tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 28, 2015 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
we introduced -- re-introduced the coal country protection act. that's h.r. 2637. it's just a commonsense bill that would stop any new e.p.a. regulations from affecting america's power plants until four outcomes are achieved. number one, no job losses. number two, no loss in g.d.p. or economic growth. number three, no higher electric rates. and number four, no interruption in the reliable delivery of electrical energy. these are pretty commonsense goals. . who would verify that? who would certify that? the energy secretary could do it. the federal energy regulatory commission could do it. the north american electric reliability corporation could do it. we said at the time, it is time not just for coal country, time for people to stand up and fight for coal, it's time for the whole country to stand up and fight for coal.
it's well past the midnight hour. if we continue to shut down mines and lose jobs, and shut down communities, and raise people's electric rates and if people at home sit back and wonder, what are they doing in washington? why do they continue to hurt us at every turn? and the answer is, the people making some of this policy have never done what you've done. they've never walked in your shoes. they've never had to do what we've done in coal country to protect electric power. why in the world would we do this now at a time when the country is looking for jobs, at a time when the country is looking for less dependence on foreign nations for energy. why now? why, mr. president? why continue to push in the direction you have been pushing? bottom line is, this is just -- this is not just about coal country. it's about our whole country. i'd like to thank you for fighting this fight, the five years we have been here
together, this is something we've fought together every day in every way and will continue to do but it's time for the people of america to also be heard. please do not sit in silence and suffer in silence when your voices need to be heard. we need to have everybody standing fup coal and we just need to look at where we're going and say, the people we sent to represent us we sent to protect us it's time for them to stand up and do what they took an oath to do. i thank my colleagues for being here tonight. this is something we'll never give up on. it's on our shoulders. we can't ever walk away from this. it's not an option. i yield back. mr. mckinley: i don't think other members of congress and i don't think the american public understands the magnitude of this industry. that's why i started off with that chart to show you that between coal and the coal-fired electrical plants, it's larger
than the automobile industry. now just -- walk with me, just imagine that if we told the automobile industry that they had to cut back one third of their capacity of cars, and -- but that's ok because what we'll do is people that ride bikes, or they'll take the train or the bus. that's not our culture in america. they would fight back too. so you and i are fighting and the rest of the people that represent our coal fields, we have enjoyed the cost of electricity coming from low cost because of coal. in america, all across, we showed 49 of the 50 states burn coal. 49. and this administration wants to stop that. wants to cut back. i say that if you're going to cut back the coal industry, look at the automobile industry as well. if you're going after one huge component of our economy, go after the automobile industry as well with it. so thank you very much for what you said.
we talked about a lot, now let's continue on. i think the -- congressman gibbs of ohio, i think you had some remarks you wanted to make. mr. given -- mr. gibbs: yes. mr. mckinley: two minutes three minutes? mr. gibbs: about that in the very near future this affects every ohioan and across the country. very soon, the e.p.a. is expected to release its clean power plan. another burdensome regulatory scheme that will increase energy costs. the energy information, a government agency dedicated to the impartial study of electricity, said it will cause electricity to rise. raising their monthly electric bills wig make their struggles worse. earlier this week the house
passed the rate payer protection act to stop the implementation of the clean power plan while courts adress the legal challenges to the plan and give ohioans a break from the e.p.a.'s heavy handed regulations. sadly, the e.p.a.'s refusal to listen to industry input is not without precedent. they did not take into account the opinions of their state partners. within hours, 27 states filed lawsuits. additionally at the end of the june, the supreme court found the e.p.a. failed to consider compliance cost when proposing new rules for power plants. if the e.p.a. continues to push forward for this plan, it will only hurt those who want reliable affordable industry. i encourage the e.p.a. to start from scratch and work with stake holders and partners to create a commonsense plan that strengthens our energy infrastructure and safe forwards
our environment. so again, mr. mckinley, i thank you for holding this special order today and mr. speaker this affects a large region of our country. i know you talked about, what it's 400 coal-fired plants across the country? this is important to our economy. you have to have reliable and affordable energy for businesses to grow and create jobs. this clean power plant is going to layer on and strangle our businesses and put people out of work. people across the midwest and my state of ohio. i thank you for doing this tonight. mr. mckinley: thank you very much, thank you for bringing up the rate payer protection act. as you know, after we followed the -- after the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional, you didn't hear the president complain. because they had effectively accomplished everything they wanted before that rule. and i'm afraid that's what -- that's why the importance of this rate payer protection act
is. if we continue to shut down our coal powered plants, and deprive our communities of taxpayer moneys to run our schools then that winds up, it's ruled unconstitutional later on, then how do we recover the moneys that we've lost. can we reopen a school that was closed because a community lost its snorpgse do we -- how do we recover that? that's why it's important. i'm glad you brought up the rate payer protection act. we need to make sure that the courts have ruled before the actions taken. you and i are going to be paying more for our utility bills as a result of that. if and until it's ruled unconstitutional. and we know it's coming. they know it's coming. but that's -- thank you for bringing that up. mr. gibbs: it's a hardship on the families back home. mr. mckinley: thank you.
our next remarks, from one of our -- i can't say one of our newest members but a member if kentucky that's been very outspoken and i appreciate very much congressman barr from kentucky. can you share some thoughts tonight. mr. barr: i'd be happy to. i want to thank the gentleman mitigating circumstance colleague and friend from west virginia, for his leadership in the congressional coal caucus, to my colleagues from pennsylvania and ohio, and all over the country representing coal producing states where good people, men and women, working in the coal mines literally power america. they come from an industry, they work in the coal mine, they support the coal miners in an industry that provides affordable and reliable energy that powers the american economy. and it has been the back bone of the american economy. and instead of celebrating that industry, instead of applauding the heroic work that these men
and women do day in and day out underground, aboveground, what is the response of the federal government over the last six years? it has been to singularly punish this industry. and yang of an administration from either party in the history of the united states that is -- that has singled out a single industry with the level of vindictiveness frankly, and targeted a single industry and literally bankrupted many of these companies. and i don't understand it for a variety of reasons but let me just share with you a little bit about the coal industry in kentucky. we could well be the poster child for demonstrating the tremendous negative impact and the consequences of this heartless, aggressive, anti-coal policy if the e.p.a. and from this administration's regulatory policy. since 2009 the commonwealth of kentucky has lost more than
8,000 coal mining jobs throughout our state. and for every one coal mining job, three additional jobs are directly tied to every coal mining job. and this is a direct result of the administration's war on coal. sure there's competitive pressures from natural gas and we celebrate the fracking boom and the result of discoveries in natural gas. but i can tell you what the coal industry says. it's not cheap natural gast that's the cause of these lost jobs. it's the fact that the federal government has put its heavy hand of regulatory power on the scales to make this industry noncompetitive. just to give you a sample of the problem, in the first quarter of 2015 alone, kentucky's coal employment numbers dropped another 10.5%. so what does that mean in total? coal production in kentucky has decreased to its lowest level since 1963. in 2015, production levels are
currently half of what they were just two decades ago. yet demand for energy in the united states has steadily increased. but there's more than statistics mr. speaker, when we come to talking about the face of the war on coal. and many of my colleagues have shared these stories about what this really means. what all these regulations really mean in the real world. it's not statistics on a page. it's not about it's not about coal production percentages on decline. what it's really about it's about sally, the young woman in wolf county, kentucky, that i met, with tears in her eyes at the end of a town hall meeting, she came up to me as her congressman and she said, do they know what they're doing to our families? my husband lost his job because the coal mining employer that he works for didn't get a permit system of now he's out of work. don't those people in washington understand that i've got kids? we're going back to school. it's august. and i can't afford shoes for my
kids. so i had to go to wal-mart and buy them flip-flops so they wouldn't be embarrassed to go back to school. i want the regulators in washington, d.c. to come back to kentucky to eastern kentucky and meet sally. and look sally in the eye and ask her to describe to them what the impact of this war on coal is for her. or what about robert? robert, the coal miner from wolf county, kentucky new york my district. who gets up at 3:00 a.m. every morning to commute an hour to work, to go to work in the coal mines, just to put food on the table. or james. who looks at me with an incredible expression and says, andy don't they understand what they're doing? they're putting people out of work. they're making life harder on the american people. surely these are the people who say they're fighting for the working man. i'm the working man. congressman, what are they thinking? and then you talk about chris.
