John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you so very, very much. You brought to this issue enormous facts and passion. Your work as the ranking member on the subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee positions you in a very, very important place. Your passion and knowledge should help carry the day on this. Mr. Tonko, if you can stick around, we will come back to this one more time. I would like now to call on my colleague from California, Mr. Ted Lieu from Los Angeles.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I appreciate the opportunity to lobby you. You are in a very important position, as are all of us; 435 of us are going to make choices about what is important and how we spend our constituents' tax money. And these are choices we are going to make. We often don't really look at it, but the budget that will be forthcoming, the President's budget, and then the response of this House to that budget, will allocate that $4 trillion across a whole variety of programs. We really do have the opportunity here, as we put together the budget and then the appropriations following, to take up the challenge that Mr. Tonko put before us in the State Revolving Fund. Mr. Lieu, thank you so very much for joining us.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on some issues of security. We have heard for the last hour discussions of security, and there are many different aspects to the question of security. Are we secure in this world in which we live? Well, there are a lot of problems. To be sure, we can worry about China and the South China Sea, and we do. Certainly, in the Middle East, where I recently visited the Gulf States and Iran, there are a lot of concerns there. As you move into Iraq, there are the issues of ISIL, al Qaeda and, of course, the great tragedy that is occurring in Syria where, basically, cities are simply being destroyed, obviously, the churches, the monasteries, the mosques--boom--housing. There are well over 270,000 people--Christians, Muslims, and others-- killed in the Syrian civil war and the resultant desire by people to get out of there. Immigration issues are abounding. Certainly, they affect us here in the United States. There are many other security issues beyond those that make the headlines. There are security issues in our homes. For example, do we have a job? Well, that is a big issue. Often here on the floor, in days gone by, I would stand with my colleagues and we would talk about creating jobs in the United States. We would talk about strategies of Make It In America, strategies to use our tax dollars to buy American-made products and services so that our money could be used to employ our own people and to support our own businesses. These are all very, very important strategies. They do happen to do with individual security, community security, and family security. So security has many, many pieces. Tonight I want to talk about one type of security. This is something that affects every human being, every animal, large or small, from an elephant to the smallest mouse. This security issue is one that affects every form of life. It is called water. It is called water. This is the most basic of security issues. You don't go but a day or 2, maybe 3, days, if you are not doing much and it is really not very hot, without water. It is essential. This is a bottom-line security issue. If you don't have water, you are insecure. If you don't have water, you will very soon be dead. If you have poisonous water, you may not die immediately, but it will certainly affect you. Let's take a look at this. This is water from Flint, Michigan, United States of America. There are roughly 100,000 human beings in Flint, Michigan. Well, among the most essential of all of the things we need for life, for security, is water. That is Flint, Michigan, water, a city of 100,000 people in the United States. Oh, we would like to think of ourselves as being the most advanced place in the world. That is Flint, Michigan, water. Nine thousand children under the age of 4 or 5 have been drinking that water contaminated with lead for about 14 months. I am not going to go into the reasons why that tragedy is occurring. There are many. There is an FBI investigation and there are questions about the Governor of Michigan and the way in which it was done, but I am not going to go there today. I want to go to something else that we are responsible for here in the House of Representatives and our colleagues across the Capitol in the U.S. Senate. I want to talk about our responsibility here because this is our business. If we are concerned about security--and we are--we should--and we do--talk about al Qaeda. We should--and we do--talk about ISIS. We should--and we do--talk about refugees and whether they are safe or not. We talk about San Bernardino and the great tragedy there. We should talk about it, and we should do something about it. There is another side of security that we have specific responsibility to deal with. In 1974, we set out to clean up the waters of the United States with the Clean Water Act. Over the years, it has been amended. In 1996, we set standards for clean water and we provided some funding. If someone were to grade us on our success in addressing one of the fundamental security issues, that is, the ability to have clean, drinkable water, here is the scorecard. Let's take a look at it. Let's see. We can run down through aviation, bridges. Oh, by the way, this is from the American Society of Civil Engineers. They produce a scorecard on how well this great Nation, the United States of America, is doing on providing fundamental security. Aviation, bridges, dams, drinking water: D. Today, at a hearing on water, the Society of Civil