George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the committee. (Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans' health care plan was a plan for a fire department, they would rush into a burning building, and they would rush out and leave everybody behind. If their plan was an evacuation plan, it would be like Katrina. When they got all done evacuating people, they left them all behind. They say their plan is inexpensive. They say their plan saves somebody money. But 10 years from now there are as many uninsured as there are now. At the end of their watch, after 12 years of control of this Congress, 8 years of control of the White House at the same time, they left behind 37 million Americans without health insurance. That is what they left behind on their watch. Now they come forth with a plan for the future, and over the next decade they are going to leave behind 50 million Americans. Want to buy it? Want to try it? Want to sell it? Come on, America. Buy this one. You are guaranteed to be left behind if you are left behind today. What a plan. Ha. God save us.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from California, Chairman Waxman, my friend from Minnesota, Chairman Oberstar, and my friend from Mississippi, Chairman Thompson, for their work in bringing the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act to the House floor. They deserve great credit for crafting legislation to improve security at facilities around the country. One particular concern that this legislation can help address is the risk posed by bulk quantities of chlorine--one of the most powerful disinfectants available, but a potentially dangerous chemical when transported by rail through our neighborhoods en route to wastewater and drinking water utilities and the conventional bleach producers that often supply them. Federal estimates are that a release of chlorine from just one of the 36,000 annual rail car shipments could result in up to 100,000 casualties. Many water utilities are shifting to bleach, which is as effective as a disinfectant but less dangerous to ship, store, and use. However, bleach made using conventional manufacturing process also relies on chlorine shipped by rail. I am pleased to have learned that there is a safer alternative, the use of which I believe should be greatly expanded. That alternative is bleach made using only salt, water, and electricity, eliminating the need to ship chlorine across the country. This safer bleach is just as effective as conventional bleach and can be produced at costs competitive with the cost of conventional bleach. This technology is being implemented at locations around the country, including in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and in my congressional district in Pittsburg, California. Also, Clorox Corporation just this week announced plans to shift all of their bleach plants to use a method that would eliminate the transport of chlorine by railcar to its facilities across the country. The elimination of chlorine transport by rail is welcomed by security advocates and the railroads that bear the liability risk from transporting chlorine. H.R. 2868 calls for identification of chemicals of concern and the use of inherently safer technology by the highest risk water utilities. Clearly, chlorine is one of these chemicals of concern--perhaps more than any other chemical used by water utilities. However, simply changing from chlorine to bleach as a disinfectant may not solve the problem. Chlorine railcars could continue to pass through neighborhoods to the nearby conventional bleach manufacturers, who may argue that the cost for them is too high to shift to a safer process. For this reason, I believe that we must look at the entire supply chain and the procurement process as we work to eliminate or mitigate the consequences of a terrorist attack. In order to fully achieve Congress' intent in passing this bill, the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Homeland Security should work together to evaluate this problem and develop a policy that will lead to safer utilities and communities by reducing the hazardous transport of chlorine. Once again, I appreciate the work of Chairman Waxman, Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Thompson on this bill and I look forward to working with them and the industry as we go forward to help reduce the risks associated with the transportation of chlorine across our country.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, regrettably, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 867, a resolution condemning the recently issued ``Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,'' commonly known as the Goldstone Report. I do not believe that the House should be asked to vote on this resolution when it has not come before the Committee on Foreign Affairs for even one hearing and was brought to the House with little notice under procedures typically reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Given the subject matter of this resolution and the diverse range of views expressed on it from many organizations and individuals, including individuals in my own congressional district, I do not believe this resolution can be described as noncontroversial. The military conflict in the Gaza Strip last winter resulted in devastating consequences to innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians. It is critical that the international community evaluate the events of last December and January in a factual, unbiased manner. To this end, I am pleased that H. Res. 867 recognizes the numerous problems in the original resolution passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council authorizing the Goldstone Report, as that original resolution wrongly singled out alleged Israeli abuses and ignored the harm caused by Hamas' rocket and mortar attacks on the Israeli people. However, I have serious reservations about other aspects of H. Res. 867. No congressional hearings have been held on H. Res. 867 or the Goldstone Report. On an issue of such importance, Congress must do its due diligence and ensure that we have a full understanding of the facts before being asked to vote to condemn the report and its authors. Furthermore, I