Ed Pastor

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I was listening; I did understand. Because even though I heard the words, the understanding I had with the chairman of the subcommittee and the reason we supported it was that the reduction of funds was to the account, not these specific projects. So I did listen; I did understand. But today we are talking about prohibiting money for the study. And I have to tell you that this agreement is to study the potential removal of four privately owned dams, not the agreement to remove dams. It is designed to bring about significant improvements to both environmental conditions and water supplies, certainly, which need to be confirmed through the study. The studies are scientific. They deal with engineering and economic and environmental-based analysis to determine whether the promise of the agreement will occur. And for that reason, we oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. To my colleague from Missouri, I would tell him that the objective of this amendment has pretty much been accomplished. The last funding that occurred for this study was in, I think, 2009, which was an earmark. So now that earmarks have been eliminated in the CR and eliminated for the future, you would not have that funding as a possibility for this study. Also, the administration has not put any money in its budget, so therefore there is no money in the budget. So for all practical purposes, the funding for the study is not going to continue. So therefore, it's very unlikely that the funding level provided in the bill will receive anything more than the amount to close the study. And I would tell my friend that the reason I oppose it is that this language I think may be unnecessary because it may impact the orderly termination of the study. And that's why I rise in opposition, because I believe since this study, at least in my opinion, has been terminated, that we at least go through an orderly order with the funding that's available so we can have an orderly termination. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Well, I think I heard the gentleman tell me that the last time the study occurred was in 1944. And because earmarks are no longer the practice and the administration is not providing any funding, it's my belief and my opinion that this study will not go further, and the few dollars that may be left from the former earmark will be used to terminate the study in an orderly fashion. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Again, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment because the objective of the amendment has pretty much been met. There is no funding available to continue it. The few dollars that remain will only be used to terminate the study in an orderly manner. That's the proper way of doing it, and I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the chairman for yielding. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I also rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment prohibits funds from being used for oil and gas research. Without this amendment, the Department of Energy would spend $38 million during the year. As my chairman points out, fossil fuel sources are and will continue to be a large part of our energy mix. Given the importance of research and development in this area, it is necessary to improve the efficiency in the environmental cost of fossil fuels. Further, stopping programs mid year, which this would do, results in costs associated with terminating ongoing work. I am committed to working with the gentleman to review the balance of funding as we move forward, but I cannot support the amendment at this time.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I join the chairman. We need a mix of energy to gain energy independence. We cannot just rely on the mix of energy we have today, where 70 percent of our energy is generated through coal or natural gas. Rather than sacrifice our future, we should be looking at methods of closing loopholes for the oil and gas industry.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I join the chairman in opposition to this amendment. As I stated before, we need a mix of energy to gain energy independence. We cannot just rely on the mix of energy that we have today, where 70 percent of our energy is generated through coal or natural gas. Rather than sacrifice our future, we should be looking at methods for closing loopholes in the oil and gas industry. I am in opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I join the chairman in his opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is a promising program that already has provided not only research but the taking of the research, the finding of private capitalization, and the developing of products that can go forward. One of the problems that we have found in the past for many years is that the Department of Energy has sometimes great problems in doing the basic research or in funding basic research. It has a difficult time getting out to find capitalization and then in being able to commercialize it. ARPA-E is a process that is small but big in talent which is able to take innovative ideas and is able to research and take them to the next step with private capitalization. It is a program that takes public investment and increases the investment by the private sector. The outcome is the innovation of products, new employment, and new jobs. It is the way to transform the Department of Energy to make it more effective, and it would be a great loss to zero fund it at this time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I rise in support. This amendment simply reduces the water and related resources account by $1.9 million. Given the limited nature of the amendment, I do not object to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to note that on March 18, 2011, my home State of Arizona will celebrate the