chris who says congressman i don't know much about politics, i don't really care much about politics, but if you can go save my job i'm for you. can't the politicians in washington fight for people just to go to work and provide for their families? these are paychecks that these people depend on. finally, curtis. curtis who said to me his father crawled on his belly for decades to take care of his family and because of his father's hard work, he had opportunities. this is more than statistics. this is about real people who have been victimized by bureaucrats in washington who are out of touch and if the bureaucrats in washington would at least just go to these places west virginia, ohio pennsylvania kentucky, and look these people in the eye and ask them what they think about their policies, and worst of all, it's all done in the name of the
environment. we all love the environment. these coal miners love the environment. they come from a beautiful part of the country. in appalachia. it's nobt about not wanting to help the environment or environmental stewardship. but what's so sad is these regulations aren't going to do a darn thing about global carbon emissions. the clean power plant rule that this administration has proposed would reduce global carbon emissions by less than 1%. and for what? $8 billion in additional annual costs to our economy and thousands of american families without paychecks. this is wrong. the congress of the united states is right to stand up for these families. the congress of the united states is right to stand up for jobs. and that's why i support all of the legislative work done by this house, by these good members, the stream act for my colleague and friend from west virginia the coal residuals bill that the gentleman, the chairman, has championed and
done a great job in supporting, my colleague, ed whitfield chairman of the energy subcommittee on the rate payer protection act. the reins act we just voted for which would stop all these costly regulations. mr. speaker, it is time for us to stand up for american jobs, for american energy and for american produced coal power and with that, i yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his leadership. . mr. mckinley: you touched on something that i don't know our listeners and members of congress quite grasp. one statement you made, the clean co-2 emissions of the world are the target of our global issue, the co-2 emissions.
i accept that. that's the basis of their war on coal this ideological fight that we're involved in. so i use the united nations' statistics not republican caucus, not coal country numbers, but the united nations. and they say, congressman barr, that if you were to stop all coal-fired capacity, every school, church hospital, power station, if we were to stop all burning coal in america, total so we became no coal being consumed in america you would reduce the co-2 emissions of the world by 2/10 of 1%. mr. barr: that's a great point and i would make this point. this is the united states of america.
in the united states of america, we solve problems through entrepreneurship, innovation and we are americans and we believe in freedom and we believe in innovation. if there is a problem with carbon emissions and climate change, then we should solve the problem the american way through fossil energy research. what we should not do is apply a soviet-style command and control from washington which will not solve the problem. we need to be exporting american technology to china, and india. i yield back. mr. mckinley: i just want to touch base again before we go to our last speaker. again, these are all the rules -- this is this overwhelming number of rules that we're trying to deal with in america dealing with fossil fuels from ozone to now source performance standards to regional hayes
greenhouse gases all these are impacting. we have to deal with those, the impact that is predicted that is going to happen, we are going to see higher utility bills. if we want to see that, just keep doing that, because that's what's going to happen. this chart has been produced that in addition to the fact, just in west virginia, seven years ago let's just say for discussion, a $100 bill for your monthly electric. now, because of all the rules we are at $160. 60% increase in the cost of utilities. some might argue it's because of the cost of coal. the cost of coal has dropped. so the point here, the power plants, the utilities are having to put excessive money into the production of electricity to meet some of those rules that we talked about over there.
and it's coming out of our pockets. someone's paying for that. you and i are paying for that. we are 60% up. in arizona they are suggesting the increased cost in arizona is going to go up 40%. state of washington, 37%. in california, 24%. all we have to say is this what the consumers want? let me show you another chart here before we get to our last speaker. this talks about where coal is being used. now, this administration has been very effective in shutting it off. you heard the horror stories of what happened in kentucky. i share it in west virginia and ohio the same story, indiana illinois the impact it's having on our industry, destructive. they are destroying the
industry. the industry is on its knees now. what about overseas? this from the international energy agency has already indicated they have an appetite for coal, outside of america. no one else is following the administration's lead on this idea of this war on coal. they are still burning coal. they are burning coal, whether it's china or india. they are using coal. as a matter of fact, from the year 2000 to 2013, they increased their appetite for colby 70%. the america, we dropped. this is important to understand where this fight is, what we have too do to fight for the individuals. i have been asked to yield to congressman sessions. mr. sessions: i thank the
gentleman very much and i thank the distinguished gentlemen both of you from the great state of west virginia. i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house resolution 388 resolution for consideration of the bill to amend title 38, united states code to provide for the removal or demotion of employees of the department of veterans affairs based on misconduct and for other purposes and for -- and for providing consideration of the bill h.r. 3236 to provide extension for federal highway safety and motor carrier safety funded out of the highway trust fund to the department of veterans affairs for health care affairs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar. mr. mckinley: as we wrap up our
discussion about clean power plants and effective regulations, i would like to turn to our newest congressmen alex mooney. mr. mooney: thank you for your leadership on this issue in our great state and giving personal stories and how it affects real americans from different states. our great country is blessed with abundant natural resources. president obama has made a commitment to destroy coal as a domestic energy source and his intent on fulfilling that promise. just two weeks ago the office of surface mining under the department of interior, released its latest set of rules and regulations that will cripple the coal industry not only in west virginia but across the country. these new rules and regulations are over 2,500 pages in length. if you don't know what that
looks like, here it is, ladies and gentlemen, six followeders' full of new regulations 2,500 pages. this is what it looks like ok? they give us 60 days, the department of interior has given us 60 days to go through this. that's a lot of work. at the very least 120-day extension is needed beyond the current 60-day comment period. i join chairman bishop of the natural resources committee that i serve and 43 members sent a letter to the administration requesting 120-day extension of the comment period for the recently-announced job-killing regulation right here. my staff and i, the staff have been been going through this the last several days and trying to look at the ridiculous regulations of this bill and we
came across a couple of things that are worth pointed out. for instance on page 1,201 of the proposed regulation, we found something. it says, quote, in the regulation ensure that electric power transmission lines and other transmission facilities used for or incidental to surface mining activities if on the permit area are designed and constructed to minimize electro -- electrocution hazards to rapt ers and alien species with large wing spans. the office of surface mining is worried about this? so they created a special regulation just to present venlt that from happening. we found it on page 1,021, buried that coal companies
build special power lines to prevent, quote, raptors from getting zapped. i wonder if the environmentalists have the same concerns? according to the smithsonian somewhere between 140,000 and 328,000 birds die each year from flying into wind turbines. on page 1,100 exactly, we get even more rules here. it says quote you may not conduct any surface mining activity that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or en dangersed species listed by the secretary or proposed for listing by the secretary or that is likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat in violation of the endangered species act of 1973. that is a long sentence with a lot of words. this absurd regulation would prohibit mining and the director has proposed for listing as endangered or threatened. animals that are actually endangered, but this regulation goes far beyond in protecting endangered species. this is a power grab that an environmental sbreemist secretary will use to put miners out of business. even more ridiculous is the heart of this rulemaking which is to change the definition of a stream to include temporary streams. temporary streams are ditches that fill up with water when it rains and the water goes away.
