Jerry McNerney

Mr. McNERNEY

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

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward but addresses a critical issue affecting the economy, the environment, and the health of the delta as well as other regions throughout the State. This amendment adds water hyacinth to the list of invasive species to be considered for a pilot project established by the bill. The water hyacinth is an extremely invasive weed that has taken over the delta. Take a look at the picture. This channel is completely blocked over by the weed. It can double in size every 10 days. It has seeds that remain buried in sediment and remain viable for 20 years. It is difficult to remove mechanically and to manage through pesticides. The result is what you see here in this picture. It clogs waterways, preventing the movement of water through the delta. It negatively affects farmers, recreational opportunities, and disrupts the national ecosystem. These effects have only been worsened by the drought. I represent the Port of Stockton. This is the third largest inland port in the Nation. The hyacinth affects traffic in and out of the port, preventing navigation of the channels at night because of ships that can't navigate between the weeds, the levees, and smaller vessels. This causes unreasonable delays and costs importers approximately $200,000 in additional expenses per year. Last year alone, the port had to remove more than 2 million tons of the plants. Even Stockton's Christmas lighted boat parade had to be canceled for the first time in its 35-year history. Eradicating this invasive species will take a holistic approach, involving stakeholders at all levels. I have heard from the marina owners, farmers, environmental organizations, and local communities on how the water hyacinth continues to impact their lives on a daily basis. I was fortunate enough to help secure $1 million in Federal funding to help an existing effort between Federal, State, and local partners focused on managing the water hyacinth infestation, but these efforts are just the beginning. This amendment ensures that we continue building off the current work. I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. DeSaulnier, and Mr. Costa, for joining me on this amendment. I urge its adoption. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my colleague.

Mr. McNERNEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. McNERNEY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, homeownership is one of the cornerstones of the American Dream; yet, since the 2007 housing crisis, millions of Americans have lost their homes through the foreclosure process, and many more continue to struggle. Addressing foreclosures and short sales is critical. Accelerating the short sale process for homeowners would be part of the solution. Unfortunately, in California and across the country, one of the most significant factors that slows down the short sale process takes place when a homeowner's second mortgage lender delays final negotiations on the short sale; and too often, second mortgage lenders use stonewalling tactics to delay payouts from the first mortgage lenders. This, unfortunately, delays and hurts the homeowners, willing buyers, and the economy at large. After further investigation on this issue, I will be introducing a bill to address short sales and ask the Federal Housing Finance Agency to provide an update on what it is doing to facilitate short sales and protect homeowners.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, during a severe drought crisis, such as the one now in California, we must focus on solutions that create water and maintain a clean water supply. That is why I am stressing how crucial the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds are. Clean and safe water is essential for our homes, farms, and businesses. These funds help finance projects that treat domestic sewage, capture stormwater run-off, and deliver drinking water to homes and businesses. SFR programs are the only low-cost loans available for many small- and medium-sized communities to finance clean water infrastructure. Every dollar that we invest in water infrastructure comes back to our economy six times over. Cutting the SFR programs will have a crippling effect on our communities' abilities to meet water needs. Republicans say they support drought relief. But, in reality, they have cut desperately needed funds for both these programs, a 23 percent cut in the House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill being debated today. Congress must provide necessary funding to maintain our Nation's aging water infrastructure. Our communities depend upon it.

Mr. McNERNEY

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

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, although I had planned to withdraw my amendment, I feel it is important to discuss the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and the benefits these funds provide to our Nation. Droughts are becoming more severe, which is putting an incredible strain on our water supply in California, and in my district, where we are experiencing a historic drought for the last 4 years. We have to manage our available water in smart and efficient ways. We lose an estimated 7 billion gallons of water a day from leaking pipes, with some cities losing as much as 30 percent of their water. At the same time, these cracks expose the water supply to an increasing number of waterborne diseases and contaminants. This means utilities face considerable challenges as they try to provide both adequate and safe drinking water to families and businesses. Upgrading our infrastructure would save trillions of gallons of water a year and make our water safer to drink, but the best part is that, according to the American Water Works Association, there are already enough shovel-ready water projects around the United States that would create work for more than 400,000 Americans, including almost 90,000 direct construction jobs. These are jobs that would be welcomed with open arms in our towns and cities across the United States. Our Nation's water infrastructure is in desperate need of repair. According to an infrastructure needs survey by the EPA, nearly $335 billion worth of repairs, upgrades, and replacements are needed by water systems in the next 20 years to continue providing safe drinking water and protecting public health. Almost $300 billion is needed to repair and replace wastewater and storm water pipes and treatment plants. Furthermore, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies estimate that utilities will need to spend $448 billion to $944 billion by 2050 just to deal with climate change impacts. Considering the significant water infrastructure needs our country is facing, the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds have never been more important. These funds help finance projects that handle and treat domestic sewage and storm water and deliver drinking water to homes and businesses. These infrastructure investments also create jobs and have a positive impact on the economy well beyond the amount spent. Unfortunately, the bill proposes significant--and I want to repeat that--significant reductions to drinking water SFRs and over a $400 million cut in the Clean Water Act sewage treatment SFRs. The Nation's water infrastructure needs already exceed the available funding, and cutting the revolving funds by this much means that a greater number of deserving community projects will not be able to get done. This approach will only imperil our infrastructure and our healthy communities that it helps foster. Congress should commit to providing the necessary funding to maintain and upgrade our Nation's ailing water infrastructure and make sure that the green infrastructure is a critical part of that process. My State of California is doing its best to cope with a severe and ongoing drought, and Congress must do its best to fund and support the needed infrastructure and water quality enhancements that preserve our precious water resources and create a sustainable system. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. McNERNEY