centennial of Roosevelt Dam, a great accomplishment that for 100 years has served our people. I wish to reflect on what the structure has meant for the Salt River Valley, the State of Arizona, and the Salt River Project, SRP. Growing up in Claypool, Arizona, I journeyed north on State Route 88 hundreds of times to visit Theodore Roosevelt Lake and view Theodore Roosevelt Dam. The massive dam seemed to tower into the sky and was an engineering marvel to a small boy. The lake provided hours of recreational activities and adventures well into my teen and young adult years. To understand what Roosevelt Dam will mean to the greater Phoenix metropolitan area during the next 100 years, there are a few attributes that must be noted. The most important characteristic is certainty. Roosevelt Dam was designed to bring stability to weather-related patterns ranging from drought to flooding, so it is well-suited to provide certainty for the greater Phoenix metropolitan area's future water supplies. The conservation ethic will continue to be an important facet in Arizona's water future. In 1911, Roosevelt Dam was one of Arizona's first significant acts of conservation; 100 years later, the dam is still one of the most important examples of resource stewardship, as it stores water for millions of people. As the ethic of conservation evolves during the next 100 years, Roosevelt Dam will continue to epitomize this concept because it helps ensure certainty. Adaptability is Roosevelt's second most important attribute, enabling the dam to be the continual cornerstone for the Phoenix area's development. The dam has been modified multiple times, including improving water management operations, increasing storage capacity, enhancing hydropower capability and creating features for flood control. Roosevelt Dam and SRP provided Arizona the ability to adapt from an agriculturally based economy to a knowledge-based one. Both must continue to adapt to deal with the changing nature of Arizona, including evolving economies, increasing political complexity and emerging environmental challenges. This ability to adapt is vital, because the delivery of reliable water and power is the underpinning for Arizona's next century. A final characteristic is stewardship. Roosevelt Dam and SRP have been leaders in renewable water and power for Arizona during the past century, and must continue to do so to ensure Arizona's future. From the beginning of the 20th century, SRP's visionary founders were advocates for Arizona as they used federal resources to build Roosevelt Dam, which created the state's largest sustainable water supply. Mr. Speaker, Roosevelt Dam and SRP have been with us since before Statehood. This vital bedrock of infrastructure, and the homegrown organization that operates it, will continue to be stewards for Arizona's future prosperity.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding the time. About 3 years ago, Judge Roll informed us that the courthouse in Yuma, which is in southeastern Arizona, lacked the space because of the increased cases dealing with the drug cases and immigration cases that the Federal court was facing in the Yuma area. It was very interesting. At the time, the request was kind of unusual because, in the line of things, at least in the court itinerary, the Yuma court was not under consideration, but Judge Roll impressed on the delegation that this was sorely needed in the Yuma area, which prompted the Arizona delegation to work in bringing forth some moneys. I have to tell you that, in the last appropriation bill that passed this House, which was the omnibus bill, Chairman Jose Serrano, from New York, was able to appropriate the moneys to have this courthouse constructed. Also, I want to thank the leadership of the Congress, of the House of Representatives, for bringing this bill forward. It is very appropriate that we name this courthouse in the name of Judge Roll, who was the presiding judge of the Arizona courts. As you have been told--and rightfully so--he was a jurist, a scholar, and a man who had a deep belief in God; but more than that, he was a father, a good husband, and one who continually supported the efforts of his community. So on behalf of the Arizonans, we thank this House for naming this courthouse in Yuma, Arizona, in honor of Judge Roll. May he rest in peace.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2 and I am disappointed that the House has acted to repeal the landmark health reform legislation we passed last year. This act represents a huge step backwards in ensuring that everyone has access to affordable health care. This bill flies in the face of the idea that health care is a right and that everyone deserves access to care. The repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-142) and the health provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (P.L. 111-152) will have a major impact on the people in my district. Without maintaining the strong protections enacted under these laws, hundreds of thousands of people in the 4th district, including 60,000 children, could be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. Additionally, nearly 5,000 seniors on Medicare will face immediate increases in the cost of their medication, while an additional 58,000 will be forced to pay out of pocket for preventive screenings for conditions such as breast and colon cancer. And with our economy struggling to get back on track, repealing health care will deny hundreds of small businesses and thousands of families in my district crucial tax credits to help offset the cost of coverage. I have long supported the idea that health care is a right, not a privilege. It is with that in mind that I strongly oppose this misguided action.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the leader of the caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. I object. I would like to have the resolution read, if possible.