Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my great concern over the recent statements by administration officials regarding Israeli housing construction in that nation's capital city. History warns us that appeasement of mutual enemies is the surest way to destroy alliances and to invite aggression. And yet the rhetoric of this administration is taking us down this dangerous road. Israel has every right to allow construction in its capital city and throughout the West Bank, over which it exercises rightful sovereignty.

The administration seems to have forgotten that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, not the other way around, and the result was the Israeli acquisition of this land. The Israelis haven't forgotten that, nor have they forgotten the folly of unilaterally giving up the Gaza Strip from which rockets are now routinely launched against Israeli citizens. Imagine the danger to Israel's capital by repeating that mistake in east Jerusalem.

Mr. Speaker, appeasement all but guarantees an escalation of conflict.

Madam Speaker, I had two town hall meetings in my district on Saturday, and at both events my constituents raised this issue: How can Congress impose the most sweeping intrusion into personal health care decisions in the history of our country without a direct vote on the bill? You see, my constituents have read the Constitution, including the provision that requires both Houses to vote on a bill before it becomes a law.

If the Democrat majority attempts to impose this law without a direct vote, two things will be obvious to every American. First, that the Democrats are ashamed to cast the very up-or-down vote on the health care takeover that the President promised as recently as yesterday. And far more disturbing, they will know that the Congress has now placed itself above the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, 10 generations of Americans have defended that Constitution. Don't think for a moment that this generation will do any less.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and achievements of Henrietta Sproat from Oroville, California. During World War II, Mrs. Sproat flew as a member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs). These aviators were the first female flyers to be trained on U.S. Military aircraft. During the time when the need of the country was greatest, these brave women flew fighter, bomber, transport and training aircraft in the defense of American freedom.

I was a proud cosponsor of the legislation that recognized these women's service, and I rise today to recognize Henrietta Sproat and congratulate her on receiving the Congressional Gold Medal.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and achievements of the late Margaret Louise Debolt from my home state of California. During World War II, Margaret flew as a member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP). These aviators were the first female flyers to be trained on U.S. Military aircraft. During the time when the need of the country was greatest, these brave women flew fighter, bomber, transport and training aircraft in the defense of American freedom.

It was during her service with the WASPs that Margaret met her future husband, First Lieutenant Charles D. Christian of the United States Army Air Corps. They were married in November, 1945 and went on to be the proud parents of James and Kay Christian, who now reside in El Dorado Hills, California. Margaret continued flying well into her seventies, exemplifying the adventurous spirit for which she was so well known. Margaret passed away at the age of 83 in Covina, California on August 6, 2004.

I was a proud cosponsor of the legislation that recognized the service of the WASPs and awarded them the Congressional Gold Medal. I regret that Margaret could not be with us when her medal was awarded, but I am glad that her family joined us in Washington to remember and honor her service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and achievements of Virginia Pierce from Alturas, California. During World War Two, Mrs. Pierce flew as a member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP). These aviators were the first female flyers to be trained on U.S. Military aircraft. During the time when the need of the country was greatest, these brave women flew fighter, bomber, transport and training aircraft in the defense of American freedom and liberty.

I was a proud cosponsor of the legislation that recognized these women's service, and I rise today to recognize Virginia Pierce and congratulate her on receiving the Congressional Gold Medal.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the heroic actions of Sergeant Joseph Matteoni of the Grass Valley Police Department and Firefighters Gary Dunne and Jeff Johnston of the Grass Valley Fire Department, Engine 1, during the 309 Mill Street Apartment Fire.

On the morning of August 30, 2009, fire and police units were dispatched to an apartment building fire at 309 Mill Street in Grass Valley, California. Upon arriving at the scene of the fire, responders were informed by local citizens that residents were trapped inside the building.

Sergeant Matteoni heard faint cries for help emanating from the backside of the second story of the building. Without hesitation, and disregarding his own personal safety, Sergeant Matteoni rushed into the smoke-filled building. Battling extreme heat and smoke, Sergeant Matteoni carried a woman out of the building and with the assistance of Officer Dan Kimbrough, moved her to safety.