am concerned that H. Res. 867 implicitly criticizes the Goldstone Report because of the initial Human Rights Council resolution. Justice Richard Goldstone, who oversaw the Goldstone Report, is a distinguished jurist with a long record of support for human rights. Most notably, Justice Goldstone was a prominent critic of the abhorrent apartheid regime in South Africa. As H. Res. 867 notes, to his credit, Justice Goldstone extended the original mandate for the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict to include an evaluation of Hamas' rocket attacks on civilians in southern Israel, among other issues. Regardless of one's ultimate evaluation of the report, it is important to recognize the changes that Justice Goldstone was able to make to it and evaluate his report on its own merits. I fully support efforts to provide clarity, honesty and accuracy to the debate about the conflict in Gaza, just as do many of my constituents who have contacted me this week urging me to oppose this resolution. Hastily voting on a resolution to condemn this report without the ability to properly evaluate its findings does not serve this purpose. Also, I do not believe that this resolution aids the important effort of achieving a two-state solution to help end the ever-present violence and strife in the region. President Obama has taken admirable steps to bring the two sides to the negotiating table, after years of neglect under the Bush administration. Yet, this resolution today does not aid the administration in that effort or further the peace process. In fact, I believe this resolution undermines the ability of the United States to further push both sides toward serious peace negotiations. The House can play a constructive role in promoting peace and understanding in the Middle East and I look forward to supporting such efforts. Regrettably, due to the concerns I have stated above about specific aspects of this resolution and the process under which it has been brought to the House, I must oppose the resolution.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, during my recent trips back to my congressional district, I spent time with many small business owners who are still in business and who are able to continue to keep their doors open, but they do so by cutting back the health care benefits to themselves and to their workers. In some cases, they're getting rid of health care, and they lament that fact because they are very fond of their workforce. They believe that they're very productive and that they've helped them, but they simply cannot afford it. They're part of a larger movement in this country of businesses, both large and small, to get out of the health care field and to stop offering these benefits, in some cases, to new hires and, in some cases, to all of their employees. We're seeing this with a record number of companies. Why are they doing that? It's for the same reason that families are struggling. It's because the costs of health care continue to go up and up and up. It's crushing America's families and it's crushing America's businesses. That's why we're going to have in the next couple of weeks a vote on health care in this House and in the Senate, and we will send a bill to the President's desk so that, finally, we will have real competition in this system and so that insurance companies will no longer run this system for their fun and profit. The time for change is coming. It is time now for health care for all Americans.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today and invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Judge George D. Carroll of Richmond, California, for his many years of service to the community. Judge Carroll has provided remarkable leadership to the citizens of Richmond and his legacy will be forever recognized as the Richmond Courthouse is renamed in his honor on October 16, 2009. George Carroll was born on January 6, 1923 in Brooklyn, New York. He served in the United States Army during World War II and was stationed in Italy. Judge Carroll subsequently used his GI Benefits to attend college and law school, graduating from Brooklyn College in 1943 and Brooklyn Law School in 1950. Following his admittance to the New York Bar, he ran a private practice in New York from 1951-1952. In 1953, Judge Carroll moved to Richmond, California and his trailblazing legacy began. The same year he moved to Richmond, he became the city's first African American lawyer to practice law; serving in private practice until 1965. Judge Carroll continued to break racial barriers in 1961 by becoming the first African American elected to the Richmond City Council. From 1964-1965 he served as Richmond's first African American Mayor, a position unprecedented in any large American city. And finally, Judge Carroll became the first African American County Supervisor for Contra Costa County, California. Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown appointed Judge Carroll to the Contra Costa Municipal Court in May 1965 making him the first African American Judge to be appointed in Contra Costa County, where he served until his retirement in 1985. Judge Carroll is a founding member of the Judicial Council of the National Bar Association and a lifetime member of the NAACP as well as the Sigma Pi Phi and Omega Psi Phi Fraternities. He is a former member of the Charles Houston Bar Association, California Judges Association, American Bar Association, American Judicature Society, World Association of Judge of the World Peace Through Law Center, Board of Governors of the United Bay Area Crusade, Richmond Boys' Club and the Neighborhood House of North Richmond. Madam Speaker, as a result of Judge Carroll's leadership, advocacy and promotion of equal rights, we as a community have benefitted tremendously. I am delighted to have this opportunity to recognize Judge Carroll's tireless efforts and ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating him as the Richmond Courthouse is officially renamed The George D. Carroll Courthouse.