Mike Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration and praise of St. Helena High School, my alma mater and one of the oldest public education facilities in northern California, which celebrates its 100th anniversary this year. Founded in June of 1912, upon the completion of what is now known as Vintage Hall, St. Helena Union High School represents the culmination of a long-standing effort to unify the various school districts of the St. Helena area, including those of Pope Valley, Conn Valley and Angwin. Early efforts to provide free, public education, beginning in the 1890s, combined the regions under a single governing board, but classes had to be held in the local Presbyterian Church from 1895 until completion of the building nearly 20 years later. Today, St. Helena High School's facilities have expanded far beyond Vintage Hall to accommodate the demands of the community's growing student population. And this year, the school became home to a new $13.5 million vocational education complex, complete with a state-of- the-art culinary facility, animal barn, agricultural mechanics workshop and all of the amenities of 21th century classrooms. With these facilities in place, students will benefit from a top-flight vocational training program, essential to the development of a skilled work force and subsequent community improvements. Students at St. Helena High School will now be afforded the unique opportunity to prepare for careers in the areas of hospitality, tourism, the culinary arts, floral design, agricultural husbandry, and mechanics, continuing the historic tradition that St. Helena High School started so many years ago. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we congratulate the students, educators and administrators of St. Helena High School, past and present. The centennial celebration in St. Helena is one that is well-deserved. We extend our best wishes to the school and community for many more years of outstanding public education and the merits that come with.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marine Debris Act Reauthorization Amendments, which is important legislation to my district in Northern California and the West Coast. This bipartisan legislation will maintain current efforts to remove marine debris from our coastlines, provide updates on the status of marine debris, and prevent redundant activities among state and federal agencies. Marine debris has been a problem for our oceans and coasts for decades. Trash has been filling our oceans and thereby impacting human health, harming wildlife, and littering our favorite beaches. For over 25 years, we have been relying heavily on volunteers, non-governmental organizations, and local governments to patrol our shores and pick up our trash. For example, in 2010 more than 5,400 cars could have been outfitted with the tires found during beach cleanup efforts. The work of these volunteers and organizations is invaluable and they need our help. Not only in terms of their planned cleanup activities, but to help in times of catastrophic events that create debris that is beyond physical and fiscal capabilities to remove. Today, marine debris is of even more concern since a massive tsunami tragically struck the coastline of Japan 16 months ago. The disaster claimed nearly 16,000 lives, injured 6,000, and destroyed or damaged well over a million buildings with 130-foot waves. Studies by the Japanese government estimate approximately 5 million tons of debris was swept into the ocean. Of that, 1.5 million tons are thought to be heading towards the West Coast of the United States. As the Congressional representative for the longest coastline in the lower 48 states, the impending arrival of the tsunami debris is of utmost concern. It is essential that we have fully developed contingency plans to remove debris that hits our shores, especially objects that are considered hazardous. Over the past few months, debris from the Japanese tsunami (ranging from soccer balls to 66-foot piers) has landed along the Pacific Coast of the United States. It is clear we cannot deal with this issue without proper funding and resources. In this economic climate, we need to think critically and creatively to develop funding solutions that address this increase in marine debris. The reauthorization of the Marine Debris Program by this legislation will facilitate national and international efforts to research, prevent, and reduce the impacts of garbage on our shores. Once we pass this crucial legislation, the next step is to provide funding to our states to handle both emergency debris issues and everyday trash problems. Marine debris is a global problem with local implications. More than ever, we need knowledge and guidance on marine debris and I urge a yes vote for H.R. 1171.