Meanwhile, Firefighters Dunne and Johnston entered from the front of the building. Forced to crawl on their bellies because of the thick smoke and extreme heat, the firefighters pushed through the burning building toward cries for help, finding a second woman standing disoriented in the hallway. As they approached, the woman retreated further into her smoke-filled apartment where she collapsed. Pushing into the apartment, Firefighters Dunne and Johnston carried the woman out of the building and to safety.

The brave actions of Sergeant Joseph Matteoni and Firefighters Gary Dunne and Jeff Johnston are a testament to the finest traditions of the Grass Valley Police and Fire Departments. It is my honor to recognize and thank them for their commitment to going well above and beyond the call of duty in service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, Congress and the President added $1.9 trillion to the national debt limit. That translates to more than $6,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country, more than $24,000 for an average family of four. Now, your family is required to repay that debt through future taxes just as surely as if it appeared on your credit card statement. Now, $24,000 is the price of a new car. Only you don't get a new car, just the payments for a new car. What you get instead is another 14 months of deficit spending.

Two-thirds of economic growth is consumer driven, and yet we have just cost every family in America an average of $24,000 from its future purchasing power. These policies are not helping our economy; they are hurting it. The American people are coming to understand this. Let's hope it's in time to change this Congress, change this administration, and save this country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it pains me to rise in opposition to the valedictory measure of the gentleman from Hawaii, but

there's no blinking at the fact that this bill strikes at the very foundation of a Nation that's dedicated to the concept of equality under law.

It establishes a different set of laws, a different set of rights, and a different government for one group of Americans based solely upon their race. Two American families living next door to each other would be afforded two different sets of rights enforced by two separate sovereignties all based entirely upon accident of birth.

Ever since Brown v. Board of Education buried the ``separate but equal'' doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that such an arrangement is fundamentally incompatible with the American Constitution.

Ten years ago in the case of Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down identical race-based voting qualifications for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The State argued that it could impose race-based voting qualifications based upon the precedent of Indian tribes that we've just heard today. Here's how the Court responded. They said:

``Even were we to take the substantial step of finding authority in Congress, delegated to the State, to treat Hawaiians or Native Hawaiians as tribes, Congress may not authorize a State to create a voting scheme of this sort.''

That's exactly what this bill does. This bill establishes a precedent that will allow any distinct group within our Nation to demand its own separate organic rights and government. Were we to pass this bill, there would be no grounds to deny any other racial group with historic grievances their own separatist government and exclusive rights.

Having enacted this law, on what basis do we deny every other demand to tear our country apart? This is a precedent that is enormously damaging to a multiracial Nation founded upon the principles of e pluribus unum and equal justice under the law.

How exactly do we establish two separate governing systems and two separate populations with two separate sets of civil and legal rights all within the same territory? Under whose law are competing claims to be settled?

This bill explicitly provides that the new Native Hawaiian Government and its official acts cannot be challenged in an American court. And how exactly can Congress cede by statute the very essence of its constitutional authority, requiring civil and criminal jurisdictions and property rights to be negotiated away to this new governing entity that's defined solely by the race of its members?

The analogy with American Indian tribes is absurd both historically and legally. Historically, American Indian tribes never voted to join the Union. They were conquered by force and extended by treaty certain lands in which they could exercise sovereignty, and they maintained continuous self-government.

Whatever the circumstances involved in the revolution of 1893 and the annexation of 1898, those circumstances became irrelevant in 1959 when the people of Hawaii voted by a 17-1 margin, nearly 95 percent, to join the Union and to become an integral and indivisible part of the American Nation.

The Admissions Act never contemplated the establishment of a separatist government. The provision the proponents cite merely provided an option of land for homes and small farms for a very small number of Hawaiians with 50 percent native ancestry. The Admissions Act did not contemplate establishment of a separatist government. It did contemplate assuming the full provisions of the American Constitution and the Constitution's prohibition against race-based separatism and race-based rights.