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

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the chairman's thoughtful remarks and his concern about the effects of the clean power plan. My recommendation is that, if a delay is required, let's just introduce a specific delay, 1 year or 2 years. Introducing a bill that requires all the judicial matters to be settled before a plan can come into effect is just too vague. It doesn't make sense. I think it will do a lot more damage. What we are asking for is that the States and the local authorities produce a reliability plan so that they will understand the effects of the clean power plan. It is really a compromise position. If we want to move forward, then, let's adopt a compromise. If we want to make a message bill, let's move forward with the existing plan. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to commend my colleague from Kentucky on his efforts to protect consumers and ratepayers. I share that goal. However, we also need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and we can protect customers, consumers, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously. My amendment is intended as a compromise that is practical and would both protect consumers and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I worked in the energy industry for two decades before coming to Congress. I worked with the utilities sector, with the national laboratories, and with other stakeholders. I know these issues. I have been on the ground. So I can appreciate the need for a secure, reliable electric grid. I clearly understand the need for certainty and flexibility. That is one of the reasons I cofounded the bipartisan Grid Innovation Caucus, to help address the pressing issues affecting our Nation's electric grid. We are focusing on hardening the grid, protecting against cyber threats, responsiveness to extreme weather events, and ensuring grid reliability and resiliency. H.R. 2042 will stop the EPA's proposed clean power plan and proposed ozone standard from taking effect. This would sharply limit our Nation's ability to address climate change and the growing negative consequences it has on public health and our economy. To address this, my amendment will make two changes: First, it strikes section 2 of the bill, which prevents any rule from taking place until all litigation is complete. That provision would add considerable uncertainty to the entire process and introduce a significant precedent into the Federal rulemaking process. If a delay is appropriate, let's introduce a simple delay. Second, my amendment replaces the ability of States to opt out of the plan with the requirement that the State public utility commissions or public service commissions, as well as the appropriate electric reliability organization, issue reliability analyses on any State or Federal plan. In this bill's current form, allowing States to opt out of the Federal law would create a significant barrier to Federal authority. The analysis that my amendment calls for must include effects on regional electric reliability and resource adequacy, operation of wholesale electric markets, transmission and distribution infrastructure, and projected electricity demands. Federal agencies have varied expertise and missions and not all are equipped to properly assess potential impacts that a rule may have on a particular industry. Consequently, we need collaboration at all levels. In a letter to the EPA earlier this year, FERC stated that working together with the EPA, ISOs, RTOs, and the States will be essential as plans are developed. FERC wrote that, ``its rate jurisdiction, at times, has effects on reliability issues. But, reliability also depends on factors beyond the Commission's jurisdiction, such as State authority over local distribution and integrated resource planning.'' So I think it is an overstatement to claim that the clean power plan or the ozone standard would be the sole cause of impacts on rates or reliability. My amendment mirrors FERC's comments and ensures that an independent analysis is conducted by experts who deal with the grid on a daily basis because the EPA is not an expert on grid reliability. If we want to add safeguards to add transparency and accountability, we need to ensure that States and regions have their voices heard. A practical way to accomplish that is by having the PUC and ISO submit a reliability report to the EPA. Grid reliability is a bipartisan issue. If my amendment is adopted, it will help move the ball forward on this important issue. If not, H.R. 2042 will just be another messaging bill that the President will almost certainly veto. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Charles Robert ``Bob'' Provine, Jr., upon the joyous occasion of his 90th birthday, which will be celebrated with his family, friends, and church family on June 25th in Antioch, California. Born on June 25, 1925 in Redwood City, CA, Bob is a decorated World War II veteran with a remarkable life of service, both to his community and to our country. He moved to Antioch, CA as a toddler, where he remains to this day. Shortly before graduating from Antioch High School in 1943, Bob enlisted in the Army Air Corps. After receiving his Army training, he was sent to Camp Shanks. It was here that he boarded the RMS Queen Elizabeth for transport to the Port of Southampton, England. Upon arrival, he immediately boarded an Army Landing Ship, Tank to cross the English Channel to the LeHarve Replacement Depot, France. He left LeHarve on one of the famous ``40's and 8's,'' the same French boxcars that a generation of American Soldiers had ridden in while in France during World War I. Upon arrival in Metz, France, he was assigned as a replacement to General George Patton's Third Army, and served in the 94th Infantry, 376th Infantry Regiment. During the war, Bob saw combat action in Germany and served in the occupation of Czechoslovakia and Germany. In recognition of his service to our nation Bob was awarded the Combat Infantry Badge and the Bronze Star. Bob returned home to Antioch and married Alice ``Corky'' Christ. They were married for more than 30 years before Corky passed away in 1984. Bob and Corky adopted two daughters, Cathy Kolb and Linda Ward, who blessed them with four grandchildren: John C. Kolb, Alicia A. Kolb, Brandon J. Merenda, and Breanna M. Meierdiercks; and three great grandchildren: John C. Kolb, Jr., Autumn Kolb, and Brandon M. Merenda. A fourth great grandson from Breanna and Brian Meierdiercks is expected in October. During his 90 years, Bob always worked to help others and to build his community. He watched Antioch grow from a small town of a few thousand residents to a city of more than 100,000. He has served his community well as a former volunteer firefighter, and for many years at the Antioch Historical Society where he enjoys telling stories about the ``old days'' in Antioch. Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in honoring Bob Provine for his service to his community and our great nation, and in wishing him a happy birthday and best wishes for continued health and happiness.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I am going to talk about campaign finance reform. First of all, though, I want to say that the United States of America is the greatest country in the world. You can see by our economic dominance, by our cultural dominance, and by our military power. But we face some very big challenges. Unless we are able to tackle those challenges, our dominance may be in peril. Some of those challenges are climate change, global competitiveness. We need to make sure our manufacturing is up to par and can compete with any country on Earth. We have a vanishing middle class, which is very devastating to our country. We have a crumbling infrastructure. We also need to work on our educational system. But I can tell you, it is very difficult to attack any of these problems in a serious way with the current system of campaign financing. So let me go over some of the problems with campaign financing in our current system: First of all, you can see on the list here, campaign financing makes elected officials less effective because of the amount of time that we must spend raising money for the next election, which leaves less time to work on the issues that need to move our country forward. The campaign money fuels negative campaign ads that turn off voters and suppress vote turnout. Campaign financing causes wasteful government spending on programs that big donors want to see out there. The threat of negative campaign adds--and this is very corrosive-- causes elected officials to avoid taking stands and leadership on important issues, and this reduces the effectiveness of our government institutions. Nowadays, even our judicial races are becoming expensive and tainted by the influence of money. Next, people have become cynical about the government and disillusioned about the United States of America because, in part, of negative advertising. Next, the super-PACs and dark money coming into campaigns are no longer controlled by the candidates on the ballot. Lastly--and I think this is very important--excessive election spending drowns out free speech. If you look at campaign ads, what is happening is that the Big Money comes in, buys all the campaign ad time on TV, and floods our mailboxes with literature. People are only going to listen to so much campaign rhetoric, so they turn it off. The people with the most money are the ones who are listened to, and the ideas of the folks without much money are never heard. They don't ever get very far. I think this is a very critical issue. We see the problems that we have with the current system; but how do we change it? There are some very big challenges that we face in terms of changing the current campaign financing system. First of all, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has shown a very strong bias in the last decade or so toward putting more money in politics. That is right. The Supreme Court has made it so that more money is coming into politics and election campaigns every single year. The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same free speech rights as people, allowing corporations to use their treasuries to finance campaigns. I can't think of anything that would be more corrosive to campaigns than to see a plethora of corporate and union money coming in with no controls and controlling the message. In fact, just this year, the Republicans in the House and the Senate passed legislation that increases the total that an individual American citizen can contribute to political parties almost by a factor of 10, going from $35,000 to $300,000, so an individual can donate $300,000 to a political campaign; yet there is significant public support for taking money out of politics. According to a June 2015 New York Times-CBS poll, 84 percent of Americans say money has too much influence in politics, and 85 percent of those surveyed said that the campaign financing system should be either completely rebuilt or fundamentally changed. The growth of money in politics represents a threat to our cherished democratic institutions that were built by our Founding Fathers. This is not what the American people want for our democracy. It is critical to inform the American public about what is happening and what can be done about the problem. There are reform options of two kinds. The first kind is legislative reform actions, and there are three or four types of those. The first and most important is disclosure and transparency, and then there are constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments are very hard to pass, but they are not subject to be overturned by the Supreme Court. I have a proposed constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 31, which will do away with PACs and super-PACs. I hope the American public will examine those alternatives and decide what they want to see because our system is in desperate need of change.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the service of Charles ``Bob'' Provine, Jr., on his 95th birthday today. Originally born in Redwood City, California, Bob's family moved to the town of Antioch when he was 1 year old, initially living in a tent. After working with the U.S. Army as a civilian firefighter during his junior year in high school, he enlisted in the United States Army during the Second World War, serving with the 376th Infantry Regiment, 94th Division. During this time, Bob saw combat action in Germany and served in the occupation of Czechoslovakia and Germany, finally coming home to Antioch. After serving our great Nation at war, Bob served his community in peace as a volunteer firefighter and, for many years, as a volunteer at the public library. Bob saw Antioch grow from 35,000 to over 100,000 people. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Bob Provine for his service to his community and to our great Nation.