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this bill. It's interesting. Today's the 1-year anniversary of the enactment of the Budget Control Act, and that came about and left us with this impending sequestration. So let's remember why we passed the Budget Control Act. We passed it because it was a compromise reached in order to raise the debt ceiling, which the House majority was refusing to allow to be raised. They were refusing to raise the debt ceiling because they said that they were concerned and they cared about our Nation's debt. But just yesterday, that same House majority passed a bill that will add over $400 billion to our national debt in just 1 year, a bill that continues tax cuts that added $3 trillion to our debt over the last decade and that history has shown didn't help economic growth. Now we have this bill on the floor to mandate strict parameters of tax reform. I want to do tax reform, Mr. Speaker. There isn't any one of us who doesn't want to do tax reform, but this is the wrong way to go about it. Locking in certain rates and certain rules is not how tax reform is done and can lead to very serious unintended consequences, like exploding our national debt. Yesterday, the Tax Policy Center released a review of Mitt Romney's tax plan, which is not dissimilar to the principles in this underlying bill. The study found, and I quote: It is not mathematically possible to design a revenue- neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for the highest-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. The Joint Economic Committee confirmed today that the plan in this bill would mean that people who make under $200,000 a year would see their taxes raised, in this case, by about $4,500, while millionaires would see tax breaks of over--hold on to your hat--$300,000. And there's nothing in this bill that says that tax reform will not increase our debt. We should do tax reform, and we should do it in a deliberative, thoughtful way, rather than by passing bills saying that we should do tax reform. For this reason, I strongly urge everyone to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Indiana, and look forward to working with both of them and others in the House to ensure that we can bring this to resolution. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Reclaiming my time, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I rise for the purpose of a colloquy between my friend, the chairman from Florida, and the ranking member, my friend from Indiana. I was planning to introduce an amendment on this issue, an amendment that would require the Department of Defense to buy American flags that are made in America by American workers using American-grown and manufactured materials. Wherever an American flag is flown, it's a symbol of the freedoms men and women throughout our history have marched, fought, and died to secure. There's no greater symbol of our country, our unity, our freedom, and our liberty than our flag. The Veterans Administration is already required, by law, to purchase 100 percent American-made flags of American-made materials to drape the caskets of each deceased war hero. I understand that there are already requirements prohibiting the Department of Defense from purchasing certain items not produced in the United States, but there are no requirements for the Department of Defense to purchase American-made American flags. I believe it's important that every American flag the Department of Defense buys should be made in America by American workers with American materials. It's as simple as that. At a time when our domestic manufacturing sector is struggling, and millions in our country are out of work, it's a slap in the face to all Americans to have their tax dollars spent on flags that are made overseas. I ask the gentlemen here today with me, do you share my concerns about this issue? Will you and the ranking member, Mr. Chairman, work with me to address this omission, and help to ensure that the brave men and women in uniform receive American-made American flags?

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the chair and the ranking member for the good work they're doing on this bill. I rise in strong support of this amendment. The Department of Defense estimates that more than 230,000 servicemembers have sustained a traumatic brain injury between 2000 and 2011. During that time, as the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, Mr. Sessions, pointed out, Congress has dedicated an unprecedented level of funding for TBI treatment and research, which has allowed DOD to make great strides in identifying and treating brain injuries. But despite the increased funding, servicemembers and veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress and TBI are still limited as to where and when they can be treated. Sometimes the very best treatment for their injuries can be found outside of the traditional DOD/VA networks. There are some outstanding programs providing first-class, effective treatment to our returning soldiers, yet those programs are not eligible for payment. I had a chance to visit one of these facilities, the Pathway Home program, run out of the California Veterans Home. It's just an outstanding program providing great service to some very deserving heroes, and they should be reimbursed. Our troops and veterans have earned--they've earned the very best treatment and care that we can provide. But sometimes, as I said, the best treatments aren't available at military and veteran medical facilities. The Sessions-Thompson amendment will make sure that our heroes who return from combat with TBI or PTS have access to the highest quality care our Nation has to offer. We have a responsibility to help those who have sacrificed so much in defense of our great Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation that represents the 31st time that we have voted or will vote to repeal parts or all of the Affordable Care Act. Instead of staging these political games, we should be spending our time strengthening the reforms that were made in the Affordable Care Act and working together to put people back to work. The Affordable Care Act was passed in response to a national crisis: businesses and individuals could not afford to buy health insurance. Hospitals, doctors, and clinics provided more than $100 billion a year in uncompensated care--$50 