they are calling it streams now. a recent study from the national center for mining estimates that these rule will destroy 80,000 coal jobs across the country. we put names to those stories of individuals who are losing their jobs. these are hardworking american taxpayers trying to provide for their families. and these extremist regulations are putting them out of work. harming families not only in west virginia but kentucky. this would be catastrophic to american families who depend on coal to keep their energy costs low. the economy of the after latch yeah region and west virginia are threatened by these regulations because of our
mountainous top oggra if i and abundance of small streams. this administrative action could mean 45% to 79% of coal reserves would no longer be usable. the damage to such a critical blow to the industry would create a ripple of hardship in our state. over 90% of the energy, i think my colleague mentioned this already, but 90% of the energy in west virginia is produced by coal power and distress in the coal energy will raise energy prices for everybody. low-income folks are going to struggle with this. 60% of west virginia state business tax revenue is derived from coal revenues. a significant decrease in these revenues would put severe financial strain on the state budget and could potentially hurt crucial services in our state like public health, state
life funded health clinics and funding of our law enforcement agencies. i will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure my bill h.r. 1644 -- and i thank my colleague from west virginia and colleague from kentucky co-sponsoring this bill and it is known as the stream act. i want to move it swiftly before the committee before any damage can be done. it is time that the administration wakes up and realizes that their regulations are hurting hardworking american taxpayers for no good reason. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. mr. mckinley: thank you for bringing up also the clean power plants. we were wrapping up with that because i'm intrigued and maybe the rest of the members should be as well, with the idea that's
being promoted by the senior senator from kentucky, which is maybe we should not be so quick to jump on the clean power plan. the president may very well be overturned on this constitutionally. but if the states implement this voluntarily and impact our schools and communities, our environment, our health care, our hospitals by shutting down, we won't be able to recover from that. so the senator has come up with an intriguing concept and that is just say no. remipeds me of barbara bush, just say no. and we already have several states are either saying no or deeply and seriously considering saying no. states like oklahoma, indiana wisconsin, texas louisiana
alabama, mississippi, they're not going to jump on this legislation just yet. the rule they're coming from the administration because they've seen the strategy here, which is just to use a bullying tactic push it through push it through, knowing full well it's going ton overturned in the courts. those individuals you were talking about, congressman barr those individuals that came up to you, they're not going to have a job. they will have left kentucky they've gone someplace else to try to find something else. they're going to be uprooted from their communities. we have to fight. this is the fight now. further comment? mr. barr: would the gentleman zeeled i agree with you 100%. it's not just about the coal mining jobs and the coal miners who will lose their jobs. my district is mainly not a mining district. my district mainly is known for
thor rogue bred horses and bower be -- thoroughbred horses and bourbon distilleries and cattle, but we do border the coal industry. and what i do know about those senior citizens on fixed incomes, or low income folks who live in those noncoal producing counties in my district, is that their electricity bills are going to double or triple if this clean power plant -- clean power plan goes into effect. i talked to the utilities. over 90% of electricity in kentucky comes from coal. coal keeps the lights on. coal provides affordable energy, and the estimates from the utilities is that in a single year folks who live below the poverty line are going to see their electricity bills increase by two times, maybe three times and that's simply something they
can't afford. so this is an assault on low income americans not just coal mining families uh be -- but also fixed income seniors and other low income americans. i yield back. mr. mckinley: i do appreciate your additional comments. as we leave here tonight let's go over what we talked about. we talked about the impact on coal. we talked about the individuals that you just referred to, on their electric bills. we've seen the drama that's going to play out over this. we've seen the numbers of -- numbers of regulations that are coming forth with this, with the bullying tactics, this hostility toward coal, and we've seen this last result, the clean power plant. these have to stop. america needs to wake up. this is something that's happening. but we have the ability here to reach out and try to communicate to more people across west virginia and the nation in kentucky and illinois, montana california, to demonstrate to
them, you're using coal. you're getting the advantages of coal. work with us to get the clean coal technology so that we can cut down our -- our emissions. but the idea of shutting off coal is shortsighted and the rest of the world isn't following. as someone said about leadership, you know if no one is following you then all you're doing is a man taking a walk. so we've got to find people that can lead and we've got groups that are willing to take on this and fight for coal. fight for the jobs of the people affected by this. i thank you all for coming out here tonight and i yield back the balance of my time mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
mr. garamendi: thank you mr. speaker. we had a most interesting discussion on coal and let's continue on with natural resources for a few moments here. i represent a good portion of the state of california. i put this map up as an opportunity for interested parties to observe what's happening in the state of california. we're well into the fourth year of our drought in california. you can see from this map in 2003 we had a serious drought. the yellow. we're now looking at july 1, 2014. and the yellow is now just a small part of the state of california meaning it's still serious. mostly out in the delta, out in
the desert and in southern california, imperial valley, part of san diego, riverside. and san bernardino county. and a little bit of drought up here in the far north in the north coast area. the red and the brown, that's really really serious. so california is really in a very serious state of hurt at the moment. the drought is severe. it's having enormous impact, not just in the central valley but throughout the entire state of california. 25% water reduction is mandated by the state for the entire state. so in southern california, central california northern california that dramatic reduction in the consumption of water is well under way. i live here in the central part in the delta of california, which i'll talk about at some length. three weeks ago, this house
passed legislation to address this issue the valadao bill and what it really was all about was a relaxation of the environmental protections and thereby a mechanism to basically take what water remains in northern california here in the sacramento valley and transport it down into the san joaquin valley here. it's basically the classic water grab, which we've seen so much of over the years. all of that talk is going on here in washington, d.c., what is happening is that california is doing what it has done so very well. and that's mine. not coal, which we heard about from our colleagues from the coal states, but rather, mining water. this map basically shows what's happening in the aquifers of
california. in june of 2002, you see a lot of green. the aquifers, while still depleted, were thought to be in pretty good shape. in 2008, as a result of expansion of agriculture and cities and communities throughout california, the mining of water was going on, so much so that we're now beginning to see these yellow and brown areas show up. as the drought continued on from 2008 2014, we're beginning to see the very severe overdraft of the aquifers of california. will these aquifers rebound when the rains return? perhaps. but we also know that many of them will not. and the result of this extraordinary overdrafting of the aquifers in california will place in jeopardy many, many communities, agricultural communities, as well as the
communities, the human communities. we know that down here in the san joaquin valley, along the eastern side communities are simply out of water. the aquifers have been mined overdrafted, to the point where there is no more ability to draw from the aquifers. and these communities are out of water today. extraordinary efforts are under way to provide these communities, many of whom are low income communities with very little resources of their own unable to dig deeper wells to provide themselves with water. so part of the bill that passed three weeks ago attempted to address this. but in a very insufficient way. there are alternatives. there are ways that california can and must deal with the drought. and they basically are short-term immediate, and long-term. that legislation has been
introduced. i draw the attention to the huffman bill, which is a comprehensive effort to deal with california's both short-term and long-term efforts. i also draw the attention to the napolitano bill and basically draw your attention to how it should not be done, which was the valadao bill. now action is under way in the senate. our senator diane feinstein is about to introduce legislation we have not had a chance to see the full legislation. we do know that some of the huffman bill is introduced into it. we know that some of the napolitano bill is also introduced. i want to deal with those opportunities that present themselves and at the same time suggest that the valadao bill should not be passed. there's no need to push aside the environmental laws. there's no need to waive the california constitution and the water rights system in the
constitution as the valadao bill does. it's hidden, but it's there. so what i want to really talk about is how we can address the california water needs. i call this the little ship -- little sip, big gulp strategy. it's a proposal i made some three years ago and continue to work on. it is a water plan for all california. it is sthroor a program put out by the california admrgs. not the tunnels. not the california water fix. not the bdcp. all those programs are simply a way to transfer water. but rather, what we call a water fix, a water plan for all california. s bycally, what it involves is, a mechanism to provide water for the growing population of california for the agricultural