Mr. McNERNEY

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

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the gentleman. I don't know of anyone who has more integrity in this institution than you do, so I am honored that you would come down here and talk with me tonight about this important issue. Now, the American people, as far as I can tell, are clearly in favor of reducing campaign money, campaign spending. I have some Gallup Poll numbers here that were taken by The Huffington Post from November 7 through November 9, 2014, which was during the last election or right after the last election. The first question: Would you support or oppose amending the Constitution to give Congress more power to create restrictions on campaign spending? In favor of that was 53 percent; opposed was 23 percent; and not sure was 22 percent. So it was a very strong majority in favor of a constitutional amendment like I am going to discuss in a little while. The second question: Do you think limiting contributions to political campaigns helps to prevent corruption in politics, or does it have no impact on corruption? The question is will corruption be curtailed by limiting campaign spending. The answer that it helps prevent corruption: 52 percent; no impact on corruption: 28 percent; and not sure: 20 percent. Again, people feel strongly about this issue. The last question that I will read is: Which of the following statements do you agree with more: Elections are generally won by the candidate who raises the most money? The answer is 59 percent of Americans believe that; 18 percent don't believe that; and 23 percent are unsure. So I think this is a strong issue that we should be talking about. How do we move forward? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appears to have a strong bias toward more money in politics, and it has consistently issued rulings to that effect. The Supreme Court even sought out, they even asked for, the infamous Citizens United case to be brought forward to them. Then, ultimately, they ruled that corporations have the same rights--free speech--as individual citizens do, as individual people do. The meaning of that decision is that corporations can use their treasuries to finance campaigns. I can't think of anything more corrosive or destructive to our democracy than that. The system was already bad before the Citizens United decision, but this thing made it much worse. Unfortunately, the Citizens United decision is just one of a series of decisions that allows more and more money into politics, and I truly believe that this is a threat to our cherished democratic and republican institutions. This trend is not confined to the Supreme Court. Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled Senate, in concurrence with the Republican- controlled House of Representatives, passed legislation that increased the total individuals could contribute to political parties by a factor of 10--going from $35,000 to over $300,000. What can we do about it? The good news is that there are really a number of very good ideas that have been proposed, and I think it is important for us to go over some of those ideas. My friend Walter Jones has mentioned John Sarbanes' idea, and I will go into that in a little bit of detail. But there are others, and I think it is important that the American people be aware of some of these proposals out there and what they might offer and to let them decide, let the American people decide. Do they want to see a legislative approach like John Sarbanes' great approach?--I support it--or a constitutional amendment like mine and others that I will bring up as we go forward tonight? These proposals all have merit. They are all worth studying and thinking about, and I would be happy to support any of the ones that I am going to talk about this evening and to consider other ones that may not have been brought forward yet. The proposals, again, fall into two categories-- legislative proposals and constitutional amendments. Legislative proposals are a little bit easier to enact, but they are subject to Supreme Court and lower court overturning. So you can work hard, and you can get it passed and then have the Supreme Court or some other court overturn it. The constitutional amendment has a very high bar. It is very difficult to get a constitutional amendment passed, and it should be. You don't want people just willy-nilly passing an amendment to change the Constitution. It requires a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives, a two-thirds vote in the Senate, and three-quarters of the State legislatures throughout the country to pass that amendment for it to become part of the Constitution; but once it becomes part of the Constitution, the courts can't touch it. They can interpret it, but they can't overturn it. There is legislation that I would like to talk about, but some of my colleagues who were going to be here tonight couldn't be because of a change in schedule. I think one of the important approaches, mostly championed by Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, is the disclosure and transparency approach, which is that people who donate ought to be disclosed quickly and broadly so that people know where money is coming from. That is a very important idea. Also, Government By the People, John Sarbanes' approach, which I will talk about in a little while; and there is also legislation that would create public finance, and I think that is a very good approach, too. There are two constitutional amendments, one by Donna