million in my district alone. Now, the good fairy doesn't come and reimburse them for this care. These costs are passed on to all of us who have health insurance in higher taxes and higher premiums, to the tune of $1,000 a year in higher health insurance premiums. People with preexisting conditions could not get coverage. People in my district were hitting their lifetime caps or even annual caps and being dropped by their insurance company. Others were self-employed and simply couldn't afford to buy private insurance on the open market. This was the national crisis that we worked to try and fix, and this is the national crisis that the majority party would like to go back to. It's not right. It's not good for America, and it's not good for Americans. So on behalf of the millions of Americans who are already benefiting from the Affordable Care Act, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). I represent the city of Davis, which is home to the University of California, Davis (UC Davis). The USDA has a natural partner in UC Davis given its outstanding history of agricultural research and outreach. In California, USDA has reduced crop pests and disease, protected over 120,000 wetlands in California, and worked to keep the farming culture strong. I would like to submit for the Record the following letter dated May 16, 2012, from Val Dolcini, the State Executive Director of the USDA Farm Service Agency in California. This letter illustrates just a few successes of USDA over the last 150 years and, with our support, their accomplishments will continue in the future. USDA at 150: Farms, food, jobs One hundred and fifty years ago, in the midst of a great Civil War, President Lincoln signed legislation to establish a Department of Agriculture to ``acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture . . . and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.'' Armed with these broad mandates, the ``People's Department,'' as he called it, set about to serve American farmers and a mostly rural American landscape. At that time, half of all Americans lived on farms, compared with about 2 percent today. The U.S. population in 1862 was about 31.4 million and today, that number has increased tenfold to almost 313 million people. Since its inception, the department has continued to fulfill Abraham Lincoln's original vision to touch the lives of every American, every day in almost every way. Now, the modern USDA works in food science, agricultural research, nutrition assistance, bio-fuel production, economic and community development, natural resource conservation, international trade, credit and a host of other issues. By any measure, it's been a very successful 150 years for the USDA. Americans benefit from safe, abundant and reasonably priced food. We produce 85 percent of what we consume and therefore enjoy food security. Our food, fuel and fiber industries provides employment for more than 20 million Americans, and agricultural exports continue to post significant trade surpluses, which, in turn, have generated almost 1 million jobs alone. Looking to the future, the USDA must continue the legacy of contributing to the strength and health of the nation by becoming a more modern and effective service provider. We must tighten our belt, just as many Americans are doing with their household budgets. In the past few decades, American agriculture has become one of the most productive sectors of our economy, thanks to farmers, ranchers and growers adopting technology, reducing their debt and effectively managing risk. The USDA is adopting these same strategies in its Blueprint for Stronger Service, announced by Secretary Tom Vilsack earlier this year. The blueprint aims to build a modern and efficient service organization that is closely aligned with technological innovations--and better suited to respond to 21st century agricultural challenges. The challenges ahead are many, both for the USDA and American agriculture. But by focusing on a strong safety net for farmers and ranchers, supporting policies that encourage sustainable productivity, and promoting vibrant markets that help feed consumers at home and abroad, the ``People's Department'' will continue to help create jobs, support working families, strengthen rural communities and build on the success and productivity of the American farmer.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise today in opposition to this bill. And this is not a tax that I like. As a matter of fact, I don't like this tax at all. The medical device industry has been on the forefront of creating jobs, pushing medical innovation, and keeping all of us healthier. But we didn't pass this provision in a vacuum, and today we're not voting to repeal it in a vacuum. We didn't pass it to be vindictive or mean or because we just felt like it. This provision was passed as part of a larger bill that was a response to a national crisis in health care that we're experiencing in our country. In order to do this, we had to make some really hard choices so our grandkids and our great grandkids weren't stuck with the bill for this response, like they were for the drug benefits for seniors or the tax cuts their grandparents enjoyed. This wasn't done lightly, and the device industry isn't alone in sharing in some of this responsibility. But the device industry will also see the benefits of having 30 million additional people covered by health care. Many of those will be customers of the device industry. I'd vote to repeal this provision today, yesterday, or tomorrow if we were having a serious discussion about the provision with a serious pay-for. Instead, we're repealing a tax on an industry that had over $40 billion in profits in 2010, and we're paying for it on the backs of middle class people, some of whom, for the first time in their adult lives, will have access to quality, affordable health care. Now, this is probably the tenth time in this Congress that we've repealed, or we will vote to repeal, part of the Affordable Care Act. In addition to that, we've also voted to repeal the entire act. This is not honest debate on policy but, rather, another political cheap shot at the Affordable Care Act. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sadness regarding the recent passing of former State Senator Cathie Wright, who represented the Simi and Santa Clarita Valleys in the California legislature for 20 years, and with whom I was proud to serve. Born in Old Forge, Pennsylvania on May 18, 1929, Cathie Maranelli Wright launched her political career in the 1970s as a member of the Simi Valley City Council. Wright was the city's mayor when she ran for and won an open Assembly seat in 1980. During her tenure in the Assembly, Wright carried several pieces of legislation to address local issues, including a bill that added the valley's four water purveyors to the Castaic Lake Water Agency. The legislation brought the water purveyors to the table for the purpose of negotiating a valley-wide management plan, something the local water community continues to do on a regular basis. She was an early and ardent supporter of the creation of the City of Santa Clarita, which incorporated in 1987. In 1992 Wright, ascended to the state Senate when former Los Angeles Police Chief Ed Davis retired and served until 2000. As a Senator, Wright helped craft California's welfare and child support laws. She was instrumental in securing funding for the College of the Canyons, particularly a new library and a media & fine arts building. Senator Wright worked tirelessly to develop a Systems of Care approach that would provide early intervention for at-risk mentally ill youth. Mr. Speaker, Cathie Wright's two decades of dedicated public service make her an outstanding example of her generation and its commitment to our Nation. It is appropriate therefore that we honor her life and contributions today.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their commitment to work with me on this. It's a serious problem. It's hurting people in my district and the surrounding area. I want it stopped, and I don't want to see any of you have to suffer through this process again.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy. I also want to thank the chairman and his staff, the ranking member and his staff for the help that they've provided on this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, and Members, the Bureau of Reclamation manages Lake Berryessa in my district. They manage it for the purposes of recreational access, and they ensure that the facilities are safe and accessible to local residents and visitors. As part of this, they award concessions to third-party bidders for resort operations. Since the Bureau of Reclamation began the most recent bidding process in 2007, their performance has been disappointing, at best. The concession contract was finally awarded in January 2010, and the third- party contractor has not met the terms of that agreement. The BOR is the responsible agency for concession bidding, and they conducted an inefficient process, provided lax oversight, and refused to take action in a timely manner, despite constant requests from me and local government officials. Now, BOR is entering into mediation, which means even more time to dispute the concessionaire's shortcomings and provide yet another second chance. Mr. Chairman and Members, enough is enough. Reassurances and placations from the Board of Reclamation that they're fixing the problem are no longer enough. We need the matter resolved. The residents of Lake Berryessa and the tourists who visit the area deserve to have this situation fixed. Recreational access to the lake has been restricted, tourism is down, and the local economy has taken a hit. The summer season officially began last weekend, and there's no solution in sight to these problems. I expect the Bureau of Reclamation to take immediate action to right these wrongs and take steps to prevent a similar nightmare from happening in my district or any of your districts. I trust that the chairman and the ranking member share my concerns of the mismanagement of Lake Berryessa by the Bureau of Reclamation and ask that you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member work with me to find a way to correct BOR's previous errors and amend the concession bidding process to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment will help small businesses that have the proper security clearances to better navigate the intelligence community's contracting process, and will ensure that they get a fair shot at business opportunities should these companies have the technical expertise and capabilities needed. This change will be good for small businesses and will strengthen our national security. Second- and third-tier contractors produce highly specialized technology for the intelligence community, but work directly for larger companies. These small businesses have extraordinary talent and expertise, but often find themselves excluded from many business opportunities with the larger intelligence community because, for example, they lack access to the classified databases where these opportunities are