Engineers said we have got a D on drinking water. Somebody asked them: Is that the bottom grade? They said: Well, pretty much because if you go to an F, it is too much paperwork. So they just stop at D. D. We fancy ourselves to be the greatest place in the world, the most advanced economy. All the way down this list are D's, a couple of C's. Our infrastructure doesn't rank among the best in the world. In fact, we rank about where developing countries are. So what is the result of all of this? Well, Flint, Michigan, water, would you drink it? For 100,000 people in Flint, Michigan, that is their water supply. Without water, you don't live. Closer to my home in Porterville, California, a city of a few tens of thousands of people, no water. So they truck it in. I have got one of those on my ranch. It is called a livestock water trough. That is where the kids get their water in the United States of America. Oh, we think we are good. Security comes in many forms. Drinking water. So why does this happen? Why is it that, in this great Nation, all of us, 435 here, and another 100 across the Capitol--why is it Flint Michigan, Porterville, California, a half a dozen other cities in California, no water or contaminated water? Just in December it was reported that, in about a half a dozen communities in the San Joaquin Valley of California, the uranium in the water has reached a level beyond that which is allowed. That is okay. It is only going to be cancer. Uranium, fine. Flint, Michigan, Porterville, communities throughout this Nation. Oh, Toledo, Ohio. I remember Toledo, Ohio, last year shut down its water system because of contamination from algae in the lake. America. Why? Why? Here is why. A sharp drop in government infrastructure spending. Oh, government infrastructure spending. Federal Government infrastructure spending. For 435 of us; this is our job. Oh, let's see. This is 2002. Somewhere--oh, these are real dollars, disinflated, $325 billion. In 2014--that is 12 years later--$210 billion. That is what happens. That is what happens when you don't have water in Porterville. That is what happens when you have uranium and the inability to take it out because you can't afford the systems. That is what happens in Flint, Michigan. Let's take another look at those numbers, another way to look at it. Spending on clean water and drinking water infrastructure. In 2014 dollars--these are constant dollars across the way--1973, is that Ronald Reagan? I think so. No. Actually, it was a little later. That wasn't Reagan. It is the end of--what did we spend in 1973 in consistent 2014 dollars? We spent about $10 billion. Okay. In 1990, we spent about $6 billion. Again, these are dollars all consistent for 2016 dollars. In 1999, we are down to about just under $4 billion. In 2005, we get down to about $3.5 billion. In 2016, bingo, $2 billion. You wonder why we have a D? You wonder why the water systems break. 240,000 water mains broke last year in the United States. You see the pictures of the sinkholes. That is not a geological issue. That is a water main issue. A water main is broken, washed out the street, washed out the community, and the houses fall into it. Not all of them, but that is basically it. 240,000 of those last year. What are we doing? Are we building new, high-quality water systems for our community? No, we are not. I will tell you what we are doing. Over the next few years, we are going to spend a trillion dollars in the next 20 years on rebuilding--that is a trillion dollars, not a billion--a trillion dollars--on rebuilding our entire nuclear warfare system. Every bomb, new airplanes, new missiles, new intercontinental ballistic missiles, new submarines, a trillion dollars. And this number competes with that trillion dollars. We make choices around here, folks. We make choices on how we are going to spend your tax money. We are going to spend it on nuclear bombs that go big in a big way, on new stealth bombers, new intercontinental ballistic missiles, new submarines, new dial-a-bomb-- dial it up, it goes big; dial it down, it goes small--so that we can use it as a tactical nuclear weapon. Whoa. We are making choices here. I can go on for some time about this. I get pretty excited about it. I get pretty dismayed. When I am in Brussels, as I was last week, returning from the Gulf States--Oman, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Bahrain--looking at what is going on there, this is what I saw: I saw enormous problems. But I also saw a modern infrastructure. Go to Brussels. Look at their airport. Then go to an American airport. Water. Water. Flint, Michigan, water. State of Michigan, United States of America, that is the water that 100,000 Americans are forced to drink. We have got a Clean Water Act. We have got the laws in place to build our water systems. So what do we do? Well, I guess we would rather rebuild the B61 nuclear bomb rather than building a water system for Americans for the security of 100,000 people. I live a long way from Flint, Michigan, but the guy I am going to call on, that is his home. That is where he was raised. Those are the people he represents. Dan Kildee, you have been on this issue for weeks and months. You have been sounding the alarm. You have been calling us out. You have been calling us out, all 435 of us and the Senate and the administration. You have been calling us out, and you are doing the work of securing the safety of the people in your community. Please join me, Dan Kildee, from Michigan.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Kildee, thank you so very much for the work that you are doing sounding the alarm and driving all of us. I know you did this morning in our Caucus. You alerted us to it. You motivated us. And, in fact, I am talking about it tonight because of your motivation that you gave to me and to our colleagues this morning. You spoke here a little bit about the human consequences. I would like you to take another run around this on how we bear--the community of America, and more specifically, Michigan--the responsibility of caring for addressing the human problem that now exists.

Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might interrupt you for a moment, this morning you spoke of a young child that was interviewed. Would you please share that?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Kildee, thank you very, very much. ``I am afraid I won't be smart enough.'' I wonder if we should ask ourselves if we are smart enough. Are we smart enough? There are 435 of us facing a myriad of questions around this world and some of them in our own hometowns. Are we smart enough? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the activation of the 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis Air Force Base, in the heart of California's 3rd Congressional District. On January 8, 1966, what is now The 60th Air Mobility Wing became the host unit at Travis Air Force Base, and its emergence as the principal military airlift hub in the western United States earned Travis the moniker of ``Gateway to the Pacific.'' The wing is responsible for strategic airlift and air refueling missions around the world and controls more than $11 billion in total resources. It handles more cargo and passengers than any other military air terminal in the United States. The 60th Wing has been involved in some of our country's most recognizable military and humanitarian efforts in its 50 years of operation. It was a major participant in Operations Homecoming and Babylift, when Travis Air Force Base became the main intake facility for POW's and refugees coming from Vietnam. It flew 1,280 missions from Travis during Operation Desert Storm. Its planes and personnel provided much needed relief after earthquakes in Mexico City, Armenia, and Haiti. Most recently, the 60th Air Mobility Wing provided airlift and refueling operations in support of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom--to support our ongoing global war on terror. These are just a few of the achievements that have earned the wing multiple Air Force Outstanding Unit Awards. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to congratulate the 60th Air Mobility Wing on its 50th Anniversary, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the extraordinary dedication of the officer, enlisted, and civilian personnel who have served our nation. They have given Travis Air Force Base a renowned past, exciting present, and a very bright future.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the hard work of Dave Jansen on the Coast Guard Subcommittee, as well as Emily Burns on my staff, to make this bill a success.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to be here again, at the beginning of another year, to rise to join Chairman Hunter in strong support of legislation to authorize funding for the United States Coast Guard and to advance new policy initiatives to strengthen the prospects for the U.S. flag and the U.S. maritime industry. H.R. 4188, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, is very carefully crafted bipartisan-bicameral legislation that has been developed over the course of far too long. It should have and could have been done last year, but here we are. I thank the Senate. I guess I should be a little more kind to the other House. Several months of negotiation with Members of the Senate have finally concluded. This bill is deserving of robust support from Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge its quick passage by the House today so it can be enrolled and sent to the President for his signature. I thank Chairman Hunter for his leadership and cooperative spirit in working with me and the other Democrats to address our interests and concerns. The willingness of Chairman Hunter and of his outstanding staff on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee to collaborate and work with the minority is very, very much appreciated. Now, the bill is not perfect. In fact, I haven't seen one in the years I have been here, and that has been a few years now; but that is the case with virtually every piece of bipartisan legislation that has been passed by Congress. On balance, the benefits of this bill really outweigh any detrimental aspects. I am pleased this legislation will provide an increased authorized funding level for the Coast Guard for the next 2 fiscal years. Our Coast Guard has suffered over the past 3 to 4 fiscal years due to insufficient budgets. The authorized funding levels in this legislation, along with the increased appropriation in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, are a marked improvement. The importance of budget stability to the men and women of the Coast Guard cannot be overstated. Coastguardsmen and -women are pressed daily to meet the arduous demands of the service's 11 statutory missions which scatter them over seven different continents and every ocean. In fact, last week, I saw three of our cutters at the dock in Bahrain working to preserve our interests in the Persian Gulf. The last thing our Coast Guard needs is to face recurrent budget uncertainties, a circumstance which leaves the service's leadership unable to know exactly what resources and capabilities they have available to perform vital national security functions, such as addressing port and harbor security, illegal drug and migrant interdiction, search and rescue, law enforcement and environmental response actions, and several other important activities. This