Edwards, a colleague of mine from Maryland, that overturns Citizens United, and there is one by Ted Deutch, a colleague of mine from Florida. Ted Deutch from Florida would basically allow Congress to enact laws on campaign financing that could not be overturned by the Supreme Court. I think that is a good approach. I support that. In theory, it has got a beauty to it. Then there is my approach, which basically would eliminate PACs and do other things. I would like to talk in some detail about my resolution now, and we will get the board up to talk about it. This is called H.J. Res. 31, and again, it is a proposed constitutional amendment. As you can see, it has four parts. The first part, I think, is probably the most important, and it says basically that money that comes in to political election campaigns to support or oppose a candidate for office can only come from individual citizens and only go to the campaign controlled by the candidate or the principal campaign controlled by the candidate or from a system of public election financing. So what does that mean? That means that when money comes in, it can only come from individual citizens. It can't come from corporations; it can't come from any other sources. It just comes from individual citizens, and it can only go to the campaign controlled by the candidate. That means that it can't go to political action committees, PACs; it can't go to super-PACs; it can't be dark money. The only money that can influence elections directly or indirectly to support or oppose a candidate has to come from individual citizens. It has to go only to the candidate, to the campaign controlled by the candidate. That is a very strong requirement. It is probably the strongest requirement out there right now, but I think it is important. By the way, the first requirement applies to elections for individual candidates at all levels of government, from the President on down to the Congress, the Senate, State governments, city governments, and so on. The second measure is similar to the first. This requirement, money to support or oppose a State ballot initiative to change a State constitution or for other purposes can only come from individuals who are able to vote for the measure or from a system of public election financing. I think that is important because you have ballot initiatives in my home State of California, for example, and you see millions of dollars coming in from out of State. Why would somebody from out of State have an opportunity to influence a State ballot initiative in California? I think it is wrong, and I think that this would take care of that problem. The third requirement is that Congress, the States, and the local jurisdictions must establish limits that an individual can contribute to any one election campaign, including limits on the amount a candidate may contribute to his or her own campaign. Now, for that particular requirement, we already have that in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. The limit at this point in time is $2,700 per election. So every time your voters can go to the booth for you, people can contribute, individuals can contribute $2,700, so the primary election and the general election. In the House of Representatives elections are every 2 years, so you can collect an amount of $5,400 over the election cycle for your campaign. Now, if you collect $5,400 before the primary and you lose the primary, then you are going to have to give back the money that was donated for the general election. So that would be you would have to give $2,700 back to the donors that gave that to you. Also, it is important that it requires governments to limit the amount a candidate can spend on their own campaign. Some of our candidates are extremely wealthy. They have millions or hundreds of millions or more. They can buy their seat in Congress easily, and this would limit that. I think, again, this is very, very important. The last is probably one of the more controversial of the four, but it says that the total of contributions to a candidate's campaign from individuals who are not able to vote for the candidate cannot be greater than the total of contributions from individuals who can vote for the candidate. Now, geographically what that would mean is that money coming from outside of your congressional district, or from your State if you are a Senator, can't exceed money that comes from inside your district if you are a congressional candidate or State if you are a Senator. It wouldn't affect the Presidential race as much because everybody in the United States is in the President's district, but it would also affect local districts as well. With that, that wraps up the discussion of my proposed constitutional amendment. I want to talk a little bit about John Sarbanes' bill, and I think it is a fine bill. It is not a constitutional amendment. What it does is it gives you a tax credit for money that you can contribute to a campaign. So if you can contribute $50 to a campaign, then you get a tax credit of $50, which means money back on your income tax return; the same amount that you contribute, you get back. But also it matches that contribution by 6 to 1. So you will end up giving the candidate quite a bit more than you are actually contributing. It is a good measure. It is a good proposal. It would sort of even out the effect of PACs. I find myself supporting that. Again, my colleague, Ted Deutch, has a couple of constitutional amendments in the 114th Congress. One of them is called Democracies for All, H.J. Res. 