presented. Sometimes that access is as simple as a computer connection for cleared experts to review contracting opportunities. By limiting small businesses that have the appropriate security clearances from these contracting opportunities, we all lose. The intelligence community loses access to the best technical solutions by limiting who is able to fulfill or to even bid for those contracts. Small businesses lose the opportunity to display their expertise and to expand their companies. As important, the taxpayer loses by virtue of a lack of market competition and is given no assurance that the government is getting the best price for its classified contract requirements. My amendment addresses this problem by requiring an assessment of the IC's current contracting practices and a review of these practices to determine if they present unfair barriers to competition for small businesses. In particular, my amendment requires the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress how the intelligence community is currently working with second- and third-tier contractors and to identify any problems that may reduce the overall effectiveness of this contracting process. In this report, the DNI will be required to offer recommendations to improve the methods by which second- and third-tier contractors are granted security clearances and notified of classified contracting opportunities. Mr. Chairman, second- and third-tier contractors who support the technical efforts of the intelligence community are an underutilized asset. These same second-and third-tier contractors are also small businesses that many of our communities depend upon for jobs and for the economies in their local areas. My amendment ensures that the intelligence community is getting access to the best available technology while ensuring that small businesses around the country have a fair shot at expanding their companies. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank the chairman and the ranking member for making sure that we're able to work together to produce a document that will benefit the entire country in regard to our national security, and I rise in strong support of this year's Intelligence authorization bill. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, I'm pleased that we're able to put this product forward, and I strongly support the bill's emphasis on developing stronger counterintelligence capabilities throughout the intelligence community. Every time I travel overseas to observe operating conditions, I've been impressed by the work being done by our intelligence personnel, but also concerned about the increasing threats and challenges that we face. Today, our intelligence officers are facing increasingly hostile foreign intelligence services, insurgent groups, terrorists organizations, industrial spies, and the threat of cyberattacks. Many of our adversaries are working together in ways we haven't seen before. This is no longer the Cold War world with little cameras and secret compartments. It's now more complicated to find out how our enemies are getting intelligence on the United States and how these same enemies are protecting their own secrets. To address this threat, this bill provides additional resources to enable our intelligence community to collect better information and provide better analysis on how our adversaries are working against us. Second, since the emergence of the Arab Spring, our subcommittee has been examining how the intelligence community has been identifying the types of trends that have literally transformed countries overnight, countries like Tunisia and Egypt. I've heard firsthand from our intelligence personnel that they need more to better get a handle on the dynamics in their countries and their regions. The Arab Spring phenomenon can happen anywhere anytime, and our intelligence community must be better prepared the next time. This bill enables the intelligence community to rebuild its global mission by realigning and adding to its current resources dedicated to this collection effort. With these resources, intelligence personnel will have more tools to identify and report signs of instability in real-time. This bill also includes a number of other provisions that I believe are important to our national security. The bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to continue compiling threat assessment of foreign drug traffickers that are turning our public lands in the United States into hostile areas to further their operations. This threat assessment was first required in last year's authorization; and given the scope of the problem, it's essential that our efforts to combat foreign drug traffickers on our Federal property be continued. Also, the bill restores funding for the National Gang Intelligence Center. The analysis that the NGIC has provided on the growing gang influence in the U.S. military, for example, is critical to finding an adequate solution to this problem and the very reason Congress created the NGIC in the first place. It's important that this work continue. I am a little disappointed that we weren't able to do some things that we all believe are necessary. For example, the expansion of the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math cooperative programs at colleges and universities is extremely important; and I think we need to continue to do more to make sure that we're able to grow that resource. Mr. Chairman, our intelligence community must be prepared for any and all threats. While Osama bin Laden may no longer pose a direct threat to our country's safety and security, the remaining elements of al Qaeda and other emerging terrorist organizations are more determined than ever. It's critical for Congress to pass this bill, and I strongly support that we do so today.