areas, the great central valley, sacramento and san joaquin called the great central valley, for the urban reaches here in the bay area and down in southern california. i'll go through it very, very quickly. let's talk about southern california. basically, it now takes watter from northern california from the colorado river brings water into the southern california area, where it is consumed after being cleaned. it's consumed. it's cleaned yet again. and a great amount of that water is dumped them into the pacific ocean. you go, wait a minute? you mean to tell me, they're taking watter from northern california 400 or 500 miles from the colorado river, bringing it into southern california cleaning it, using it once and then dumping it into the ocean? and the answer is, yes, that's exactly what happened. so much so that what i think is the fifth biggest river on the west coast of the western
hemisphere is the sanitation plants of california. so the first option would be to recycle that water. that's a big part of the napolitano bill and the huffman bill. recycle it. use the water that's there. this is happening in orange county down here. orange county has one of the largest recycling programs anywhere in the united states. good for them. but that much more can be done. for maybe $1 billion b or $1.5 billion, you may be able to get 500,000 acre-feet of new water that's already in southern california. so that's the recycling san diego, southern california, the great los angeles basin as well as the great san francisco area. here in sacramento a major recycling program is now under way by the sacramento regional sanitation district. good for them. that water will be reused. some of it in the sacramento area. the rest of it put back in the
river as clean water, then available for the bay for environmental purposes in the bay as well as for the san joaquin valley and indeed all the way to los angeles. so recycling is very, very much a part of the future of california. a lot of people talk about desalnyization. yes, certainly there's a desalinizatino -- oi -- -- a desalinization plant there's one in the santa barbara area. those are important. however desalinization is far more expensive than recycling. the recycled water turns out to be cleaner than ocean water. it doesn't have the salts and contaminants because it's been significantly cleaned in the sanitation process system of recycling. the most important and most
immediate and frankly under way, as i said, 25% reduction in water consumption required in california now, that's called conservation. clearly, conservation is the simplest, least expensive and the largest source of water for the future. conservation is taking place by mandate now but also a great deal of conservation is taking place in the agricultural areas up and down the coast as well as the agricultural areas in the monterey bay area and actually everywhere in california. as much as leading to this moment, more can and must be done both urban and agriculture. perhaps estimates by the state government indicate between three million and five million acre-feet of water can be saved through a robust conservation program up and down the state. once again this is in the
democratic legislation that has been put forth by mrs. mrs. napolitano: and mr. huffman. major conservation program. you have recycling. you could do desalinization in certain places and thirdly conservation. with conservation being the single biggest and the most inexpensive of all of the options. there are things that need to be done. federal government grants as well as state and local government and participation by farmers and communities up and down the state. thirdly, we need to develop more storage. and here's where the twin tunnel concept being pushed by governor brown and the administration makes no sense at all. i want to put up a map that
displays this a little better. i'm going to go the really big map, because this really needs to be understood. this is a picture of the delta of california. inland delta, largest on the west coast and basically this entire region here. sacramento is up here. stockton is here. contracosta county, and then san francisco bay begins in this area. what we have here is this inland delta. san joaquin river comes up from the river. the sacramento river flows from the north all the way from the oregon border, flows down to the sacramento valley, past the city of sacramento and comes in and joins the san joaquin river.
i have lived in this area for the last 0 years and represent this area for -- well, since 1974 in one way or another. it is an extraordinary ecological system. it is the nursery for dozens of different species of salmon and other fish. it is extremely important for the ecology, not just of the delta but the entire west coast. obviously from this area, the salmon go out to sea providing jobs thousands upon jobs of recreational opportunities. thousands of other species of fish is a major way for them. it is a rich agricultural area. several hundred thousands of acres of agricultural lands and
provides recreational opportunities with more of a thousand miles of rivers and waterways of various kinds. it is in trouble and serious trouble because of the transfer to the great pumps here at tracy that could pump up to 15,000 cubic feet of water per second. the pumps sending it to the san joaquin valley here and on to los angeles. this is the hub, and this is where the covers -- controversy exists. what the governor wants to start up here in the richest agricultural areas in all of america and create three intakes and two massive tunnels that come down all the way down to the pumps and destroying the agricultural land and the pumps are big enough. these tunnels capable of carry
15,000 cubic feet of water per second and with intakes that are at 9,000, add another intake, get another 9,000. the sacramento flows at 15,000 cubic feet per second water into the sacramento and into the delta. this system that the governor wants to build is big enough to drain the fresh water from the delta destroying this extraordinary ecological system the largest on the west coast of the western hemisphere. we say to the governor, why would you build something that has such destructive capacity? a recent report that was done on the economic benefits of this, remember it's about $15 billion to build the two tunnels and the intakes and the pumps to go with
it, the economic analysis that was recently published said wait a minute, the total economic benefit of this is like $5 billion over the lifetime of the tunnels, that is 50 years. $15 billion in the next decade or so and get $5 billion of economic benefit? does president make much sense. there is no storage. no storage north of the delta no storage south of the delta. where are you going to put the water? it is nonsense. don't waste $15 billion or $17 billion or set up a system that could destroy the agriculture of the delta and put at risk the communities that rely upon the fresh water. don't do that. there is a better option that is
available and we call it the little sip, big gulp. first of all, fix the levees. fix the levees, the levees that allow for the transport of water through the dealt ave that will protect the communities and protect the flow of water. probably less than a billion dollars and armor these levees and upgrade those levees to maintain the current flow of water when necessary through the delta and through the pumps and protect stockton and the communities down here in the contracosta area. that gives you half of the water that would be needed. the other half is what i call the little sip. i think you can see this on the map. this is the sacramento deepwater shipping channel.
it actually intersects with the sacramento river up here in sacramento, taking water into the sipping channel and coming down here to a community called rio vista. about 40% of a system is already in existence. if you were to put a fish screen here at the opening on the sacramento river, allowing 3,000 cubic feet per second of water to flow into the shipping channel, down the shipping channel, capture that waterway down here where the shipping channel ends, there are levees on either side of the channel capture the water there and bring the water across to old river, which is right here, bringing that water across to old river and it goes then to the pumps here at tracy. so what you have here is a
mechanism which we call the little sip 3,000 feet per second, big enough to be operated virtually every day of the year in the normal water year. not this year in a severe drought. by the way you could not operate the big tums either. this big project that the governor wants to propose could not be used this year because there isn't water in the river. but this project in every year, the high flow and low flow could take that 3,000 every day bringing it down to the pumps delivering 2,000 feet of feet every year. that's the little sip. and actually did have twice this year you could turn the big pumps on down here and you could take the rest of the two million
acre-feet, giving you the 4.5 million feet that is desired to flow south to southern california and san joaquin valley. little sip, big gulp. you are going to have to maintain the levees and bring them up to code so they are 100 200-year flood levees, and you have set up a mechanism that could not destroy the delta, because it's only 3,000 cubic feet per second coming out of the sacramento river way up help high. you would avoid the destruction that would occur as a result of the two of the three intakes or four intakes that would be built on the sacramento river and all of the disruption that would occur as you build these two massive tunnels. these tunnels are 40 feet
indictmenter. we are talking about -- well, actually higher than this ceiling here in the chamber. this is probably like 30 feet in the ceiling. but of the 40 feet two massive tunnels, 40 feet indictmenter, that would be drilled down to the delta into the most complex soils anywhere in the united states disrupting this area and creating the opportunity for an threat to the delta because it is so big. what would this cost? maybe a third, maybe less than a third, maybe a quarter, because so much is already built. we have the channel all the way down to here. we have 10-12 mile pipeline across the delta into the old river or a new canal built into the new river across to tracy.