119, and also H.J. Res. 22 that creates funding limits and creates a distinction between individuals and corporations, but what it really does is allows Congress to limit, to enact laws that will be enforceable and not overturned by the Supreme Court. We have Van Hollen in the 114th Congress, H.R. 430, and what this does is it requires disclosure so that when campaign contributions are made, we can determine who made those contributions--very important. I think it would make a big difference. Then we have a number of proposals to create public financing. My colleague from Kentucky, John Yarmuth, had one in the 113th Congress, Fair Elections Now Act. In the 114th Congress, which is this Congress, David Price has H.R. 424, which establishes a system of public financing. These are all good. I think I would be supportive of any of these kinds of approaches. I think the American public needs to be protected. I think our cherished Democratic and Republican institutions are a threat here, whether it is because candidates are bombarded by negative ads, whether it is because candidates are influenced by big donors, whether it is because more and more money is coming in to these elections every single cycle. There is a lot of reasons why we need to look at campaign financing and select one of these approaches and go with it and change the system that we have to a system that really does respond to the American public. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk a little bit about spending today, like my friend and colleague from Arizona, but I am going to talk about spending of a different kind. I am going to talk about campaign spending. Campaign spending is quite an issue, and I want to spend about an hour or less talking about its effect, and I want to talk about some of the solutions that we have out there that might make a big difference. First, I want to say I truly believe in my heart of hearts that the United States of America is the greatest country in the world, probably the greatest country that the world has ever seen and may see in the future. You can just see that by some of the markers. The notions of freedom that this country has had in the past have inspired nations; they have inspired individuals around the world. Our economic strength is unrivaled. Our cultural influence reaches every corner of the world. Our military power is absolutely unrivaled. However, again, I truly believe that we can do better, and I will tell you some of the big challenges that we are facing right now, that if we take on these challenges, we will even be a greater Nation. First of all, we need massive investments in our Nation's infrastructure, our highways, our bridges, our ports, our airports. We need it in our broadband. We just need a massive amount of investment in our Nation's infrastructure. Our Nation's education is falling behind. Yes, we have some of the greatest schools, some of the greatest universities in the entire world, some of our public schools, some of our charter schools and private schools unrivaled; but there are a lot of schools that are struggling and producing students that really can't compete in today's world. We need to do immigration reform. We have 12, 15 million people in this country that are undocumented that live in the shadows that may or may not pay taxes that contribute to our economy but are always afraid of being deported. We have climate change. Climate change is here; it is progressing; it is going to get worse. We need to do something about it as soon as possible. We have a vanishing middle class. There is a huge disparity in incomes between the richest and the poorest in this country, and it is increasing. Our middle class is vanishing. They are feeling more and more insecure. They are unable to send their kids to college. We have a huge challenge in that regard. We have a need to establish background checks for purchase of weapons and to close the gun show loopholes. We need to create a sustainable economy. These are huge challenges that we need to attend from the Congress, from this body, from the House of Representatives, from the United States Senate, from the State legislatures, from local governments; but we are unable to attack these problems, in a large part, because of the way campaigns are financed. Now, we see a growing perversion of Presidential campaigns. We have super-PACs. We have dark donors, and they are having meetings with Presidential candidates, which are allowed by the laws because the candidates are not official candidates. No one knows what is legal and enforceable right now in Presidential candidate financing; and worse than that, foreign money is probably coming into all of these campaigns now. I just want to say elections up and down the ballot are being more and more perverted each election. All Americans should be concerned. While I was waiting to speak this evening, I just read an article in the National Journal Daily today that stated: ``According to data gathered in 21 states by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, $175 million was spent by them in 2006''--that is local politics; that is city council and school boards--``a number that ballooned to $245 million four years later.'' That is a delta of $70 million increases in local campaign financing in just 4 years, and that is a fraction of the total expected to be spent in future local races. Before I go further, what I would like to do is take a break and yield to my friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). He wants to say a few words.