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I want to thank Ms. Matsui, Ms. Slaughter, and the entire Rules Committee for their support. Today's bill responds to a request for assistance from the State of California and local water managers to expand the supply of water in our drought-stricken State. It does no more than that. It is good for our economy. This bill will create thousands of jobs. It will reduce the stress on our oversubscribed fresh water system. This bill expands the water supply of six Bay Area communities, including my own congressional district. This bill authorizes additional water recycling through the successful Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI program. Title XVI allows local water managers to treat wastewater and use the clean recycled water for other purposes within their jurisdiction. This bill would add 7.2 million gallons of water per day to California's water supply, enough water to meet the needs of 24,000 households. My bill is one of a series of water recycling bills that have been approved by the House this year and in recent years to expand the water supply in Republican and Democratic districts alike throughout the West and the Southwest. They have been passed without controversy, without amendment, without debate on the larger California water policy needs. This year alone the House has passed by voice vote and overwhelming majorities five local water bills the same as this legislation to provide for this recycling and this reuse. Why has the House done that? Because across the State of California, the water users in that State recognize the extent to which we can recycle and reuse water. We take immediate pressure off of the entire California water system, both the Federal system and the State system. This is an investment in which there is unanimity that it must be made. When you talk about doing this, you are talking about helping the Central Valley, because you release the pressure. When you do this, you are talking about helping the Delta. Clearly the cities, the agencies in southern California, believe this is important to their future. That is why the cities have put up the money to match the Federal effort. That is why my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come forward and asked for this legislation. That is why they have been approved overwhelmingly on a unanimous bipartisan basis, because they are critical to the long-term water needs. You cannot help the Central Valley if you cannot relieve the stress on an oversubscribed system. It is just that fact. The pumps are on. The pumps have been on for months. But what they would suggest you do is, you devastate the San Francisco Bay Area. We have already lost tens of thousands of jobs, from the fisheries, from the ice stores, from the gas stations, from the tourist businesses, from the loss of the salmon running from Monterey, the midcoast, all the way up to the Washington border. Those jobs have been impacted. This is not a good situation. That is why I said I haven't lost many lawsuits that I have supported. The point was to check your guns at the door and see if we could work together. And this has agreement--it has unanimous agreement of the water agencies across the State that this is helpful. This will make a difference. That is why they have supported all these projects. We can start to work together, water agencies that today are down at the Department of the Interior trying to see if we could get things done that the last administration prohibited the Bureau of Reclamation from doing, such as entering new fish screens within the Delta that we think will save 250,000 acre-feet of water. 250,000. Does that sound familiar in the valley? But the last administration would not let the Bureau of Reclamation take those projects, even though they would be paid for by State funds. That is the importance of this legislation. This is about whether or not we as a State come together from the Oregon border to the Mexican border and solve this problem across all of our needs, which is agriculture, which is business, which is municipal use of water. We have the potential to do that, and these pieces of legislation are critical. That is why, up until now, the House decided on a joint bipartisan basis that we would get these bills as fast as we can to the Senate and hopefully get action and get these projects underway, because the cities have already put up the money, the engineering is done, the projects are cleared. That is why many of them were eligible for stimulus money, because they are ready to go. They have been waiting to go. They have been waiting, in fact in many cases a number of years, because the administration wouldn't put up the money until the stimulus bill of this year.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 830, I call up the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2442.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power. Madam Chair, I appreciate your support for my legislation for helping to expand California's water supply. Is it true when the House considered the water recycling bill for Mr. Gallegly of California just last month no amendments were sought by the minority and none were included, in his water recycling bill, and that was approved by a voice vote?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, is it also true that so far this year the House has approved five water recycling or water reuse bills for Members of the minority party and that no amendments at that time were sought for any of those five bills, that those five water bills were each approved under suspension of the rules, either by a voice vote or by a substantial majority vote?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Chair, if I can pursue further, finally, is it true that when my bill, H.R. 2442, was considered by the Water and Power Subcommittee in the full Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, no amendments were offered by the minority or the majority and the bill was reported out by unanimous consent?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for engaging me in this colloquy, and I also want to thank her for her groundbreaking work in bringing water recycling and reuse to the forefront of the consideration by the Bureau of Reclamation as an important source of new water in California and throughout the west and southwestern United States. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).