Legally, a tribe exists only when it has a government that has exercised substantial authority over its members from before western contact continuously until the present, and when its members mostly live separate and apart from surrounding populations. The sovereignty of that government is limited to the trust lands of the tribe. These long-established criteria are entirely inapplicable to American citizens of Hawaiian descent, 40 percent of whom don't even live in Hawaii according to the 2000 census.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more effective way to destroy a nation than to divide its people by race and accord them different rates and different government based upon their race. That is exactly what this bill does.

Madam Speaker, today I honor the service of one of our nation's brave soldiers, Specialist David Oliver. Spc. Oliver was severely injured in Afghanistan during operation Enduring Freedom and is currently undergoing a lengthy rehabilitation at Walter Reed Medical Center here in D.C.

A graduate of Casa Roble High School, Specialist Oliver enlisted in the Army immediately upon graduation eager to serve his country and continue his family's tradition of service--David's father was a firefighter in Sacramento County, his brother serves in the Marines and his sister in the Air Force. After enlisting, Specialist Oliver was deployed to Iraq and upon completion of his assignment there he volunteered to serve in Afghanistan where he suffered his wounds.

I am extremely humbled to know there are men and women of his caliber who are so willing to risk their lives in order to protect our great country. I consider it a great honor and privilege to represent Specialist David Oliver and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing his great service and sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge Corporal Patrick C. Fields for his outstanding service in the United States Marine Corps Reserve and his work in my DC office. In 2003, after playing football for the Ducks, Corporal Fields graduated from the University of Oregon with a Bachelor of Science in Political Science. In 2005, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps Reserve and after graduating Recruit Training, and Marine Combat Training Patrick joined the 3rd Civil Affairs Group, Camp Pendleton, California to work as a Field Radio Operator.

In 2006, Corporal Fields was assigned to Detachment One, Team Two and deployed to Al Anbar Province, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom as a Radio Operator and a Civil Affairs Non-Commissioned Officer, and became Team Chief for Det One Team 2-2 in the City of Karabilah.

After returning from Iraq, Cpl. Fields deployed in support of Cobra Gold in 2007 (Thailand), MedFlag in 2008 (Republic of Mali), and Balikatan in 2009 (Philippines). He served in a variety of billets ranging from Radio Operator to Civil Affairs Team Chief during that time and worked with various foreign and U.S. forces and agencies related to the civil affairs mission.

Cpl. Fields was promoted to his present rank in October of 2008, and maintains the billet of Civil Affairs Non-Commissioned Officer. His personal decorations include the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal and the Army Achievement Medal. In his civilian occupation, Cpl. Fields was a Field Engineer for ARB Inc., a heavy industrial construction firm that specializes in power plant, refinery and pipeline construction.

Corporal Fields did all of this before coming to Washington, DC to work in my office during the fall/winter of 2009. From day one, Patrick developed a great rapport with the rest of the staff and all constituents who came in the door or who he spoke to on the phone. His positive attitude and friendly personality made him a favorite tour guide and great addition to the office.

Cpl. Fields is now scheduled to be mobilized in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with eventual deployment to the Afghan Theater of Operations. I appreciate his brave service in defense of our freedom and wish him the best and continued safety in his next assignment.

Madam Speaker, for many months, the Republicans on the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee have implored the majority Democrats to hold a hearing in the Central Valley of California to see and hear for themselves the damage that the Federal Government has caused by diverting 200 billion gallons of water from Central Valley farms in order to indulge the environmental left's pet cause, the delta smelt.

After our pleas were met with continued stonewalling, we decided to hold a forum under our own auspices and to invite all members of the California congressional delegation, all members of the Natural Resources Committee and representatives of the Obama administration to come to Fresno to see firsthand what these policies have wrought.

Instead, after we had announced the forum, the Water and Power Subcommittee chairwoman decided to meet on the same day in southern California to extol the virtues of water conservation. Congress has thus made clear its intention to sacrifice the people of the San Joaquin Valley upon the altar of environmental extremism.