Mr. McNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Jones. I just want to point out, again, that this is bipartisan. Mr. Jones is a Republican; I am a Democrat. We both see the corrosive influence of money here in Washington, and we want to do something about it. A lot of our colleagues agree with us wholeheartedly but are actually afraid to say it. They are afraid to get up here because they know, if they do, they are going to be targeted by this special interest money, by super-PAC money, by dark money. The sad thing is that you don't know that it is coming. You could be running a good, solid, healthy campaign arguing the issues and, all of a sudden, see a $2 million television ad against you, and they would be going after you for very personal misleading ads, which could destroy you and your family, for no reason other than you don't want to see so much money in campaign spending. Let me look at some of the specific risks and problems that we see today because of the way campaigns are financed. First of all, campaign financing makes elected officials less effective in their jobs because of the time you have to spend raising money. Here in Congress, it is not unusual to see a Member of Congress spend 2, 4, 6 hours a day on the phone, begging people for money. That lessens your effectiveness. You can't spend the time you should be spending on studying legislation, in talking to colleagues, in finding ways to compromise on issues. The second item is negative campaign ads turn off voters and suppress votes. Boy, we saw in this last election a turnout of 40 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent in some districts, and a lot of that has to do with the negativity that people see on TV. They don't know what to believe. They think they are both bums, and they just close their noses and vote for the least worse or they don't vote at all. That is the second. The effect of campaign financing makes for wasteful government spending. This is an issue that, I think, folks like my predecessor here tonight was talking about. The Tea Party folks should be interested in this issue because the way campaigns are financed causes wasteful government spending. Boy, I will tell you that I sympathize with the Tea Party objectives. Government seems big. It seems wasteful. It seems loaded. It seems ineffective. There is wasteful spending. There are projects that shouldn't be funded. A lot of that has to do with the way campaigns are financed. The next one is a big one. This is important. It is kind of what I mentioned before. It is the threat of negative campaign ads causes elected officials to avoid important and controversial issues: Now, I do not care if you are a Republican or a Democrat. If you are a Republican, you have risk in your primary elections. If you are a Democrat, it is of big money coming in and trying to trash you personally in election campaigns. If you are a Democrat, you have more risk coming in in general elections. So it doesn't matter what party you are in. It doesn't matter whether you are conservative or liberal. The way campaigns are financed is causing our government to be wasteful, and it is causing it to be ineffective. I think that needs to be improved. There is another problem that I mentioned earlier. Foreign money is coming into these campaigns now. Do you want to see foreigners, do you want to see folks from Russia or from China or from any country besides the United States having an influence on our elections? The amount of money coming into elections continues to grows election by election. We had $6.2 million in 2010 versus $3 billion in 2012. I think I have gotten a million or a billion mixed up there. Sorry about that. Elected officials respond more to wealthy donors than they do to nonwealthy donors. It is simply a matter of access. Someone gives you money, and they are more likely to have access, and that means that you are more likely to be sympathetic to their legislative goals. Judicial races are getting more expensive and tainted as well. Do you want to have a judge in a case that you may be bringing to court to have gotten his seat or her seat because of the way the campaign finance trashed his opponent? I do not think so. In general, people have become very cynical about government because of the negative advertising, and people lose faith in our government. To have the greatest country in the world and the things that this country has accomplished--the innovation, the science, the freedoms that we have established throughout the world--and then have people cynical about our government because of the campaign financing is more than a tragedy. Campaign spending is a zero-sum game. Let me tell you what I mean by that. Consider that you are in a meeting. You have got a 1 hour, and you have got 12 people, so everyone has 5 minutes to speak. Now, what if somebody takes 10 minutes? Then somebody else is going to lose out. Campaignspeak is like that too because people in this country are only willing to listen to a certain amount of campaign rhetoric, and then after that point, they turn off their minds. They don't want to hear any more. The folks with the biggest money get out there. They fill the airwaves, and they fill your mailboxes, and they have people knock on your doors. Pretty soon, you don't want to hear any more, so the guy with the lesser money is losing freedom of speech. So I think it is a freedom of speech issue. Those are some of the issues I have. With PACs and Super PACs and dark money--this is an interesting one-- campaigns are no longer going to be controlled by the candidates. You could have a situation in which Super PACs and PACs have five times more money than the candidate himself or herself, in which case they are controlling all of the levers in the campaign. So those are some of the issues that, I think, are caused by the excessive spending in our campaigns. I again yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) to take up the case here.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Wenstrup and Ranking Member Takano for their continued work on behalf of our Nation's veterans and for bringing these commonsense bills to the floor today. Small businesses are the economic drivers in our communities, and we must give them opportunities they need to grow and prosper. Veteran entrepreneurs, in particular, are some of the most apt at starting, managing, and growing small businesses. In the United States, there are about 5 million veteran-owned businesses and an estimated 500,000 service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. A service-disabled veteran-owned small business is one that must be at least 51 percent directly owned and controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans. The Federal Government established procurement contracting goals for small businesses in 1978 and set aside 3 percent of the total value of all Federal contracts for veteran-owned small businesses. Although some Federal agencies meet these goals, there are no penalties for not meeting the 3 percent small business procurement goal. The VA is diligent, on the other hand, in meeting this goal. Under current law, if a veteran who was rated 100 percent disabled and owned a service-disabled veteran-owned small business passes away, the surviving spouse has 10 years to transition the business away from service-disabled veteran-owned small business status for contracts that the company has with the VA. However, if the veteran businessowner was rated at less than 100 percent disabled or dies of a nonservice-connected injury, the surviving spouse has only 1 year to transition the business for contracts with the VA. Unfortunately, this is not enough transition time for service- disabled veteran-owned small businesses whose owner passes away and was rated at less