George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I have no further speakers, so I'll reserve until time to close.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to begin by thanking Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman Rahall, the Chair of the full committee, and Chairwoman Napolitano of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, for their support of this legislation for supporting the expansion of water supplies in drought stricken regions of our country. At the end of the day, after all of the debate, this is legislation to provide for water reuse and recycling. Water reuse and recycling is desperately needed in our State of California. This is a policy that is supported throughout the entire State, including the valley, throughout southern California and northern California. Every part of the State understands the extent to which we can continue to create new supplies of water through use and reuse, recycling, that the entire State benefits. Someone said, well, I was here in the drought and it wasn't this bad. We've added almost 16 to 20 million new people to the State of California since the last serious drought. We didn't do much about water policy during that time, but we've now put together a coalition from people who have battled over the years, Metropolitan Water District, Contra Costa Water District, L.A. County, San Diego County, the Central Valley. Why are they coming together? Because they recognize how valuable reuse and recycling will be in the State of California going forward to meet the needs of its growing economy, of its diverse economy, of the importance of agriculture, of the importance of bringing new businesses to California, of developing and make sure we have clean water available for high technology industries throughout the State. That's why this bill, this policy speaks. It speaks to so many areas of the State. It speaks, this policy speaks to Orange County and San Diego County and L.A. County and Riverside County and Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County and Monterey County and Alameda County and San Joaquin County. Why? Because it's important that we take the pressure off a system that's oversubscribed not just in drought years but every year. But we can get by in a normal year. We can't get by in the third year of the drought. Now, my colleagues have suggested that somehow this is the bill in which we should settle California water issues. I find it rather interesting in February of last year when we passed the South Orange County Recycled Water plan for Mr. Calvert there was no discussion of this. There was no suggestion of amendments. There was no suggestion that this was high noon on California water. When we passed the Lake Hodges Surface Water Improvement Act in April for Mr. Bilbray, no discussion of amendments, no need to settle these issues here. They never asked for time. They never asked for amendments. They didn't ask for a vote. They did it unanimously and by voice vote. The Magna Water District for Mr. Chaffetz in Utah, no suggestion that we should take the Utah bill and battle it out over California water. No suggestion that somehow we were going to do something other than that. In September, just a month ago, with Mr. Gallegly, for the Calleguas Municipal Water District, no suggestion of this. No requests for amendments. No debate in the committee on this. And then, again, last month, Mr. Walden from Oregon, no suggestion we're going to take the Oregon bill and settle the California issue. Why? Because we know what's going on in California. We have a very difficult complex problem. The legislature, our State legislature, has been struggling with it for 2 years. They're in special session right now. They're locked in, and they don't know whether they will have the votes or not to do that. But people are getting together to try to solve it. When this new administration came in, because I don't remember you asking for this in the first year of the drought or the second year of the drought or going into the third year of the drought, but Mr. Obama's been in town, what, 10 months, and somehow it's his problem. But when his administration did come to town, and when he did have a Secretary of the Interior and he did have a Secretary of Commerce, they immediately focused their attentions on this problem. And what did they do? They met with a cross section of our delegation to see how they could bring the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior together, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They sent millions of dollars to the valley to try to give relief to the farmers. They've supported our efforts. I've supported the efforts to change the law that I wrote 10 years ago, 20 years, so we can have water transfers from east to west in the valley. That's people working together. That's not people just standing back and sniping at bills as they come through and pretending like they want to make policy or they want to change policy that's just political sniping. But it's interesting that they chose not to snipe on any Republican bills. They just decided they would snipe on this bill. But at the end of the day, at the end of the day, this legislation is about whether or not we can move California into the future, whether or not we can continue to have economic growth, whether or not we can use the technology that's now available to us to provide for recycling, to provide for reuse of water. This bill alone supplies enough water for 24,000 households. That's not counting the legislation that we've provided for southern California, for Orange County, for San Diego, for San Bernardino and the projects that are waiting. This bill was criticized because there's a $600 million backlog because the last administration would never release any money. We would have loved to have had the attention. We would have loved to have had the attention of the Bush administration's Secretary of the Interior to help solve this problem. What did she do? What did he do? They let some Under Secretary wander around changing the science, so we lost almost 18 months and we had to go back to redo all of the science because they changed it and they got caught at it. Criminal charges were pending at one point. So what are we talking about here? The suggestion that somehow this all