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues Representatives Loretta Sanchez, Ed Royce, John Campbell, Gary Miller, Jerry Lewis, Randy Neugebauer and Lynn Woolsey in recognition of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, one of the youngest of the American congregations, for its historic and ongoing contributions to the proliferation of education and health care across the country. The assembly traces its roots through the St. Joseph congregations of La Grange, Illinois; Concordia, Kansas; Rochester, New York; and Carondelet, Missouri, all of which are traced back to around 1650 in Le Puy, France. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange was established in 1912 by Mother Bernard Gosselin when she and eight sisters left La Grange, Illinois, near Chicago with 60 cents among them to establish a school in Eureka, California. With the outbreak of the flu epidemic in 1918 the Sisters expanded their ministries from teaching to include providing for the medical needs of the community, and opened St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka in 1920. By 1922, the Sisters were teaching in several Southern California areas and recognized that the community could better develop its ministries by moving the Motherhouse to Orange, California. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange are dedicated to transcending language, culture and access-to-care barriers to bring healthcare to people in need throughout the world. The Sisters extended their work in health, education and religious instruction to the people of Papua New Guinea and Australia in the 1940s. Today, the congregation's commitment to education is expressed in a variety of forms including elementary, secondary, university and other adult education. The organization remains committed to the cause of promoting and providing an outstanding level of health care through acute-care hospitals, rehabilitation programs, home health care, community education, primary care clinics, and wellness programs. The works of the congregation have expanded beyond education and health care to also include such things as helping new immigrants and women in need, feeding the hungry, giving shelter to the homeless, and fostering spiritual development. As a result of their dedication to the same spirit of charity, simplicity, and humility characteristic of the Sisters of St. Joseph throughout the world and Mother Bernard's further guiding words of faith, foresight and flexibility, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange help thousands of people in need each year. Mister Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize and thank the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange for their dedication and service to the people of California and the world. We congratulate the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange on their 100th anniversary, on the occasion of their 100 year Jubilee.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Thompson-Eshoo-Quayle-Broun amendment to this bill. The threat of a devastating cyberattack is real and cannot be understated. I believe the Federal Government and private companies need to work together to protect our national and economic security. But in doing so, we still have a responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. I'm concerned that the underlying bill is drafted in a way where consumer information could be shared too broadly and used in ways unrelated to combating cybersecurity threats. The Thompson-Eshoo- Quayle-Broun amendment will tighten the bill's limitation on the Federal Government's use of cyberthreat information shared under this legislation. Specifically, our amendment will limit the Federal Government's use of shared information only for cybersecurity purposes, for the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes, to protect against the threat of imminent harm, and protect our country's national security. This bill, even with our amendment, isn't perfect. As this legislation moves forward, I expect the word of the chairman to be honored when he says that our committee will work together to further protect personal information and limit its use. For example, further narrowing terms in this bill, such as ``to protect the national security of the United States,'' will be necessary, I believe, to fully protect our civil liberties.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support for the Sportsmen's Heritage Act, H.R. 4089. This bill would improve access to public lands for our hunters, fishers, and recreationists. By passing H.R. 4089, we will ensure that public lands will continue to be used and enjoyed by sportsmen across the country. While many of us support H.R. 4089, I do have reservations about some of the bill's details. Specifically, titles I and II of this bill require new procedures for approved closures of public lands. Federal land management agencies currently have a process in place for closures that includes public notice, review, and approval at the local, state, or federal level depending on the individual situation. I believe these decisions are best made by local land managers who are uniquely familiar with the lands, the people, and the potential hazards. I am concerned that adding additional closure approval steps by people removed from the local areas will delay, or even discourage, closures