than 100 percent disabled to reposition the business, putting many service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses at a disadvantage. We need to correct this deficiency in the law. That is why I introduced H.R. 1313, the Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Relief Act. My bill allows the service-disabled veteran-owned small business, whose principal owner passes away and was rated at less than 100 percent disabled at the time of death, with a reasonable 3-year transition period from service-disabled veteran-owned small business status with the VA. It is only right that we provide our heroes and their families and the employees with flexibility and certainty to ensure their businesses continue to thrive. The loss of a veteran businessowner is already tragic enough for their families and can put service-disabled veteran- owned small businesses at severe risk of closing or downsizing because of the loss of Federal contracts. H.R. 1313 is supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, The American Legion, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. In addition, the VA said, at a subcommittee hearing on March 24 of this year, that the bill is a reasonable approach. I hope that my colleagues will join me in passing this commonsense bill and support veteran-owned small businesses across the country.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Office of Technology Assessment, the OTA. For 22 years, the OTA was a key nonpartisan resource for Congress as it dealt with scientific and technical policy issues. The OTA was overseen by a Technical Advisory Board composed of six Senators and six Representatives, evenly split between the two parties. The OTA was able to provide easy-to-understand explanations of complex scientific issues. For example, in 1988, the OTA provided a study called ``Healthy Children: Investing in the Future,'' showing that infants with low birth weights were more susceptible to a variety of physical and mental disabilities. This study helped change Medicaid eligibility rules by expanding access to prenatal care to millions of women, saving lives and taxpayer money. This, and other reports, provided the information needed to make reasonable policy based on scientific results. This Congress needs scientific guidance, and I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for the reestablishment of the Office of Technology Assessment.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Dent and Ranking Member Bishop for all their hard work on this year's military construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill. I know that both of you had to make difficult decisions to get under the current financial constraints. The President's budget included $1.4 billion in funding for VA major construction projects. Unfortunately, this bill only includes $561 million, which is $582 million less than the request. This severely impacts access to care for veterans. My amendment increases the VA major construction by $177 million, although I would still prefer to restore full funding for major construction with the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request. The amendment is offset by reductions to the VA administration IT accounts, bringing them in line with the fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. In addition, the general operating expenses account would be reduced by $27 million. However, my amendment will ensure that more VA construction projects are funded, including the outpatient clinic and national cemetery in Alameda, California, and a 187,000-square-foot community-based outpatient clinic in French Camp, California. Without this funding, more than 87,000 veterans in and around my district will have to continue to wait for the quality medical care that they have earned. For example, I recently drove with a veteran to the nearest VA medical center. His appointment was only 30 minutes, but including travel, it took us 8 hours. It took all day. This cannot continue. The VA buildings are an average of 60 years old. Since 2004, use of Department facilities has risen 80 percent to 120 percent, while the condition of these facilities deteriorated over the same period of time. There are more than 3,900 infrastructure gaps that will cost between $54 billion and $66 billion to close, including $10 billion in activation costs. Moreover, the Veterans Health Administration has over 21 major construction projects dating to 2007 that have been only partially funded. To complete existing projects and to close future gaps, the VA will need to invest at least $23 billion over the next 10 years. At current requested funding levels, it will take more than 67 years to complete the 10-year capital investment plan of the Department. Our brave men and women deserve access to the best healthcare system our Nation has to offer, and that is the VA healthcare system. Not adequately funding our future construction projects is a disservice to our Nation's heroes. Now I share my colleagues' outrage at the VA boondoggle in Aurora, Colorado. This is unacceptable to taxpayers, to veterans and their families, and an embarrassment to the VA. While we are all frustrated with how this process has gone, further funding reductions to major construction does not help build additional facilities on schedule, fails to provide additional oversight of construction projects, and does nothing to reform VA construction processes. I am pleased that both the chairman and ranking member recognize the need to address this issue and have included important language to that effect, but there is still more work to be done, and that is something we plan to address in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In addition, the VA announced last week that it is working with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify projects in which the Corps will serve as the construction agent. The VA and the Corps are still working on the exact projects and criteria, but this is a step in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustration, really, but cutting funding right now to these projects doesn't solve the problem. It is hurting our veterans. We need to think outside of that box. Let's focus on improving our construction process and not punishing the veterans across the country because of what occurred in Denver. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Brain Awareness Week. Last week, neuroscientists from around the world reached out to students and the public with educational activities that helped illustrate the wonders of the human brain. Since 1996, organizations around the world have come together during Brain Awareness Week to inform us about brain research and brain awareness, about brain disorders and diseases that affect nearly 100 million Americans. The National Science Foundation has supported a number of projects that have led to discoveries in neuroscience. These projects include gene editing that allows scientists to understand the biological origins of complex brain disorders and provide new potential treatments. On another front, increasing the resolution of optical microscopes has allowed scientists to view the brain in more detail and helped them understand Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Brain Awareness Week and to support researchers in their own districts who are working to improve public health worldwide.

Mr. McNERNEY

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, 2015, the House voted on H. Res. 152, to provide consideration of H. Res. 132. I accidentally voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 127; I do not support H. Res. 152 or H. Res. 132; I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 127. I would like the record to accurately reflect my stance on this issue.