comes together around this bill is to forget history, to forget the inattention to this problem we've dealt with over the last 8 years, and to suggest that somehow that this can all be settled here. What this bill can do is make a major contribution to relieving the urban pressure on the system by creating this reuse and recycling of water. And that's what the projects that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that's what they were contributing. This was one piece; we hope it grows. We think it will become more valuable. It is bipartisan and has been from the very beginning. When I asked for stimulus money to go to recycling, I asked the administration, I said, do it on the basis of their priorities, do it as they're standing in line. Some cities have been waiting a long time for this; they may be further along. Just let them come as they come up in line. This isn't partisan; this is about whether or not people want to solve problems. You want to make political points, all well and good; but the circumstances won't change, the circumstances won't change across our State. H.R. 2442 is supported by a number of agencies, municipalities and organizations, including: Association of California Water Agencies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Dublin San Ramon Services District, City of Mountain View, Redwood City, City of Palo Alto, WateReuse Association, Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Iron House Sanitary District, City of Petaluma, Santa Clara Valley Water District, North Coast County Water District, and City of San Jose. October 5, 2009. Representative George Miller, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Miller: The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to write in favor of H.R. 2442, legislation to expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. As you know, ACWA's 447 public agency members are collectively responsible for 90 percent of the water delivered in California for residential and agricultural uses. Since H.R. 2442 contains local projects with regional as well as national benefits, the legislation meets the criteria established in our blueprint ``No Time to Waste: A Blueprint for California Water''. In particular, the projects in H.R. 2442 will allow for a direct response to help mitigate current and devastating drought impacts in California. In this regard, ACWA encourages the House of Representatives to move expeditiously and pass important water recycling project legislation. As California's water supply challenges multiply, ACWA appreciates your efforts to provide federal resources for local projects to assure water supply reliability. Thank you for sponsoring this legislation. Sincerely, Timothy Quinn, Executive Director, Association of California Water Agencies.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order that the motion to recommit contains a nongermane instruction in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point of order. That action by the previous Congress does not make it germane to this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Mt. Diablo Peace & Justice Center, an invaluable institution in the San Francisco Bay Area that will be celebrating its 40th Anniversary on October 19, 2009. Founded in 1969 by the late Andy Baltzo, the Mount Diablo Peace and Justice Center was initially known to most residents of Contra Costa County as simply, ``The Peace Center.'' Its goal was to provide residents of the East Bay with a voice against the escalating war in Vietnam as well as a focal point for issues of social justice. After our troops returned from Southeast Asia, members of the Peace Center recognized that the quest for peace and justice is never ending. The Center turned its attention to issues of nuclear arms reduction, military disarmament, and avoidance of U.S. entanglement in the conflicts in Central America. Instrumental in the early development of the Peace Center was the work of a core group of committed peace activists including Arne Westerback , Louise Clark, and Sheila Pedersen. Over the years, the Center expanded its focus to include a wide range of programs that addressed raising peaceful children and race awareness. The larger community continued to have a voice through the Peace Center and has benefited from organized non-violent protests against military conflicts, including most recently the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These protests take the form of peace marches, demonstrations, and a unique war memorial known as The Crosses of Lafayette. Much national and even international attention was focused on the local community when multi-denominational memorials were erected on a highly visible hillside one for each American military service member who has died in the current conflicts. It's a silent but powerful reminder to all who pass by of the human toll of war. The Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center also provides inspirational classes in non-violence that continue to benefit the community as a whole. With its access to nationally known speakers, educational forums, and film series, the Center is able to promote peace and justice through a variety of mediums. Students, parents and teachers have access to a wide range of programs that include the Art and Writing Challenge and Youth in the Military, a counseling service for young people on national service alternatives to the military. Through local food collection and distribution, The Center also addresses the needs of the poor living in our local community. As our world becomes seemingly smaller, the Peace Center is once again broadening its program. Currently, plans are underway for an International Peace Youth Camp which will bring outstanding teen leaders from around the world to the Center. Once at camp, they will have the opportunity to get to know each other and learn new methods of co-existence through cultural exchange. Today, dedicated Peace Center leaders such as Barbara and Ed Tonningsen and Bob Hanson continue to bring the lessons of non-violence to our community and beyond. I applaud the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center for its strong, principled, and ongoing voice on the issues of peace and justice and I am proud to bring this organization to the attention of my colleagues. Congratulations to past and present members who have kept the Center viable and dynamic throughout the decades. As you celebrate 40 Years of Peacemaking, I wish you continued success.