legislation will also strengthen our national security through provisions that enhance policies that govern foreign port security assignments. Others that bolster the coordination of international port inspections, conducted by the Coast Guard and our foreign partners, will help better ensure that critical maritime infrastructure does not become a liability for national security. Additionally, language included in the bill will strengthen the Coast Guard's maritime drug enforcement authority, which should improve the Federal Government's activities in the Western Hemisphere to combat illegal drug trafficking, which has had a substantial destabilizing effect on several nations across the region. I am also very pleased that this legislation continues to move the ball down the field in an effort to strengthen and to recapitalize a new fleet of polar class heavy icebreakers for the Coast Guard. It is clear that we are witnessing the opening of the Arctic to maritime commerce. We have got to do something, and this bill puts us on the road to doing that. In this most challenging of maritime environments, it is vital that the service has the icebreaking capabilities it will need to operate safely and effectively; so we will figure out whether the Polar Sea can actually be refitted. Additionally, this legislation authorizes funding to allow the Coast Guard to maintain progress in finalizing requirements and in initiating preliminary designs for a new heavy icebreaker. In moving to an end here, I am pleased that the legislation includes language to continue to preserve the remaining infrastructure at the former LORAN-C stations until such time that the administration makes a final decision on whether to build an enhanced LORAN, or E-LORAN, infrastructure as a reliable land-based, low-frequency backup navigation and timing signal for the global positioning satellite signal, which, I think, most of us know is the single point of failure for most of the American economy and for a good deal of our military. The GPS signal is fairly easy to corrupt, to degrade, or to otherwise disrupt. For this reason, we need to think seriously about a backup, and this bill sets us on the right course. This administration needs to make a decision on this, and it should make it now. The language in this legislation ensures that we will have available in the future the remaining LORAN-C infrastructure. I look forward to working with Chairman Shuster, with Ranking Member DeFazio, and, of course, with Chairman Hunter in advancing this initiative wherever and whenever possible. Again, I thank Chairman Hunter and his staff for their support for the Coast Guard and the U.S. maritime industry and for their cooperation and leadership in pulling this bill together. Of course, Congressman Shuster, who is the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Ranking Member DeFazio also deserve thanks for their leadership and contributions. I thank my staff and the majority's staff for the work that they have done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. If I might just close by saying a special ``thank you'' to the chairman and his staff, to my staff--David--and to my own team on this. Also, this really was a bipartisan bill; so I thank Chairman Thune and the ranking Democrat on the committee, Bill Nelson, for their efforts in putting together this bill. Let's get this job done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, before the holiday break, I rose to congratulate the East Nicolaus High School Spartans from Sutter County for advancing to the CIF Division VI-AA Football Championship game. At that time, they were about to make a 500-mile road trip to face Coronado, a school four times their size. Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that the Spartans may have been underdogs in that game, but that didn't matter to them: on December 28, they won the championship game 16-6. Quarterback S.J. Brown threw for a touchdown and rushed for another. Donovan Switalski had 25 carries for 135 yards. And on defense, cornerback Eddie Herrera intercepted two passes. These were great individual efforts, but as a former lineman for the Cal Bears, I know that it takes a full team effort to pull off a win like this. I congratulate Coach Travis Barker and the entire East Nicolaus team for making Sutter County and the entire 3rd Congressional District proud.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, before the holiday break, I rose to congratulate the East Nicolaus High School Spartans from Sutter County for advancing to the CIF Division VI-AA football championship game. At that time, they were about to make a 500-mile trip to San Diego to face Coronado, a school four times their size. Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that the Spartans may have been the underdogs in the game, but that didn't matter to them. On December 28, they won the championship game 16-6. Quarterback S.J. Brown threw for a touchdown and rushed for another. Donovan Switalski had 25 carries for 135 yards. On defense, quarterback Eddie Herrera intercepted two passes. Those are great individual efforts. As a former lineman for the University of California Bears, I know it takes a full team to pull out a win like this and also a coach. I congratulate Coach Travis Barker and the entire East Nicolaus team for making Sutter County and the entire Third Congressional District very proud.