Despite heavy rains over the past month, the administration continues to blame a relatively mild drought for the fact that Valley farmers will receive only 5 percent of the water that they are entitled to. This does not explain how, in far more severe droughts than this, Valley farmers have received far greater allocations. Nor does it explain how these massive water diversions can be justified to support the delta smelt if indeed supplies were constrained.

Had the Democrats in the subcommittee come to Fresno, they would have heard and seen the anguish of the people of the Central Valley of California. These water diversions have destroyed a half-million acres of the most productive farmland in America, and they have thrown 30,000 Central Valley farm families into unemployment.

They would have heard the stories of food lines in communities that once prided themselves on being the breadbasket of the Western United States. They would have heard about the frustration of seeing produce imported from China being handed out in these food lines to the very same American farmers who once supplied the very same produce to the entire world.

And they would have seen the anger as the absent Interior Secretary's testimony to the Natural Resources Committee last year was played back, in which Mr. Salazar admitted that the Obama administration has the authority to turn the pumps back on, but that it chooses not to do so because that would be ``like admitting failure.''

There is some good news. This afternoon, the day after our forum in Fresno, the Interior Secretary relented to the extent of releasing 350,000 to 400,000 acre-feet of already allocated water to the Central Valley. Having demonstrated his authority to release the water that Central Valley farmers already own, he now needs to follow through and release the water that is being held hostage to the delta smelt.

Meanwhile, Mr. Nunes of California has introduced H.R. 3105, the Turn on the Pumps Act, which does exactly the same thing that Congress did under far less severe circumstances several years ago for the farmers of New Mexico. Mr. Nunes has filed a discharge petition to bypass that subcommittee and bring the bill directly to the House for a vote. It needs 218 signatures. So far, it has 105, 104 Republicans and one Democrat.

Madam Speaker, I assure you that it is not only the Central Valley that is suffering. The willful destruction of 500,000 acres of American farmland by these massive water diversions, all for the enjoyment and amusement of the 3-inch long delta smelt, is reflected in the rising prices for produce that families are feeling far beyond the congressionally created dust bowl of California's Central Valley.

Nor is the delta smelt doing any better. Despite these massive water diversions, the delta smelt population fell back to the historic low in 2005 and is now well below the high points recorded in the late 1970s. Given these findings, how can anybody argue that the delta pumping restrictions are benefiting the delta smelt?

Madam Speaker, I promised to carry the plea from the many Americans who poured out their hearts to us in Fresno on Monday for Congress to come to the Central Valley and see what their policies have caused. I place their invitation before you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As has been pointed out, this and the two bills that follow ratify out-of-court settlements that arise from decades-old litigation filed by various Indian tribes against the United States Government. They apportion water rights, among the three of them, to over 110,000 acre feet of water, and they draw more than half a billion dollars from the taxpayers of the United States, mainly for the development of those water resources.

From the outset, I believe that the controlling issue in approving any of these claims is simply this: Is it cheaper to settle out of court or to go to trial? To answer that question, we must turn to the Attorney General.

The Attorney General is presumably involved in these negotiations. He commands the legal expertise to judge the soundness or weakness of the government's case, and he is the official of our government directly responsible for representing the people of the United States in this litigation. Yet, when these bills were brought to us last fall, the Attorney General's office was completely silent on that question. In fact, the administration expressed many reservations about the technical aspects of these bills, which leads me to believe that these are not settlements negotiated by the Attorney General with the tribes and then presented to Congress, but rather they're settlements written by Congress itself, which Congress is neither designed nor is competent to do.

Most importantly, we were absolutely unable to get a straight answer to the most important question at issue, and that is: Do these settlements exceed the likely liability of the government if these claims went to trial? If we were a corporate board of directors making a decision on an out-of-court settlement and we agreed to that settlement without consulting with our legal counsel, we'd be guilty of breaching our fiduciary responsibility to our stockholders. How can we do any less as the Congress of the United States?

I'm new around here, but I spent 22 years in the California Legislature, many of them on the relevant committees that heard settlement bills. The central testimony in all of these settlements was from the attorney general's office as the State's legal counsel. They'd appear before us and they'd testify that in their professional legal judgment the settlements were justified under current law and that the State's liability and legal costs would likely exceed the settlement if the matter went to trial.