the rest of the money, perhaps another $10 million or a billion dollars that would be spent on the massive twin tunnels would be used for storage systems south of the delta. let me put this down for a second and put up the map of california. where would those storage systems be? south of the delta. here's the delta once again. south of the delta there is a reservoir and needs to be repaired because of earthquake potential. just to the south you have a creek and los grande river. and most important of all are the al qaeda what fers. remember -- akuif rench s are
overdrafted. these are the major reservoirs. as water is brought out of the delta. we need to make sure that water is put in reservoirs where possible and it needs to be upgraded and added to, so you have the surface storage reservoirs that are going to be necessary and most important of all, you have the aquifers. we need to figure out the systems to bring water through the canals when it's available and recharge the aquifers of the san joaquin valley. some of them will not be able to recharged. they may never be able to recover. but some could be recovered and those are the ones we need to identify and recharge them. in the sacramento valley, north
of the delta, north of the delta, there are several storage opportunities available to us. some of these have been studied way up here. this is the largest reservoir in the california. shasta california. there is talk to raise the dam and increase the exass writ by 130,000 acre-feet of yield here at shasta. further south, off, not on the river but north river reservoir that mr. lamalfa and i are offering legislation to build sites reservoir which would take water offstream, pump it into this reservoir 1. million acre-feet and that water would be available to put back into the sacramento river to export to the south or fresh water into
the san francisco bay and also would recreate the authority for the re-authorization to work in conjunction here in sacramento and the re-authorization of the sacramento in other words giving great flexibility in the way we would be able to operate the system for the benefit of the environment and southern valley, san joaquin valley and southern california and sa lynnity control. and at the same time, there are enormous aquifers that need to be maintained and recharged. what we could rebuild if they thought about it, we could build a system that would be con
junktive use. when there is a lot of water. we would store that water. we would store it in shasta and the aquifers in the san joaquin valley or on the reservoirs as well as in southern california. . when you repsych until southern california, you could store those waters in the southern california basin. these aquifers are actually -- actually have greater capacity than the shasta reservoir. so you've got the aquifer of the san fernando, you've got the aquifer of the san gabriel, san bernardino, orange county, and west basin and several other smaller aquifers in the los angeles basin and of course there are others as you move south in toward san diego. so that's the storage system that you would then use in a con junktive water management program. this is the holistic approach that we need to look at.
i call it the little sip. in the delta. build a small facility of 3,000, 3,000 is not small, 3,000 cubic feet per second facility taking that water out of the sacramento river, at sacramento, put it into the deep water shipping channel, the sacramento channel, all the way down here tory other areow -- just north of rio vista. take it across the delta, put it in a canal, into old river, to the pumps, 3,000, the remaining water would be taken out of the sacramento-san joaquin delta when it is available and when the fish, the delta smelt and other fish are not at the pumps, and you turn the pumps on, sending that water south to be stored or used in the ock which ferres -- aquifers. of course north of the delta you would have the surface storage reservoir at sites and
perhaps the enlargement of shasta and then the ability to use it. so why don't we do it? for the $15 billion that the governor wants to spend on digging two tunnels that do not create one gallon of new water but do create an existential threat to the large ms. esty: wear on the west -- estuary on the west coast of the hemisphere, don't waste your money don't spend $15 billion on a $5 billion benefit. that's over 50 years. why would you ever make that investment when you can do something that creates water really creates perhaps as much as five million acre feet of new water for california's future? water that would be available from recycling and storage in southern california aquifers, available from storage north of the delta, the replenishment of the aquifers in the great central valley of california, and the creation of new storage
surface reservoirs along the way. and most important, conservation. you have to conserve. it's mandated now and it's part of our future. this is a water plan for all of california. these ideas are not new. i didn't dream them up. although i put them together. and interestingly enough, 3 1/2 years ago when i made this first proposal about a year later the governor's department of water resources put forth a paper, called it a water action plan, for california, and it's exactly statement. without, without the tunnels. their water action plan didn't speak to the tunnels. it did speak to storage north of the delta, did speak to conservation, did speak to the aquifers did speak to recycling. all of those things.
that have been in the water plan for california for about 30 years. this is not new. i've been involved in these issues since the 1970's and i know that if we were to back away from the twin tunnel proposal, which is so destructive of the delta, and went to the little sip, big gulp strategy, using all of the various mechanisms available to california, we could create maybe five million acre feet of new water. we could address the future drought that california will have again some day in the future. now, what about today's drought? i want to deal with that. the people of california last november passed a $7 billion water bond. that water bond allows for conservation replenishment of the aquifers, surface storage
perhaps sites reservoir yet to be determined, and recycling replenishment of the aquifers and most important for now today, money for those communities that are out of water. that have no water at all. for them to drill their wells deeper or to bring in surface water from nearby rivers or communities that may already -- that may be available. and that is a particular problem here in this area of the san joaquin valley and a few of the communities up here in the sacramento valley and up in the foothills. so we need to provide that immediate relief for those areas and we need to get on with conservation in some of the -- and some of the money that's necessary in order to do that. the water bond's available. that money is going to be coming out over the next 18 months or so as the state of california moves projects forward. immediately, and this is what i
hope would be in the legislation that we should pass here in washington is that we would use those federal programs that exist today, and there are a multitude of federal programs that already exist in federal law money that is already appropriated, but not focused on the drought, not only in california, but throughout the west, and what i would suggest, as we move legislation forward, perhaps this will be in senator feinstein's bill, i would hope so, and if not there, as we hopefully all work together on solving the problem of drought in the west and particularly in california, that we focus our attention on the immediate opportunities that the federal government can presently present to solve problems.
the -- problems. the environmental protection agency has the clean water grant programs. the department of interior, bureau of reclamation, has the water smart program, which is conservation, recycling. we know that the army corps of engineers have programs. and there are other programs spread throughout the federal government that if they were focused immediately on the needs of the california and other states that money could move to solve the community problems. the clean water grant program could be used to provide water programs for those communities that are out of water. the recycling, the conservation programs, all of those have money that are presently already proposed -- appropriate bud not focused. if they focus -- appropriated but not focused. if they focused that money so it was coordinated augmented and supplemented and ahead of the california water bond programs, you could advance the water bond programs by as much as 18 months. it will take that long for california to move that money out of the bond. so move the federal government in conjunction in alignment with the programs that the
state of california already is planning to do but doesn't yet have the money available, put the federal money there, do the planning, the engineering, the environmental reviews if necessary, and you advance so that today's drought can be dealt with. now, that's beginning to make sense. i think we can do this. we need to push aside all of the fighting we've had over these many, many years and don't take water from somebody, but work on programs to expand the water potential for all california. don't push aside the environmental laws, because it is in fact the environmental laws that protect this large ms. esty: wear on the west coast of the -- largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere. so don't put us in a situation where we are destined to fight.
but rather put us in a situation we can work together. that's my plea to my republican colleagues who pushed that bill through here basically on a party line vote. and now headed to the senate. i asked senator feinstein, work with us, work with those of us that represent the delta. that have worked for generations and decades on how to protect the delta. there is a solution. i call it a little sip, big gulp. you can put any name you want to put on it. in fact the natural resources defense fund came up with a similar program that they called a portfolio approach. conservation recycling aquifer storage systems, both large and small, surface and aquifer. it's all there. this is not new. this is working together to solve a major challenge to the largest economy in the united states, the seveth largest economy in the world -- seventh
largest economy in the world, the largest population. this is a challenge. but this is a challenge that we can do. so, my plea to anybody that cares to work on water is work with us. there are ways we can solve and mitigate the current drought and solve the problem for the future drought. it's there. it's not going to be any more expensive than the massive tunnel programs that the governor's proposing. in fact, if you took that $15 billion and you were to spend it on building sites reservoir, expanding the reservoirs to the south, putting in the systems for the underground aquifer replenishment, recycling programs in southern california how much progress could we make? well, we could solve the problems for the next drought and we could mitigate and reduce the harm of the current drought. that's what it's all about.