that are based on sound science, and for the safety of the people and protection of the environment. I also believe that hunting, fishing, and recreation are often compatible with the goals of public lands, including wilderness designation. However, there are some activities that are not. Oil and gas development, mining, logging, and motorized vehicle use outside of designated areas counter the goals of current wilderness management. In addition, these activities also run counter to the intent of H.R. 4089 by further restricting sportsmen's access. These restrictions on activities in Wilderness Areas should be explicitly stated in the bill and should not leave any room for misinterpretation. Finally, I am discouraged to see the incorporation of an amendment to H.R. 4089 that would undermine the ability of the President to designate National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. This is a process that has protected some of our most precious national treasures and cultural heritage sites. I agree that local support should be weighed heavily when considering National Monument designations, but additional legislative road blocks are unnecessary. I commend my colleagues in the House for supporting sportsmen's access to public lands, and I hope to see their enjoyment continue in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. We need to keep public lands open when feasible, while also allowing for closures in a timely manner if it is in the best interest of public safety or environmental protection. I look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to make sure these concerns are addressed as H.R. 4089 moves forward.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill today--a $46 billion price tag, and it's unpaid for. Moreover, 1 year is not tax certainty if you're a small business person. I rise also as a small business person. Equally as troubling as this bill, unpaid for, $46 billion bill, is the fact that yesterday, in the Ways and Means Committee, the majority passed a bill that they said was to reduce the deficit. But instead, what they did is they cut programs that were incredibly important to the elderly, to children, to the disabled, programs that allowed people help with their daycare so they could go to work. If those people don't have daycare, they're not going to be able to go to work. And, at the same time, the Ag Committee passed a bill to cut food stamps. These actions are hard to understand, even in these most difficult times. But even harder to understand is, in light of this fiscally irresponsible bill today, those bills were passed. I said yesterday that it was a bad day to be poor. Well, today is a bad day to be fiscally responsible, because this bill is anything but fiscally responsible. And it's wrong to claim on Wednesday that you have to cut daycare for low-income people or put seniors at risk, disabled people at risk, and children at risk to cut the deficit but then turn around on Thursday and add $46 billion to the deficit. That's just wrong. The Joint Committee on Taxation said that this bill's economic impact is ``so small as to be incalculable.'' I can tell you, the people that will be hurt across this country, that hurt won't be incalculable. I strongly oppose this bill.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Representatives Baca, Berman, Capps, Chu, Costa, S. Davis, Eshoo, Farr, Filner, Garamendi, Hahn, Honda, Lee, Lofgren, Matsui, McNerney, Miller, Napolitano, Pelosi, Richardson, Roybal-Allard, Loretta Sanchez, Schiff, Speier, Stark, Waters, Waxman, and Woolsey to pay tribute to the life of Peter M. Douglas, who recently passed away at the age of 69. Peter was best known as the longtime director of the California Coastal Commission, serving more than 25 years to protect the incredible California coastline. Peter's devotion to the conservation of this finite and precious resource will benefit generations to come. Peter was born in Berlin, Germany on Aug. 22, 1942. His family's home was destroyed by Allied bombers in 1944. He immigrated by sea to the United States in 1950, and it was on this trip that he began a lifelong love of the ocean. Peter grew up in Southern California, and in 1965 earned a bachelor's degree in psychology, and later a law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles. Peter worked for former Democratic Assemblyman Alan Sieroty from Los Angeles, and he was tasked with writing coastal protection legislation. In response to oil spills and heavy coastal development, the public passed Proposition 20 in 1972, which formed the California Coastal Commission. Peter also helped craft the bipartisan Coastal Act in 1976, and the next year joined the commission as deputy director. In 1985, Peter was appointed executive director and served in that role until his recent death. Peter was instrumental in blocking offshore oil drilling and leasing, preventing unchecked development along California's 1,100-mile coast line, and ensuring public access to beaches. His efforts were often controversial, and members of both parties at times tried to remove him from his post. However, he never swayed from his commitment and passion to protect California coasts. There is no doubt that California's incredible coastline bears Peter's mark. His influence on coastal issues has been profound, and has set standards for how such a valuable resource can be both used and protected. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in paying tribute to the life of Peter M. Douglas, a steadfast protector of the California coast and a true environmental steward.