addressed, but not so quickly as to allow no time for true analysis.

There are very few forests that are not experiencing a catastrophic event on almost a daily basis under the definition in this bill. If you want to write an emergency bill, then I think it ought to apply to emergencies.

I would also point out that this bill applies to wilderness study areas, which are exempt under Healthy Forests.

And what can happen when this bill is applied? Well, all normal environmental reviews are waived. Reviews are even waived for preapproved plans that are written long before an emergency. No environmental review. Then under the bill projects can proceed without the consultation required by the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. When would consultation occur? The bill does not set a time frame. It would just be sometime after the project started, probably after any unnecessary damage has been done.

In short, this bill does not expedite procedures. It eviscerates the application of environmental law for the projects under the bill. No environmental analysis of alternatives. No timely analysis of the effect on clean water.

We cannot just put a nice-sounding label on a bill and expect us to support a cosmetic labeling plan on its surface without looking at the rest of the story. I wish this bill were as advertised. A targeted bill to handle legitimate emergencies would pass muster with me. But this is a bill that would allow unanalyzed salvage timber sales; new road building, including in roadless areas; and projects that threaten water supplies without any true legally reviewable analysis of alternatives and without ample opportunity for public review and comment.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.