working together. taking the best ideas of one group or another. mr. speaker, i think i've covered this issue hopefully making some sense of what is a very complex problem for california and therefore for the nation. i thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege to be able to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives . and to speak some words here that hopefully will be picked up by the rest of the country, to cause us to think a little more, think a little deeper and think about the destiny of this
country, mr. speaker. i come to the floor to talk to you this evening about a couple of topics. and that's our -- one of them is our national security and the other one is the rule of law. i'll say the third thing and it threads into that, is the planned parenthood videos that we've now seen three of, as they penetrate into our conscience. let me address that first, mr. speaker. the planned parenthood videos. it's been now several weeks since the first video came out that showed the supposed doctor that worked for planned parenthood cavalierly discussing how to harvest the organs of innocent little unborn aborted, though babies. and the cavalier approach to that, sitting there over dinner, chatting away as if they were talking about a soccer game or maybe talking about spending the weekend with their family, to have a glass of wine and talk about taking
organs out of innocent little creatures that are created in god's image, as we all are, mr. speaker, that was video number one. and that should have shocked us to our core, to see the attitude. but it didn't confirm decisively what was actually going on. it implied and it was fairly strong evidence but it didn't confirm. the second video was the lady sitting in a different restaurant chatting along about how they -- the transaction would be to harvest kidneys and lungs and livers and hearts and brains and body parts from innocent babies who but just wanted a chance to live and love and laugh and learn to worship, to grow, to enjoy life to enjoy that first right, that right to life that
comes before the right to liberty, which comes before the right to the pursuit of happiness, as our founding fathers prioritized those rights in the declaration of independence mr. speaker. the -- and that lady in the second video wanted enough out of that that she, i'll use that word again, cavalierly said, i want a lamborghini. i i'm sure she would say -- i'm sure she would say to us, i was just joking. well, to joke about in a setting like that told me it wasn't just a casual conversation. there was attention being paid attention. and it didn't seem there was conclusive but there was a direction and course of that conversation. now today we see a third video a video interviewing a woman a woman whose task was to harvest
the organs of little babies and it shows the separation of that, the little feet, the hands, the ams, the kidney and the brains than a the baby that was perfect in every way until it was torn apart. we are using a technique a methodology that is designed to preserve the organs so it can be sold to laboratories. when i saw that video today and i saw each of the other two videos when they came out, the first one that was available and saw the second video as a preview, either one of those as i was listening to those, certainly told me that there's an evil element within planned
parenthood, a cavalier attitude, this is the business we do attitude, not a human compassion was exposed in the first two videos. i have read a lot of material and testimony sitting on the judiciary committee, we move it. so we haved a lot of lot of life and death debates in the judiciary committee here in the house of representatives. but when i saw the video of the young woman talking about the task that she was give given and separate these organs and these are good and the lab will take that and essentially these will bring good money, let's make sure we protect them, it sickened me and caused my gut to knot up in a way that the first
time i walked into a funeral home to see the dead body of a loved one. that's an experience in anybody's lifetime that you remember. seeing this video is an experience that i rill remember. as i watch this congress and i watch how congress is reacting, i'm glad there are investigations going on. and the speaker has spoken up on this issue. i'm glad there is a pro-life movement in this country and people making their positions known to the supreme court to the united states congress, to the president of the united states, however intranssigent the president will be on this. this is a subject that should have the teaning of the department of justice and loretta lynch should be conducting an investigation and preparing a prosecution against the people that have admitted in
the videos that they have committed on crime perhaps multiple crimes. but this isn't about -- there's a piece of this on an argument on one side, we just do this to get our money back out of the costs we have and pass them along and after all this poor mother is making a contribution to science, so we should appreciate that. that's not what the congress thought when they passed the laws against trading unknown baby body parts. it's about the law. and the law says thou shall not do such a thing. no amount of trying to explain that it was with a positive motive instead of a profit motive and saying that's our recovering our costs, the money that comes from the taxpayer
into the pockets of planned parenthood doesn't ever go to abortion because it will be said now hundreds of fimes mr. speaker, thousands of times it will be said, money is fungible, money is fungible, money is fungible and dump a billions of dollars, we have to borrow the money from the chinese and planned parent hood uses that to free up some of their other operations that end up being their other operations that i an abortion and closing on 60 million little babies since roe versus wade in 1973. closing on 60 million. and at the same time we have people arguing we need to open up our borders and let people come into america because our
birth rates are not high enough to replace the people who are dying off. rather than to say let's bring every one of these babies to birth, give them an opportunity to fill their lungs of free air and give them the opportunity to live to learn to laugh, to contribute to this country to this society rather than do that, abort the babies and bring in people from another culture and think we are making america a better place when we have up to 60 million abortions on our heads on our conscience, on our supreme court, mr. speaker and on this congress to a degree, house and senate and certainly on the president of the united states i'll leave his family
out, but some know it crossed my mind. time for this congress to step up to defund planned parenthood and i won't be satisfied for waiting around for a year and put together a select committee that can look at it for a while longer. they are going to look at the videos and look at the testimony. all that does is give the planned parent hood an opportunity to spend some of those millions of dollars, some percentage of half a billion of dollars, borrowed from the chinese and indebted to the children that are born to lobby this congress to tell us there is some good in planned parenthood and we should continue to fund them. that's what we are faced with them, mr. speaker. shut off all funding to planned parenthood and not receive of one dime. there has been a strong movement
on this over the years since i have been here and the states want to move too. the states want to shut off funding. they are afraid that the president of the united states will order that the funding going to a state that would cut off would be cut off itself, that the medicaid money would be stopped by this administration if a state would dare to cut off funding and no longer subsidize planned parenthood. we need to give the states all authority to cut off any funds in the discretion of their own legislature and governors, any funds that go to any organization that provides abortion. they'll call it services and counseling. if we do that we can restore the culture of life in this country. if we do that, we begin to
respect and appreciate unborn human life. we'll see families that will grow. children that are cherished. we will see more and more foundation of education and faith and wholesomeness in our country. if we turn our backs on those innocent babies that are being aborted while we are subsidizing planned parenthood with borrowed tax dollars under the guise that somehow they do some good, this is evil, mr. speaker. it's happening to these innocent babies and what's happening to the mothers is evil and it's evil for profit and it's on video. and we have seen three of these videos mr. speaker. we are not done yet. this congress shouldn't pledge to study this for a year. as we go forward with funding for the next fiscal year, we have the witching hour september
30th at midnight. that continuing resolution has to have in it the language that will cut off the funding to planned parenthood and i'll cut it off to any organization that provides abortion as they say services or counseling. that subject is on the front of my mind, mr. speaker and i wanted to get it off of my chest. the next piece i want to talk about is our national security and as we are watching the presidential debates unfold and our 16 candidates that have announced for the president of the united states i'm grateful for every one of them. i have never seen such a field that have stepped up, the high quality of the character and the integrity that they have. the varied experience and success they have demonstrated in their lives, there have been a lot of times to win the republican nomination than there is now, mr. speaker.