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this conference report and the rule that enables it to come to the floor. I want to thank the chairwoman of the committee for bringing this matter to the floor. I also want to thank Chairman Obey and Chairwoman DeLauro for their work on this conference report. This legislation makes some important changes in child nutrition. First, this extension recognizes that hunger does not take a vacation during the summer. This extension provides $85 million for pilot summer food service program demonstration projects that will help expand benefits for low-income children during the summer. Secondly, the extension provides support to States to help increase the number of children who are automatically enrolled in the free school meals and to help reduce administrative errors in that program. Third, we are responding to the calls of school food directors across the country by including funding for school food service equipment grants in order to improve the quality of school meals. The program was created in the Recovery Act and was immediately successful. The demand in fact outpaces resources 6-to-1. Fourth, we know that promoting nutrition in school is not enough. Today almost 12 million children under 5 regularly spend time in child care, and that is why this bill invests $8 million in competitive grants to improve the quality of meals and promote health in child care settings. And finally, this bill supports our ongoing commitment to promote breastfeeding among the WIC population with $5 million to incentivize States to achieve and sustain higher rates of breastfeeding. These programs are a sound investment in the nutritional health of our children and come at no expense to the taxpayers because of the savings made elsewhere in the bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 743 on passage of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of this important legislation to provide 2.6 billion gallons of water per year for drought-stricken California. Stated against:

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want thank Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman Rahall for bringing this legislation to the floor, and thank Ranking Members Hastings and McClintock for their consideration. This bill, H.R. 2442, represents a very exciting opportunity for California. With the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009, we are bringing an innovative new program online that reduces our state's demands for fresh water from the Bay-Delta. The six new water reuse projects authorized in today's legislation are projected to save 2.6 billion gallons of water per year. The six water projects contained this bill add enough water to the system to meet the needs of 24,225 households--that's the equivalent to serving every household in Pittsburg and most in Bay Point. These projects will help the cities of Concord, Dublin, Petaluma, Redwood City, Antioch, and throughout the Palo Alto area including Stanford University. But more importantly, these water projects will help the state as a whole. This bill--and others like it, is a critical piece of the puzzle. We cannot solve California's water situation without a significant investment in recycling wastewater and putting it to beneficial use. This program is a smart and efficient way to conserve water supplies, lessen our impact on our natural resources, and create jobs and support local businesses. Today's bill expands on a successful partnership that the Congress has already authorized--in total, the 14 water reuse projects that the Bay Area partnership is building will produce nearly 100,000 acre-feet of water per year. The bill before us today allows us to take some of the pressure off the Bay-Delta, and it authorizes cities across the Bay Area to join in a strong Federal-State -local partnership that is providing our region a sustainable and reliable clean water supply. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2442.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during the proceedings today in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX or under clause 6 of rule XVIII.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for offering this amendment. Madam Chair, we would strongly support this amendment. As he is well aware of--and as, I think, most of the Nation is--the young men and women who have joined the Armed Forces over the last 8 or 9 years left this country to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the trouble spots of the world. Many of them left as high school graduates, some of them not high school graduates. They even left an economy that is very different today than it was when they left their homes to serve this Nation. Clearly, we want to make sure that they have the opportunities to integrate back into the economy after leaving the service on terms that are helpful to them, to their families and to their local communities. So thank you very much for offering this amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. It's a good amendment and it's important. These agencies have a track record in helping students and in helping the taxpayers with default diversion activities; but also, we look forward to their having an expanded role in financial literacy and in helping students as they contemplate going to college and, while they're in college, helping them manage their debt and helping them make decisions about whether they need all of that debt or not and also as they leave, because this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has passed a number of loan forgiveness programs and the income determinant repayment program. So the students really can start to see how they can manage the debt and make career choices at the same time. Unfortunately, many students don't realize it until they graduate; they really would have liked to have done something else, but they didn't think they could have that career and manage their debt. So these agencies are going to take on an even more important role for young people as they start and progress through college.