I'm told that's the way it used to work around here. The Attorney General would negotiate the best possible settlement on behalf of the United States and then submit that settlement to Congress. Congress would then approve or reject it. Now it seems to be working in precisely the opposite manner. Congress now does the negotiating and then presents the bill to the Attorney General. Mr. Speaker, that is not going to end well.

I wrote to the Attorney General's office in September and again in October asking for their legal assessment of the cases involved. This is hardly unprecedented. For example, in 1994, the Department of Justice testified before Congress on a similar water settlement in the Colville case. There, Peter Steenland, a Clinton Justice Department official, testified, ``The Federal Government is not that well postured for a victory on this claim which has been pending for over 40 years. Absent the settlement, we could well litigate it for another 10 years and the outcome could easily be a significant cost to the taxpayers and the public.'' Well, if the Clinton administration could give Congress a straight answer on an Indian water settlement bill, then I felt there was no reason why the current one shouldn't also be straight with the Congress.

There's a simple word for this. It's called ``transparency.'' We've been assured that's a guiding principle of this administration. We truly need some transparency in these cases if we're to do our job competently and to do justice to both sides in these claims, yet the administration remained completely untransparent on this issue. That's why I submitted a simple amendment to all three bills. The amendment would require that before the settlements take effect, the Department of Justice has to certify that settling out of court would be preferable to going to court.

I'd like to thank the members of the Rules Committee who granted the rule allowing these amendments to be presented today. But as the gentleman from Washington has said, a funny thing happened after the Rules Committee voted that rule out on Tuesday night. Two hours after the Rules Committee, 7:45 in the evening, our office received a letter from the administration responding to my requests made way back in September and October of last year, and in it the Departments of Justice and Interior finally are prepared to state, although somewhat ambiguously and circuitously, that ``settlement would be preferable to litigation of these claims.''

I certainly hope this is not going to be their pattern. We have many more Indian water settlements pending for substantial amounts of money, and the Congress should not have to wait for months to get a straight answer out of the administration for each settlement. The Congress should not be forced to choose a funding amount in the dark and without an informed legal opinion from our Attorney General at the outset. These matters should not have to wait until the eve of a congressional vote.

Mr. Speaker, since the administration has responded to the question raised by the amendments that I'm prepared to offer, I'm not going to introduce them to these bills today. But it is hard to square their assurances of this week with the Department of the Interior's letter to the subcommittee chairman of November 10 with respect to the White Mountain Apache settlement, that says: ``Given the benefits being obtained by the tribe under this settlement, the administration would consider the approximately $109 million of additional funding for a development fund authorized under this bill to be excessive if it were viewed as settlement consideration.''

I'd also point to concerns raised by the administration--again, this is unique to the White Mountain Apache settlement upcoming in the same letter--objecting to language ``which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States.'' They warn, ``This provision will engender additional litigation--and likely in competing State and Federal forums--rather than resolving the water rights disputes underlying adjudication.''

Obviously, this administration has a lot of work to do before future water settlements are considered. I believe Congress needs to demand that the administration be candid and forthcoming in all future water settlements and that Congress insist that before it begins deliberating on a settlement, that the Attorney General has conducted and completed the negotiations, has determined all of the details, has certified that the settlement is within the legal liability of the government, and only then submit that settlement for consideration and approval by the Congress.

We need to make this happen in committee, not the night before a bill is sent to the House floor. And I believe that a growing number of us will have a problem agreeing to the advancement of future water settlements without these reforms. Anything less is breaching the fiduciary responsibility that we hold to the people of the United States. And I want to dwell on that term for just a moment. Congress' fiduciary responsibility, that sounds laughable today, but to the Framers of our Constitution, the term ``Congress' fiduciary responsibility'' wasn't a punch line. It was a bedrock principle. It's high time we restored and respected that principle.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are told over and over that this is an agreement that has been painstakingly and meticulously worked out. That's the sort of agreement that we would have if I were to sue the Federal Government for $10 million, go to my next-door neighbor and say, can't you agree that the Federal Government should send us at least $5 million? We reach an agreement, and then present it to Congress as a settlement of an outstanding claim. That's essentially what's going on here.