as i look at the candidates and i have been encouraging them, i have yet to hear any of the candidates deliver a compact inclusive approach to how to defeat islamic jihad. i listened to them speak and i like the components i hear from them. one of them says we win, they lose. i like that. we need a strategy. and one of them says, if you attack us, we will kill you. ok. let's kill them first. that's fine with me. if isis has established a caliphate, they declare to be a caliphate, it is a caliphate. that real estate that they stroll is a caliphate and they threaten us and they say their black flag is going to fly over the white house. some would say that will be a
cold day mr. speaker. and we have seen dramatic changes over the last years. i say to the united states, we need to step up to this and recognize our enemy and need to defeat our enemies. our enemies are islamic jihad. and islamic jihad is comprised within the element of islam and they can bring outal worldwide revolution and in the end it will be the pureist of the pure that will be left on the planet and who ever is left must knuckle down to shari'a law. we need to defeat the ideology, mr. speaker. when i say defeat the ideology and speaking to a group of people, i see their look on their face such as, why do you think you can defeat an
ideology? and i recall one of those rebutals that came to me and i said tell that to the japanese. in fact, in world war ii in a 3 and-a-half year period of time, the allies defeated three i'd ollings, japanese imperialism italian fascism and german naziism. all three of those went down in flames in a 3 1/2 year period of time time. the western civilization superior culture that has a robust free enterprise and people that engaged in the economy and into the military that reach out this robust united states of america coupled with our allies reaching across the map of western civilization,
rose up and defeated three ideologieses in the second world war and took on a fourth i'd ology which was the russian ideology of communism. it wasn't just going up in flames and i'm grateful it wasn't. instead it was the economic and political collapse of the soviet union brought about this way. ronald reagan saw this. margaret thatcher saw this. thatcher went to reagan said with gorbachev, i found a man we can do business. i don't understand the motive of gorbachev and he has resiffist but pope john paul ii went into poland and asked them do not despair because they could be a free people. the forces of the ideology of
western civilization, western christiando mmp as churchill described it are the forces that stood up against russian communism. and 1984 when jane kirkpatrick stepped down, she made a statement upon her departure and she said what is going on in this cold war, what's going on is monopoly and chest on the same board the united states and the soviet union are playing chest and monopoly on the same board. will the united states of america bankrupt the soviet union before the soviet union checkmates -- brupts the soviet union economically before the soviet union checkmates the united states. that was put and that will show
up in the page but i found it back in the "des moines register." the the soviet union imploded and the wall went down in berlin and that was the symbol and the iron curtain came down and it went crashing down and people flowed freely back and forth. the free world had defeated the ideology of communism that was the soviet vers of it. and it can be restored again mr. speaker. . . we are the people that because of free enterprise, because we have idea people with good educations and a solid moral foundation and a good work ethic, this country has generated more patents than anybody else, created more inventions than anyone else,
cooperated with especially the western world and with the creativity that we have. and we've been able to rise up against ideology after ideology, defeat three of them during world war ii and defeat soviet communism in a 45-year period of the of the cold war. now we're faced with -- period of the cold war. now we're faced with another ideology. islamic jihad. islamic jihad, if you go back to the time of muhammad, about the last 20 years of his life, and for 100 years after his death, there was a conquest going on of, shall i call them religious conversions by the sword? and as the conquest was going on, islam was invading and occupying most of the known world at the time. by 732 a.d., mr. speaker the islamists were outside the city of tours in france when they
were facing a cavalry charge of the islamists. cavalries don't operate very well in the forests, mr. speaker. and that's how the infantry began to defeat them there and chase them out and across the plains and left their bones scattered a long way back toward spain. that was 732 a.d. and you can fast forward again and again to catch some of the milestones 1571, the battle, when the islamist navy was sunk by the holy league navy that went to meet them in the sea. and you can go until 1683, when vienna was surrounded by the islamists of the time. and july 14 they surrounded vienna and for more than two months they besieged vienna. for roughly two months. and then on september 11, the three german infanries, under
three german king -- infantries, under three german kings, they held a service at a church which was razed, it was in ruins at the hands of the islamists, but they held a service there in the -- on the evening of september 11 and prayed for god's deliver rans of their battle the next day that -- deliverance of their battle the next day and the deliverance of vienna which happened, in the famous battle of vienna. slept 11 -- september 11 and 12. then it goes on. september 11 became the date that lived in infamy for the people who attacked us on september 11 2001. new york pentagon and pennsylvania. and then again in 2012, september 11 2012, benghazi. that date means something to them. it ought to mean something to us. they've been fighting western civilization for 1,400 years and they've been adapting
themselves to the technology that's created in the western world, creating very little themselves but borrowing our technology mr. speaker. and some of that technology that's now being borrowed is the internet. the internet that's being used to recruit and to inspire and to recruit and to direct the islamists that are attacking americans and attacking people that are not in alignment with isis and with islamic jihad. that's the effort that's coming and the ability that they have to use the internet, to coordinate and communicate they'll say as high as 100,000 tweets and emails and communications a day are coming out of isis and islamic jihad in the broader definition of it. as high as 100,000 a day. we need to go -- bring about cyberwarfare against them and it means not just defensive warfare, to protect ourselves, but offensive warfare to attack
them through the same medium that they're using to attack us. so here's a list. we need to -- it's not just a kinetic war against them, which they've declared against the kinetic war. we need to do cyberwarfare, financial warfare, educational warfare against them. we need to build an alliance a strong alliance with especially the moderate muslim countries in the middle east those whom should be our allies but for being -- let's say given the short end of the stick from our state department during this administration, and i'm speaking of countries like egypt, united arab emirates, for example, jordan to a lesser degree, but they are natural allies to the united states. they're natural allies, in fact, they're allies to israel today. and they've been attacking our islamist enemies in that part of the world. the egyptians allowed for planes to fly out of there, to fly into yemen, and the emrates sent some of their air force there.
you saw the saudis do the same thing. we can build an alliance in the middle east with saudi arabia, whom i've got slightly less confidence in than i do in egypt and in the united arab emirates. with jordan and also working in cooperation with israel. when the president of egypt says to me that his relationship with prime minister netanyahu is stronger, with egypt and israel and the president and the prime minister is stronger than it is with the united states, we should be troubled by that, mr. speaker. we should be troubled by a foreign policy that's alien the -- alienated the egyptians, it's caused the u.a.e. to wonder, what's america doing, why are we paving the road to damascus for our enemies? why would we consider doing such a thing? so this strategy this strategy that i've put into an op ed in the national review just published here in the last
couple of days mr. speakerly as out a strategy to -- lays -- mr. speaker, lays out a strategy to conduct cyberwarfare, both offensive and defensive. and economic warfare to shut off the funds that are flowing to islamic jihad wherever they might be flowing from, wherever they might be flowing through, whoever might be doing business with them and thinking they're going to profit we've got to turn that the other way. then we need to shut down and shut off if we can, this is the most difficult component of the task the educational system out there that's teaching this kind of hatred into the next generation. build alliances with the moderate muslim countries, as i've said, encourage them. we need to be arming the kurds with everything that we can get to the kurds everything the kurds can use. and that doesn't mean send it through baghdad to get the baghdad stamp of approval, it means directly to the kurds along with special operations forces that can be on the ground with the kurds and call in air strikes and support the
kurds as one device that will squeeze isis in iraq and syria. the other jaw of the vice is assad. when the two jaws come together and crush isis, by that point we can take a look at assad and decide how to approach the power that may be left in syria at that period of time. this is just a quick list, mr. speaker, of a strategy to defeat the ideology of islamic jihad. the time has come for us to do that. i want to see a presidential candidate, or 16 of them i hope, who can articulate a vision interest -- a vision to bring about the defeat of these -- this enemy that has been bringing battle against western civilization for 1,400 years, that targets the united states of america as the great satan in the center of their efforts that they would like to -- they would like to destroy all of
the united states of america. and while this is going on, we've got a treaty proposal from the president of the united states with iran. he said, in the spring or summer of 2008 as a candidate, he said to iran mr. ahmadinejad, if will you unclinch your fist, we will extend our hand. i'd remind the public of that, mr. speaker. because that fifth is still clenched in iran -- clenchinged in iran and the -- clenched in iran and the president is poised to hand over billions of dollars to the iranian economy, it will juice the economy up it will allow them to bring conventional weaponry to bear, it will allow them to fund more hezbollah, it will allow them to continue to develop the most recent version of centrifuges. even if they comply in 10 years, the situation is set up where rather than one weapon, it's 100 weapons. i.c.b. -- icbm sticking up out
of the sand in the middle east mr. speaker. there's much to be done for this western civilization. we need to strengthen our culture, we need to believe in who we are, we need to sort the best things out of what we are and strengthen them, we need to call out the weaknesses that we have and we need a leader whom god will use to restore the soul of america. thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate your indulgence this evening. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning for morning hour debate.