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and thank the gentleman from Ohio. This is obviously a very important component of this legislation. His amendment substantially improves it, because the whole Nation is aware of the needs of dislocated workers, and certainly in the Midwest, where workers are leaving one generation of technology and seeking jobs in communities or seeking the next generation of manufacturing and technology. This is very important that they be included in these State plans.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I realize that the BRAC process has a multitude of consequences for local communities, both those facing base closures and those dealing with base expansions. As we move forward, we can take a look at how we might assist these communities under existing avenues as well as in conference on this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn for 2 minutes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is now time, as the Chair has noted, to move to amendment No. 22 by Mr. Souder. My understanding is that Mr. Souder will not be offering that amendment and that he and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) have had discussions around this amendment, and they have agreed that we should work this out in the conference committee. I have agreed to their discussions, and they are pursuing those at this time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, my colleague on the other side of the aisle said that this legislation is the wrong way and the wrong place to make this investment. He has got it exactly backwards. This is the exact way to make this investment--to take the savings by cutting the subsidies to the lenders and recycling those on behalf of families, students and our community institutions so that we can expand the educational opportunities in this country. We cannot continue just to wring our hands about our competitive place in the world, about the need for new engineers, new scientists, new mathematicians, a skilled and technologically fit workforce in this country. We must do something about it. What the Obama administration has said under the leadership of the President and the Secretary of Education is that we're going to do something about it now, and we're going to provide additional money for Pell Grants, that we're going to provide additional money for community colleges, that we're going to provide additional money for early childhood education, and that we're going to provide additional opportunities for access and completion of that educational opportunity. It's not enough that young people start college. It's important that they finish college. We've got to do better at that, and we're going to do it in a fiscally sound manner. We're going to pay for it, because there is enough money in those exorbitant subsidies that we pay decade after decade that were first raised to the consciousness of this Congress by President Bush's Office of Management and Budget. They kept showing us the comparison. If you ran the Direct Loan Program, you would save a huge amount of money for the taxpayers. Finally, this Congress, under this administration, is taking the leadership to take that money and to recycle it on behalf of our families and students. I just want to say, this is the right time, the right place, and the right way to do this. I thank him for his support in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion, although I will not oppose the motion.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I want to begin by thanking so many Members of the House that have supported this bill today on this floor. The bipartisan support we had for so many of the amendments, the debate and the dialogue that we had, thank you so very much. When the President talked about the future of the American economy, he made it very clear that if we were going to be competitive in the rest of the world, if we were going to emerge in that top competitive position in the next generation of the globalized economy, where so many more countries are now able to educate young people, provide world-class organizations, universities, research facilities, that we had to change our education system, that we had to make a major investment, that we no longer could just think about how much money we put into education. We had to start thinking about the outcomes and whether we were getting the results for young people all across this country, were we getting the results for businesses across this country, were we getting the results for families. He made that very clear with the Race to the Top fund that is getting such wide reception and acceptance from Governors all over the country, from school districts, from unions, from families and organizations to see that change. He has extended that to the colleges and universities. It is not enough that a student enters a college, that he or she is eligible to go to college. The question is, Will they graduate from that college? And what he has put in this legislation is a discussion and a requirement that we understand how many people who enter college obtain that certificate for a career, that AA degree in a 2-year college, their ability to go on to a 4-year college. That's the first time we've ever asked that question. But it's terribly important, when two-thirds of the people going to college today are borrowing money, when they're borrowing money, we need to know that the colleges are providing the right kind of educational experience and the opportunity to succeed. That's what you've been voting for all day long, and I want to thank you because it will change the direction, it will change the direction in which we are going in this Nation. And I think it will dramatically enhance our possibilities of remaining the top competitive country in the world. That's why the Business Roundtable spoke to the issue of the community college provisions in this bill, how important they were so that the community colleges could become a catalyst for economic revitalization, for retooling, for dislocation, so that communities that are welcoming a new industry or communities that are losing an old one and thinking about where to go in the future, to make the community colleges the center of that training and education that so many American workers and families are seeking out today. That's what you voted to do in this bill. I want to thank you very much.