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the East Nicolaus High School Spartans for winning the Northern California championship, advancing to the CIF Division VI-AA Championship Game to be played in San Diego on December 19, 2015. Under the leadership of Coach Travis Barker, this school of 250 students from Trowbridge in Sutter County will be making a road trip of over 500 miles to face a school four times their size. They may be underdogs in this championship game, but this team and these players are tough. They have proven their worth throughout the season. They are prepared and disciplined, and will represent Sutter County well. The Spartans have had an incredible season, and I wish them the best of luck in the championship game.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to your attention East Nicolaus High School. I suspect all of you are aware of this. I see my colleague from my bordering district, to the north of me, who went to Biggs High School, which was the rival of East Nicolaus High School. East Nicolaus High School is going to the State AA championships in San Diego. Congratulations to them. To all of you, be aware: there are less than 250 students in this school, and they are tough.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), my colleague.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to be here again at the end of another year to rise and join Chairman Hunter, for whom I have great respect. We have been able to get some stuff done. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for bringing this bill to the floor today to authorize the funding of the United States Coast Guard and to advance new policy initiatives to strengthen the prospects for the U.S. flag and U.S. maritime industry. H.R. 4188, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2015, is carefully crafted bipartisan legislation developed over the course of several months of negotiation within this House and with that other body. It is deserving of robust support from Members of both sides of the aisle. I urge its quick passage by the House today. I want to thank Chairman Hunter for all the leadership and the cooperative spirit in working with me and our other Democratic Members. He addressed our concerns. They were handled and taken care of in the bill. The willingness of Chairman Hunter and his outstanding staff and members of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee to collaborate and work through the several nettlesome issues is very, very much appreciated. That is not to say this bill does not contain some items which I might have some lingering concerns about, but they are few. As is the case with every piece of legislation I don't personally draft all by myself, this bill has those minor issues. I am sure, if the chairman were to draft it all by himself, it would be perfect, also. But we did it together, and it came out quite well. I am extremely pleased that this legislation would provide stable and sufficient authorized funding levels for the Coast Guard for the next 2 years. The importance of budget stability cannot be overstated. The Coast Guard is pressed daily to meet the demands of its 11 statutory missions. The last thing the Coast Guard needs is to face recurrent budget uncertainties, a circumstance which would leave the service's leadership unable to know exactly what resources and capabilities they have available to address port and harbor security, illegal drug interdiction, search and rescue, and law enforcement actions, along with many other important activities. I am also pleased this legislation continues to move the ball down the field in the effort to strengthen and recapitalize a new fleet of Polar-class heavy icebreakers for the Coast Guard, and a cheer goes up between the chairman and myself if we can get that done. It is clear that we are at the advent of Arctic operations for the Coast Guard, and it is vital that the service has the icebreaking capabilities it will need to operate safely and effectively in this very unforgiving maritime environment. The bill will advance the completion of the materiel assessment of the Polar Sea to determine, finally, if this heavy icebreaker can be returned to service. Additionally, this legislation authorized funding to allow the Coast Guard to maintain progress in developing requirements and preliminary design for a new heavy icebreaker. So we will figure out, hopefully, this next year which way we will go. I am also pleased that this legislation includes language that will continue to preserve the remaining LORAN-C infrastructure until such time as the administration makes a final decision on whether or not to build out an enhanced LORAN or e-LORAN infrastructure to provide a reliable, land-based, low-frequency backup navigation timing signal to back up GPS, the Global Positioning System. For several years, we have known that the relatively weak, high- frequency GPS signal is fairly easy to corrupt, to degrade, or altogether disrupt, stop. For this reason, the Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, has called GPS a potential single source of failure for important national defense assets. It is also a major liability across 16 sectors of critical infrastructure. If Russia, China, and the EU have land-based GPS backup systems, the question is: Why does the United States not have one? This administration needs to make a decision now. At least language in this legislation ensures that we will have available the option of re-purposing what remains of the LORAN-C infrastructure for an e-LORAN system of the future. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have already said it twice. I will say it a third time. To Chairman Hunter and his staff, we like working with you and we like you, too. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume, as long as it is less than 3 minutes, to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague Mr. Hunter and those who have assisted in the drafting of the bill, particularly our staff, I want to thank you for making all of this possible. This bill, which does extend the authorization for the Coast Guard, also provides very, very important elements, most of which you have heard here today. I would urge its passing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I don't propose to take an hour, but I do propose to bring a very important issue before the House and before the American people. Today we had our first opportunity to really move to protect Americans. Presently, if you are on the no-fly list, which is not easy to get on--there has to be some very specific reason why you could be a threat to American citizens, to the airplane on which you might be traveling, or you might be entering this country for some nefarious reason, like terrorism. But if you are on the no-fly list and you do happen to be in America, you can go to a gun store or to perhaps any fairground where there is a gun show and you can buy a weapon, virtually any gun, an assault weapon, a handgun, a shotgun. And the question arises: If you are too dangerous to fly, are you not too dangerous to buy a gun? But, under American law today, you can, indeed, be too dangerous to fly. You could be a threat to the other passengers or to a tower, to an airplane. But, apparently, you are not a threat to buy a gun. In fact, there are some 16,000 people, a very small portion of the American citizenry, that are on the no-fly list. Since 9/11 in 2001, more than 2,000 men, probably women, who are too dangerous to fly on the no-fly list have been able to purchase guns here in the United States. So let's see if we get this straight. You have been designated by the Department of Homeland Security and the various Federal Government agencies--TSA, FBI, quite possibly the CIA, and others--as being a threat to the security and safety of America and Americans, and you are put on a no-fly list, meaning you can't get on an airplane. You are not able to buy a ticket, you are not able to travel, and yet you find some way to go down to the local gun store in those States that do not have background checks or maybe a gun show where there are no background checks, you present yourself and say: ``Oh, that is a pretty good-looking AR-14. I'd like to have it.'' ``Sure, you got the money?'' ``I got the money.'' ``Here is the gun.'' This makes no sense whatsoever. Somehow I think the American public gets this. If you are too dangerous to fly, then you are too dangerous to be able to buy a gun in America. It is that simple. There ought to be a law, but there is no law. Here in the House of Representatives, many of us have been trying for, actually, several years to deal with this crazy loophole in our gun safety laws; yet we have been unable to have a bill come to the House floor where 435 of us that represent all of the American citizens will have an opportunity to vote on whether we believe that, if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So today my fellow Democratic representatives and I--about 135 of us thus far--have signed what is known as a discharge petition so that a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced by Representative King of New York, who is a Republican, could be brought to the floor and all of us face the responsibility of selecting whose side do we stand on. Do we stand for the safety of Americans and prevent people that are too dangerous to fly from being able to buy a gun, or do we stand with those on the no-fly list that are presumably dangerous and say: ``Oh, yeah, you ought to be able to buy a gun even though you are too dangerous to fly''? Now, for my American friends out there, all of you, voters and nonvoters, don't you think it is time for your Representatives, 435 of us, to stand before you in this House and say: ``We agree that if you are too dangerous to fly, then you are too dangerous to buy a gun, and you cannot buy a gun,'' or stand here before all the American public and say: ``No, no, no. If you are too dangerous to fly, go ahead and buy a gun''? So, Mr. Speaker, that is what a discharge petition will do. It will take our Republican friend's bill, Mr. King of New York, bring it to the floor and put the issue before your Representatives, before the representatives of the American people, and cause us to make a choice for your safety or for the presumed right of a person who is too dangerous to fly to be able to buy a gun. It is pretty simple stuff. We will see what happens. That issue is now bubbling around here on the floor. Today there were four motions to adjourn, which is a way of disrupting the normal procedures of the House--which are terribly abnormal to begin with--and causing the attention of the membership of the House and the press from the press box, or wherever they happen to be, to focus on this one-- one--issue: whether those 16,000 or so people that are on the no-fly list can also go out and buy a gun. Two thousand already have. By the way, Mr. Speaker, we ought to quickly discuss this issue of, well, there is a constitutional issue here, an issue in which these people are on a list but they have no ability to get off--no. Not so. Not so. When the no-fly list was first put together following 9/11, the issue was raised of the constitutionality of it by the American Civil Liberties Organization. It went to a Federal court, and the Federal court said: No, we disagree with you. We believe this is a constitutionally authorized protection of the American public, and there is a procedure for an individual to petition to get off the list. So this issue of constitutionality was decided some years ago by a Federal court. So, Mr. Speaker, the arguments that you will undoubtedly hear here about this being, oh, an infringement of the constitutional right for an individual to buy a gun, no. This issue has already been