Jerry McNerney

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has endured a harrowing week, which has affected each and every one of us. Senseless and tragic violence, mass shootings, and shootings of those who have sworn to protect us have become part of our daily dialogue. We are forced to cope with the loss of family members, friends, our neighbors, and the fracturing of our communities as a result of gun violence in our country. My district is no different. Stockton, California, endured the Nation's first mass school shooting in 1989. A man opened fire at Cleveland Elementary School, killing 5 children and injuring 30 students and teachers. It was a senseless act of violence that prompted the California State Legislature to ban assault weapons. This law helped pave the way for a Federal ban on assault weapons. Unfortunately, Congress gave in to pressure from the gun lobby and let the law expire in 2004. Today there are only six other States and the District of Columbia that have such a ban. This past Saturday, a man gunned down in central Stockton became the city's 25th homicide of 2016. In the U.S., more than 10,000 Americans will likely be killed by gun murders this year. Another 20,000 lives will likely be lost to suicide. The total number of gun deaths and violent injuries will be close to 100,000. The victims who make these headlines are just as important as the ones that don't. But there is a brighter side to this story. In my congressional district, as well as in others around the country, there has been a real concerted effort to unite community services, law enforcement, neighborhood leaders, and others to work together to address acts of violence. Although this effort has brought people together and helped focus the community to reduce violence, constant vigilance and peaceful involvement remains needed. Are there achievable changes to our gun laws within the Constitution that would make a difference? Absolutely. Should we, as Congress and the U.S. House of Representatives, work on behalf of our people we represent to take actions? Yes. Absolutely. America's poor and minority populations are disproportionately impacted by gun violence. A November 2015 ProPublica article noted that half of American gun death victims are men of color in poor, segregated neighborhoods. If we really care about our citizens, we should be taking concrete steps to curb gun violence with responsible legislation, such as expanded background checks, a ban on assault weapons, a ban on felons and domestic abusers from owning guns, and gun safety features and safety training. No one solution will completely solve the problem, but if something like expanding background checks to all gun sales will help keep guns away from dangerous people and save lives, wouldn't it be worth it? Many Members of this body have heard the call of action from our constituents and took to the House floor in a peaceful, yet meaningful way. We have taken the call to action and joined our constituents at events in our districts. We speak each day, and we will continue to speak about what is needed to change the cycle of violence plaguing our Nation. It is my hope that just as many folks in our communities strive to reduce all acts of violence that Congress will learn from them. We need a real dialogue about the challenges we face and what it will take to reduce violence in our communities. While such actions might seem difficult or impossible to achieve, we must join together in that pursuit and work toward a peaceful Nation. Mr. Speaker, not only do we have a responsibility here in Congress, but the citizens and the residents of this country have a responsibility, too. To those contemplating violence, you are hurting yourselves and the people you care about. Nonviolence takes more courage and achieves so much more.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, Americans overwhelmingly agree that online privacy is a fundamental right. According to the Pew Research Center, a large majority of Americans wants the government to do more to protect their privacy. Consumers want a voice in how their data is shared and sold. Despite this loud cry from the American people that we in Congress do more, this amendment would do less. It would make it harder for consumers to decide how their data is treated. Let me reread the amendment: ``None of the funds made available by this Act can be used to implement, administer, or enforce any of the rules proposed pursuant to section 222 of the Communications Act.'' These are privacy protection rules. These are rules that are meant to protect consumers' privacy. If this amendment becomes law, consumers will have little or no choice as to how their Internet service providers sell our most personal data. We need strong rules to protect consumers' most sensitive information, and we need those rules to be enforced. American consumers need to choose for themselves whether their locations, their search histories, or their purchasing habits, including medical equipment, should be sold, traded, or otherwise used without their permission. I believe that consumers who consistently demand greater privacy protection online would oppose this amendment, which takes away their protections. My Republican colleagues claim that the FCC's proposed rules for privacy protection will confuse consumers, but let's be clear. The data shows that consumers are already confused when it comes to privacy. Just a few weeks ago, Georgetown law professor Paul Ohm testified before the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee that privacy in the U.S. has never been uniformly controlled. For example, there are sector-specific privacy laws for consumers' health, credit, and educational information. This is not to mention the 50-State patchwork of State privacy laws all across this country. Consumers want to be heard. They want more privacy. We have an obligation to respond to their requests by opposing this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I warned my colleagues that the other side would say that this is going to be confusing to consumers, but consumers are already pretty confused about their privacy protection. In fact, I will bet that everyone in this room is confused about his privacy protection. We need a body that can put privacy protection up front and create rules that make sense and that can be enforced uniformly across the country. That is going to make customers more confident that their data is being protected. That is what we need. Mr. Chair, prohibiting the FCC from using funds to enforce any proposed privacy rules would have the effect of leaving the FCC with very little room to protect consumer privacy. I don't think that is what Americans want. Americans want their privacy protected. If we remove all funds for enforcement capabilities from the FCC we are going to be left with no privacy protection. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 4590, a bill to authorize funding for numerous Department of Veterans Affairs construction projects throughout the Nation. Funding for many of these projects was already appropriated in fiscal year 2016 but needs authorization, and this is what the bill does. I want to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Brown for their work and commitment to our Nation's veterans and for bringing this bill to the floor. The VA is currently challenged by a growing backlog in construction projects and old infrastructure. The VA manages over 6,000 buildings and nearly 34,000 acres of land. Additionally, more than 4,000 critical infrastructure gaps remain, which are estimated to cost between $56 billion and $68 billion to close. A growing backlog in construction projects and infrastructure is leading veterans to have to wait too long to receive the care they need and deserve. This list of construction projects is also one of the reasons I have introduced H.R. 4129, the Jumpstart VA Construction Act. This bill provides for public-private partnerships at the VA to expedite construction opportunities at the VA. H.R. 4129 will help maximize partnerships between Federal and non-Federal entities and ensure that we avoid the systemic problems that have plagued the VA in the past, projects like Denver and Orlando. Meanwhile, H.R. 4590 also includes funding for the Livermore realignment project, as was mentioned by the chairman and ranking member. This is a project that is very important to the veterans of the Central Valley of California, including my district. This funding would provide for the construction of a 158,000-square- foot community-based outpatient clinic in French Camp, California. While vets have been waiting for years, I fought for this project for at least 8 years. The French Camp community-based outpatient clinic will serve 87,000 veterans across a wide geographic area that includes San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Alameda Counties, among others. California's Central Valley veterans confront many obstacles accessing the care they need from the VA. I want to tell you a little story. In Stockton, California, it is about a 3-hour commute to the nearest VA center, which is in Palo Alto. The commute takes long because it is a distance and because there is tremendous traffic. I took the ride along with one of our veterans a couple of years ago, and it took all day to go in for a half-hour appointment. Now, not every elderly gentleman can sit in a car for 3 hours one way and then 3 hours back. This is a real hardship. Not only can they not sit in a car for that long, but they may not even have that kind of transportation. So this is very important. I am sure that all of these projects have that kind of a story. We need more facilities. We need this authorization. Congress approved the Central Valley community-based outpatient clinic and community center in 2004 as part of the VA's Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services initiatives. In 2010, Congress appropriated $55 million for land acquisition and to fund construction and planning. The project is ready to begin construction, and our Central Valley veterans are eager to see progress on a project that was promised to them in 2004. The French Camp outpatient clinic would offer an array of services: primary care, mental health care, radiology, audiology, physical and occupational therapy, dental, and other specialty services throughout the telehealth system. Veterans have sacrificed so much to protect our freedom and democracy. They deserve access to state-of-the-art healthcare facilities closer to home. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4590.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the importance of scientific research and its impact on commercial applications. Here is a great example. Scientists have been working to understand dark matter. Dark matter is heavy enough to hold the galaxies together through its gravitational pull, yet it has not been detected by current technology, such as by telescopic observation. Research has led to experiments that would detect dark matter as it scatters from ordinary particles. Princeton University physicists and collaborators who are working on this problem needed to use a rare isotope of the inert gas argon. A National Science Foundation award to Princeton enabled the university group to test samples of underground gases to locate the required argon. In doing so, they discovered a source from a private company where the argon is captured during a CO2 extraction process. In addition to the extraction process, we also found that it captures helium. This new helium supply is expected to replace more than 15 percent of the commercial helium that is provided by the Bureau of Land Management. We have all used helium in balloons and to make our voices high and squeaky, but there are industrial, medical, and scientific processes that use helium as well. We need to provide funding to the National Science Foundation and to other scientific research organizations to continue making such discoveries and help keep America strong.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. There are investments that can be made to recycle water and find wasteful leakage. For example, the State of Israel recycles 90 percent of its water. California recycles only 15 percent. Instead, the Republicans have pushed language that results in diminished fish populations and worsens saltwater intrusion, which affects the water being exported that permanently damages some of our most productive farmland in the world. Mr. Speaker, this is not a solution. It is a step backward. I am disappointed with this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Rush. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee, including the chairman of the subcommittee, for their hard work. I am pleased to have several bipartisan measures included in the legislation, including reforming hydropower licensing, addressing efficiency in Federal buildings, enhancing the energy-water nexus, verification of cyber-resilient products for the grid, authorization of water programs, an update of our national policy on the future of the grid, and smart grid-capable labels on products to enhance consumer choice. These are items I believe should remain in any final energy package. Unfortunately, the Republicans have loaded the bill with nonconstructive language. One such provision is language from H.R. 2898 that would harm California's delta and the economies of the families, farmers, and communities I represent. There is no way this language should be part of an energy package. It is just an add-on. It just shows how desperate the Republicans are to push through this bad policy. Because of this, I regretfully oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's energy and electricity systems need upgrades and modernization. Climate change needs to be addressed. The Senate companion bill does not address these issues. So, again, unfortunately, I have to oppose this legislation.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we had a debate last night about a familiar issue-- California's drought. It is something that impacts all of us, including Oregon and Washington State, not just people south of the delta. Unfortunately, H.R. 2898 was included in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, and it is alarming that the House Republicans have tacked the same language onto the energy bill. This shows the desperation of the House Republicans to force this bad legislation through. As I said last night, these provisions would further drain freshwater from the California delta. These provisions would damage the delta's ecosystem and harm the communities I represent. It harms some people to benefit others just because one side has the power to do it. I represent the seventh largest agricultural county in the Nation, so I understand the needs of farmers and ranchers and the impact that water has on the ability to produce the Nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Unfortunately, H.R. 2898 would weaken the Endangered Species Act and set a precedent of undermining environmental protections. It also exacerbates a water war in the West just at a time when we are working to bridge those divides. In fact, the State and Federal agencies have been working effectively over the past few years to maximize water deliveries to the delta to communities down south. Federal and State agencies have maximized what little water exists in the State. A lack of water is our biggest threat, not operational flexibility. Last night we heard about wasted water. What hasn't been said is that water that flows to the ocean pushes the saltwater out away from our farms and allows a path for salmon to the ocean. The majority hasn't reauthorized WaterSmart. They haven't supported investments in recycling. They have cut funding for the Department of the Interior's efforts to boost water assistance. They haven't voted on water infrastructure improvements. How do we prepare for the future either in wet or dry years? This House isn't willing to make those kinds of investments. Our Nation loses approximately 2 trillion gallons of water because of aging infrastructure. That is about 6 billion gallons of water wasted every day.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, California, like much of the West, has been enduring a devastating drought. This affects the livelihoods of families, farmers, and small businesses throughout the State. California's Governor now wants to move forward with something called WaterFix tunnels plan, which will build two massive tunnels to divert water from one part of the State to another. I agree with every other Californian that we need long-term, statewide solutions to our State's water needs. I agree that there needs to be some level of certainty for the families, farmers, and small businesses about our water supply. To do that, we need to focus on conservation, recycling, reuse, storage, and leak detection and fixing. The WaterFix tunnels do none of these things. It creates no new water at all. California voters and the State legislature haven't agreed on whether or not to fund this project, which is expected to exceed at least $25 billion, and that cost keeps rising. In addition, the Federal Government is expected to contribute $4 billion. The cost of this plan is an even more important issue now that the Department of the Interior inspector general has opened an investigation into the possible illegal use of millions of dollars by the California Department of Water Resources in preparing environmental documents for the WaterFix tunnels plan. Instead of funding important habitat improvements, the State administration may be using Federal funds for the tunnel plan that will harm critical habitat for at least five endangered and threatened species. California needs a water solution for the entire State, not one that is too expensive, doesn't create water, and is potentially the source of misappropriated funds. We have to use the funding for projects that make sense for California, that make California resilient and regionally self-sufficient. My amendment will ban the government from funding tunnels taking our water, especially while subject to Federal investigation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is being raised to raise awareness of a very unjust situation. My amendment would ban Federal funding for debt forgiveness to any entity that has been subject to an order finding a violation of the Securities Act of 1933. This is timely because there was a hearing yesterday in the Committee on Natural Resources that included two bills that would affirm a drainage settlement between the United States and Westlands Water District. This settlement would award Federal forgiveness to Westlands, which has violated such an SEC order. These agreements matter because they will result in a $300 million taxpayer giveaway. They also fail to address or solve the extreme water pollution these irrigation districts discharge into the San Joaquin River and California delta estuary. These settlement agreements do not require enough land retirements and provide more access to water, further draining the delta, and there are no real performance standards or oversight if pollution runoff is mismanaged. Considering recent news of the SEC fining Westlands due to its conduct in misleading investors about its financial health, the lack of specific performance standards and enforcement tools makes the current settlement terms even more questionable. My amendment will ban the government from funding the debt forgiveness of these agreements not only because these agreements are bad for California, but no entity should have Federal debt forgiveness when they have violated Federal laws. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chair, I am basically appealing to my colleagues. There are solutions out there. We can find a whole State solution to which all stakeholders have input. Right now that is not what this is. This is pitting one region against the other, and it is going to perpetuate what has been called the California water war. We didn't need to go there. There are solutions.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting an amendment with Representatives Lieu and Garamendi to strike provisions in the underlying legislation that are taken from H.R. 2898. This important appropriations bill contains policy provisions that would further drain freshwater from the California delta with overpumping. These provisions would damage the delta's ecosystem and would cause serious economic harm to the communities we serve. These provisions would undermine 40 years of progress in developing a true stewardship over the land and resources. Since these laws, which have helped make this progress possible, there have been countless attempts to scale back or undo them. The provisions in the bill will weaken the Endangered Species Act and set a precedent of putting aside environmental protections. It misstates California water law and perpetuates a water war in the West at a time when we are working to bridge those divides. Families, farmers, and small businesses north and south of the California delta need water. This is a State issue, not a regional one. Meanwhile, the results for farmers, families, businesses in the delta, as well as fishermen will be devastating. Fish will vanish and saltwater will intrude, permanently damaging some of the most productive farmland in the world. Mr. Chairman, California water use seems to rely on an endless supply of freshwater. Unfortunately, there is only a finite amount of freshwater. Historically, in limited water conditions, water has been taken from one region to supply another region. The Owens Valley and the Colorado River are perfect examples of what happens--one region benefits and another region suffers. That is exactly what is going to happen here. The delta region will suffer. Is that what we really want? Mr. Chairman, California and Federal officials have been able to increase exports from the California delta. This action has helped maximize use of what little water exists in the State. A lack of water is our biggest threat, not operational flexibility. It is completely inappropriate for a policy of this magnitude to be included in an annual must-pass appropriations bill. We should not be using an appropriations bill to ram through misguided policies that reward a few powerful stakeholders at the expense of others. This bill should not be included in this year's Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that amends a portion of the bill not yet read for amendment. I ask unanimous consent to offer it at this point in the reading.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, we hear about water being wasted in its going out to the ocean, but that water is pushing saltwater away from our farms and the delta. It is allowing salmon fish to go out to the ocean. It is providing jobs all up and down the coast. I don't really accept the word ``waste.'' I implore my colleagues from southern California: let's work together. There are solutions out there. We can recycle; we can store rainwater; we can become more efficient and find wastage and stop evaporations. There are plenty of things we can do to produce new water. These provisions in this bill produce no new water. It just serves one portion of the State to benefit another. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio. Mr. Chair, I just want to follow up on a few things. We talked about water that goes out to the ocean as being wasted. Again, the delta is becoming more salty every year. We have been exporting 70 percent of the freshwater that comes to the delta. The saltwater has been intruding. We need the freshwater to push out that saltwater for the fishermen who live up and down the coast. I feel for the farmers who are in the south part of the valley--it is devastating; it is horrible--but we also see the same thing happening with fishermen on the north coast. Basically, we are doing the same thing that has been done historically. At Owens Valley, we are going to take water from one part of the State, and we are going to give it to another. We are going to benefit one part, and we are going to hurt another. That is not the way to do business. We can find comprehensive solutions that include infrastructure investments, recycling, WaterSMART projects. There are ways to create new water. We don't have to keep grabbing water from one another to grow fruits and vegetables or to have fishermen survive on the north coast.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), I offer an amendment.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would increase funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $2 million for the SuperTruck II program. The SuperTruck program was started by the Department of Energy to improve freight and heavy duty vehicle efficiency. The Committee on Appropriations acknowledged in their committee report the success of the SuperTruck II program but recommended only $20 million of the requested $60 million for the SuperTruck II program to further improve efficiency in these vehicles. SuperTruck II will continue dramatic improvements in the efficiency of heavy-duty class 8 long-haul and regional-haul vehicles through system-level improvements. These improvements include hybridization, more efficient idling, and high efficiency HVAC technologies. By increasing the funding for the SuperTruck II program by $2 million, it will allow the Department of Energy to better achieve their freight efficiency goals. This amendment is fully offset by a decrease in the departmental administration account. I thank my colleague, Steve Cohen, for his continued work on this important issue. I would also like to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.