>> there is a couple of reasons. this has been several weeks of messaging from the house since the senate released a multiyear authorization. transportation and ways and means leaders just don't believe there is enough time to examine this legislation. and for the house to speak on this before the august recess. for a couple weeks they have pointed to the five-month -- extension that they have offered. the senate has it bitten on that. late last night, after the senate chose to go through a procedural motion that will require them to be dragging out a debate clock today, after they took that action the house introduced a three-month
extension of transportation programs to october 29. from what we have seen this seems the houses upping the ante to force the senate to pass short-term extension. >> tell us the details in this proposal. who are the main authors of the bill? it would include money for the veteran affairs department. >> the bill was sponsored by transportation infrastructure committee chair bill shuster. it house house ways and means committee paul ryan as a cosponsor. we got this bill text last night. everyone is still poring through it. ways and means authorizing committee, everybody is taking a look at this now. there is a provision in the bill to address the consolidation of veterans affairs health care
program. and this is to deal with an impending closure of certain va hospital's. that is still something that is being figured out. there is some kind of offset for that. that is what i'm hearing for transportation advocates and other staff. it would extend authorization through the end of october. it also includes $8 billion from the general fund. the same amount of money put into the transportation program this $8 billion transfer fund the bank account essentially that the federal government uses to reimburse states for products. they would keep an $8 billion in this three-month extension. while authorization would only
stretch through the end of october, financially they could keep it afloat. it faces a shortfall at the end of the summer. the house in the and the senate don't ask for the federal government will be unable to reimburse for projects they have been working on. >> speaker boehner met with reporters earlier today and said he would do everything i can to get a long-term highway bill. what is the likelihood that the house passes a long-term bill before this new three-month funding expires? >> speaker boehner told reporters that the short extension was necessary to get to a highway bill before that next extension they just propose yesterday expires. his commitment to a long-term
highway bill from what we have been reading is contingent on the senate going ahead and passing another short-term extension. all of them have said this is way too soon to be passing a multiyear bill. they have not budged on whether they will take it out. it seems unlikely that the house will move toward a long-term bill before recess. >> what is the status of the funding bill that has the authorization of the export import bank? >> the senate leaders are very disappointed in the messaging from the house. they are contending that not only will they pass this know that they are going to try to pass it in time for the house to take it up. this really depends on the
afternoon. senator dick durbin has said he they are working on a unanimous consent agreement. they're going to take a move to cut short some of the procedural time. that has been put in place because of the actions yesterday pretty senate has a complicated procedural situation when it comes to this bill. there are many potential hangups and stalls that could occur on certain moves related to the bill. the leaders are saying they're going to try this afternoon to push to get the members to agree to take a key vote later this evening instead of if they didn't do this move to try to get sinners centers to move up the clock. >> what is the impact if no deal gets done? what our communities, cities
and towns likely to see? >> the construction cones all around the freeways and local roads in his community stay up. the workers may not be there. that is the messaging from a lot of transportation advocacy groups. the reality is if they don't do something to stop an impending shortfall in the highway trust fund to reauthorize transportation programs, states will be unable to engage in the summer construction work they have been doing without the faith that the federal government will have their back. this is such a potentially disruptive and financially costly consequence that i don't think any of the leaders in the house or senate really believe they won't be able to come to some agreement before these authorizations expire. what depends now is whether the house's message about a short-term will away the senate push for a long-term before this
august deadline. that is what he will see in the coming days. who reigned supreme in terms of who is going to be the one who takes the move to reauthorize programs. >> the transportation reporter for cq roll call. the website is cq.com. thank you for your time. >> always a pleasure. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house. congressional hearings and news conferences. events that shape public policy. washington journal is live with elected officials, policymakers and journalists. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> secretary of state john kerry was on capitol hill today to
testify on the it ran nuclear agreement. a deal he and for negotiators reached after several rounds of negotiations. a scrapping of the deal would mean a path to a nuclear weapon. according to secretary who testified for four hours before the house foreign affairs committee. he was joined by ernest moni's and jack lew. this was the second appearance all three made on capitol hill to take questions from lawmakers. congress has less than 60 days to prove review the deal. >> today we continue our review of the nuclear agreement the obama administration reach with iran. somedemanding the committee's
thorough review. a global threat from iran has been a focus of this committee for as long as i can remember. last congress we passed comprehensive sanctions legislation by a vote of 400-20. of 400 to 20. it would have given iran's supreme leader a choice between its nuclear program or economic collapse. but the administration was successful in blocking that legislation. so instead of us considering a verifiable, enforceable and accountable agreement we are being asked to consider an agreement that gives iran permanent sanctions relief for temporary nuclear restrictions. should iran be given this special deal?
in september committee members will face the important decision of approving or disapproving this agreement. we will have that vote only because of the iran nuclear agreement review act passed in may which the administration did not want. to be frank, the administration's preference has been to sideline america's representatives. so i was not entirely surprised when the administration went against bipartisan calls and gave russia and china and others at the u.n. security council a vote on this agreement before the american public. that is backwards and wrong. we've heard serious concerns from experts about the substance of this agreement. first, iran is not required to dismantle key bomb making technology. does that make the world safer? second, it is permitted a vast enrichment capacity reversing
decades of bipartisan non proliferation policy. does that make the region more stable? and third iran is allowed to continue its research and development to gain an industrial scale nuclear program once this agreement begins to expire in as little as 10 years. 10 years that is a flash in time and then the iranian obligations start unwinding. does this make the world more secure? we appreciate president obama's effort to secure the most intrusive inspections in history. but it came up short. instead there is managed access with iran, russia and china having a say in where international inspectors can and can't go. the deal's 24 day process is a far cry from anywhere, any time. and this provision expires too. while the administration is
professed absolute knowledge about iran's program it is a fact that we have been surprised by most every major nuclear development in iran's history. and iran has cheated on every agreement they have signed. so i ask, mr. secretary, has iran earned the right to be trusted? this deal guts the sanctions web that is putting intense pressure on iran. virtually all economic, financial and energy sanctions disappear. and where does all that money go? to the largest terror network on earth. gone are the sanctions on iran's nuclear program. but also on the bad banks that have supported iran easter ritual and ballistic missile development. and two our dismay iran won a late concession to remove international restrictions on its ballistic missile program
and conventional arms imperilling the security of the region and our homeland. if this agreement goes through iran gets a cashcarbosh bonanza. with sweeping sanctions relief we have lessened our ability to challenge iran's conduct across the board. as iran grows stronger we will be weaker to respond. yes the u.s. would roil diplomatic waters if congress says no to this deal. sanctions that iran desperately needs relief from. sanctions that continue to deter companies from investing in iran. i understand the stakes but these are about as high stakes as it gets.
so the committee must ask if we made the most of our pretty strong hand. or are we willing to bet, as the administration has that this is the beginning of a changed iran? these are complex issues. and i look forward to what should be an extremely informative hearing and i nowturn to the ranking member. >> mr. chairman, thank you for convening this hearing. secretary kerry, secretary lew. secretary moniz, welcome to the foreign affairs committee. thank you all for your dedicated service no matter what side of the irkssue is on i don't think anyone here doubts your commitment to the united states and the good intentions on this deal. thank you for the time you have taken to engage with members of congress on the proposed deal can and thank you for your testimony today. congress gave itself 60 days to renew this deal. and i sincerely hope my
colleagues take full advantage of the time to study this agreement torques ask questions and to make an informed decision when the time comes. we've had many months and hearings to discuss the different aspects of a nuclear agreement with iran. but at this point we are no longer dealing with hypotheticals. we have a specific deal on the table. and we have to decide if that deal advances the national security interests of the united states and/or allies. to answer that question to be fair we also need to ask ourselves what is the alternative? absent this deal or the international sanctions regime and the p5+1 coalition hold together? if this deal fails how o would we get the iranians back to the table? would new sanctions have to be coupled with the military action. as i continue to review the deal there are a number of issues i find troublesome. i hope the three of you will address them in your testimony and as you answer the committee's questions. first i continue to have
concerns that international inspectors are not will immediate access to undeclared sites. under the agreement iran has 14 days to grant access. if iran refuses access after that time then members of the joint commission could take another week to resolve the iaea's concerns. after that iran has three more days to provide access. so we're already nearly a month after inspectors first wanted access. if iran continues to say no another month could go by while this is resolved that. potential length of time gives me pause. i'd like to know how we can be sure iran cannot use these delays to sanitize sites and get away with breaking the rules. already we're seeing iran's leadership declare military sites will be off limits to inspectors if this is their version of transparency to
implementation of the agreement we're getting off to a bad start. also how the arrangement reached between iran and iaea how partchen will be inspected. second concerns about the ballistic missiles and the advanced conventional weapons. my understanding was these weren't on the table during the talks. so i was disappointed to learn that after a maximum of five and eight years respectively they will be terminated. i'd like to understand why we allowed this to happen and what we can do to ensure this doesn't make a terrible situation in the region get even worse. i'm also concerned about what iran's leaders will co-when sanctions are phased out and new resources come flowing in. we're talking about tens of billions of dollars. of course i'd like to see iran's leaders use this money to help the iranian people. but even with tough international sanctions in