resolved. If you are on the no-fly list and you think you shouldn't be there, you have got a procedure, a program underway and available to you to remove yourself from the no-fly list, and the court said it meets constitutional muster. So, taking it a step further, we know a lot of Americans of certain classes that cannot buy a gun: criminals, convicted felons, people that in some States have been involved in domestic violence, and people that have exhibited mental health issues. Those people are barred in many cases from not being able to buy a gun. So we would add to that category people that our law enforcement agencies have deemed to be dangerous, quite possibly terrorists, or abiding and assisting terrorist organizations. If you can't fly, we just simply say that you can't buy a gun also--pretty simple. My Republican colleague, Mr. King, is correct. The issue is not resolved. The issue will be back before us tomorrow, the 9th day of December, for those of us that believe that if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. Those of us that believe this to be the right policy will continue to push this issue for the safety of Americans. Mr. Speaker, 16,000 people may not be able to buy a gun if this becomes law, and that is a good thing, because we know already 2,000 people that are on that no-fly list--actually, more than 2,000--have been able to buy a gun. What did they do with it? Well, maybe they went out and shot quail, or maybe--we pray not, but we don't know, do we? So, Mr. Speaker, the issue is before us, as are many, many important issues, but I don't think there is any issue more important than the safety of the American people. We know that if somebody is thought to be dangerous, then they ought not have a gun. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this House will see the wisdom of taking a small step and denying some 16,000 people, many of whom are probably not even American citizens, the opportunity to buy a gun. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, ever since I got involved in public policy, which was about 40 years ago, this Nation has been crying for energy independence. I remember my very first campaign in 1974, during the oil energy crisis, when there was all around the world no oil available and no gas available, and we wanted to be energy independent. We are actually getting close to it; although, we continue to import 25 percent of our crude oil, but maybe we are on the cusp of being energy independent. So what does Big Oil want to do? It is not good enough that they should be the wealthiest of all corporations in America and the world. They want to take our precious and almost energy independent oil and export it. Where is it going to go? Where is the market? China, for sure, wants oil. They are going to need to double their import of oil. So where is Big Oil going to go with our precious natural resource that we have for at least the last 40 years been trying to use to achieve energy independence? Why would my good friend from Texas give away to Big Oil our energy independence? Why would we do that? By the way, the 1975 law does not prohibit. It puts the hand of the government--the President and the Secretary of Commerce--on the spigot, and if it is not in America's interest to export, they can shut the spigot down. There is no such protection in this. The only hand on the spigot for the export of oil is Big Oil. There is $30 billion a year of additional revenue for Big Oil--as if they don't already have enough. What about the rest of the Nation? Shouldn't this natural resource asset of America's be shared? It could be. Control the spigot to the benefit of the people at the gas pump. My farmers need chemicals and fertilizer coming from the oil industry. They need the pipes--they need all of the material--and they need the diesel. Oh, we can forget about the farmers. After all, Big Oil wants to ship our precious natural resource--oil--overseas, probably to China. So why don't we put a control on this, and if it is not in the public interest, don't do it? $8.7 billion of refining infrastructure will not be built as a result of this export. Whose jobs are those? They are the American middle class', which, apparently, all of us want to protect and enhance. Those are middle class jobs. $8.7 billion of infrastructure is not going to be built in our refineries. This is not a big deal. After all, Big Oil wants it. It is no big deal that we would take, as we move towards energy independence, the one product that is available that could diminish the 25 percent oil we currently import. No. We are simply going to ship it offshore. For whose benefit? Are the American mariners going to benefit from that? No. Are the American shipbuilders going to benefit from that? No, not at all. Who is going to benefit? Some in the oil patch will benefit for sure, and, certainly, the Big Oil companies will benefit; but will the American consumer at the gasoline pump benefit? I have seen the studies. You can design a study that will show it, but it means nothing. Remember this: $30 billion of oil a year is going to leave this country. For whose benefit? For Big Oil? It is not for the person at the gas pump. It is not for the farmer who is buying the diesel. It is not for the farmer who wants to buy the fertilizer. Give it away. Let them have it--as if they don't already have enough. For a century, Big Oil has been subsidized by the American public. Enough already. I don't think this is a good idea. I don't think it is a good idea to take our crude oil and allow it to be shipped overseas with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. You want a strong vote on this? Then make it a strong ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.