Let me read to you the testimony of Michael Connor, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, to the Subcommittee on Water and Power regarding this bill in July of last year. He said: While we're aware that the settling parties worked closely with the Federal negotiating team in developing the parameters of this settlement, we have also been informed by the team that issues involving the cost of this settlement were not considered. We believe that these costs need to be discussed and negotiated and that the benefits of the settlement must justify the costs.

Those negotiations never took place between the Federal Government and the stakeholders. Those negotiations took place among the stakeholders themselves, and they all agreed that the Federal Government should send them lots and lots of money.

The same Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation then sent a letter on November 10, 2009, to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power and warned about these things again. He said: Other than the $4.95 million provided for rehabilitation of irrigation systems on the reservation, the administration does not believe the money authorized for the development fund is consideration for this settlement.

I would also point out that under the terms of this measure--that again are questioned by the administration--the Federal Government is responsible for handing over that money, and then the tribe, in the provisions of the bill, has the authority to withdraw those funds for purposes unrelated to water development. That's why those of us in the minority, although we are very sympathetic to the history that has brought us to this point and seek an equitable settlement for all sides in this dispute, seriously question why a settlement between the United States Government and the stakeholders involved was not fully negotiated by the United States Government and why this measure written by Congress is being submitted to the administration when it is the administration's responsibility to be involved in the negotiations of all of the details of the ultimate settlement.

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would live to see the day when a commentator entrusted by a major broadcast network with the ability to reach millions of listeners would use his influence to incite voter fraud, but I'm afraid this week we passed that unfortunate milestone.

On Friday, January 15, MSNBC commentator Ed Schultz told his nationally syndicated radio audience, I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would.

Now, this could be dismissed as an unfortunate verbal excess brought on by the passion of the moment, except for the fact that when given the opportunity to retract the statement, Mr. Schultz embellished it in a way that makes it crystal clear that his words were deliberate and calculated. He said, I misspoke on Friday. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I meant to say, if I could vote 20 times, that's what I'd do.

Later he said, Let me be very clear, I'm not advocating voter fraud, I'm just telling you what I would do. Now, Mr. Speaker, exactly how does one not advocate voter fraud when three times on national broadcasts you say that's what you would do?

Mr. Speaker, this can only be interpreted as an incitement to commit voter fraud in a pivotal election in the course of our Nation. As such, it strikes at the very foundation of democratic traditions and our constitutional institutions. In every election, win, lose or draw, it is of utmost importance that the vote be fair, that it be accurate, and that it have the confidence of every citizen, both those in the majority as well as those in the minority. If we cannot trust the sanctity of the vote, we destroy the legitimacy of that vote--and with it the legitimacy of that government.

All of our governing institutions and all of their acts rest about a single foundation--fair and free elections which guarantee that those who exercise authority under our Constitution do so deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. It is this principle that Mr. Schultz has sought to desecrate and demean. His statements excusing voter fraud weaken the single most important mechanism of our democracy and undermine our form of government. His words deserve--indeed, they demand--the contempt and condemnation of every American. And they deserve immediate action by those who have accorded him his broadcast platforms and whose silence and inaction thus far can only be described as a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I addressed the demand of Governor Schwarzenegger for Federal aid by noting the devastating impact that his tax increases have had on California's economy. Tax increases that were supposed to bring in $13 billion of additional revenue have, instead, crushed California's brittle economy and cost $10 billion in lost revenues in just 9 months.

California's revenue problem isn't the only thing that was made in Sacramento. Their spending problem is also self-inflicted. When Schwarzenegger took office, California was spending $78 billion a year. Instead of hitting the brakes, he hit the accelerator and in just 4.5 years increased spending by a stunning 40 percent. When State revenues peaked at their all-time high in July of 2008 at $97 billion, California was already running a $9 billion deficit.

Mr. Speaker, budget deficits that are made in California need to stay in California, and that goes for the 49 other States as well.