[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 149 (Thursday, October 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H11419-H11430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM EXPANSION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 830, I call up the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend the Reclamation 
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to expand the Bay 
Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 830, the 
amendment printed in House Report 111-301 is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2442

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bay Area Regional Water 
     Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
     Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) (as amended 
     by section 512(a) of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act 
     of 2008) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 16. CCCSD-CONCORD RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, California, is 
     authorized to participate in the design, planning, and 
     construction of recycled water distribution systems.
       ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds 
     for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized 
     by this section.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,800,000.

     ``SEC. 16. CENTRAL DUBLIN RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION AND 
                   RETROFIT PROJECT.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the Dublin San Ramon Services District, California, is 
     authorized to participate in the design, planning, and 
     construction of recycled water system facilities.
       ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds 
     for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized 
     by this section.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,150,000.

     ``SEC. 16. PETALUMA RECYCLED WATER PROJECT, PHASES 2A, 2B, 
                   AND 3.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the City of Petaluma, California, is authorized to 
     participate in the design, planning, and construction of 
     recycled water system facilities.
       ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds 
     for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized 
     by this section.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $6,000,000.

     ``SEC. 16. CENTRAL REDWOOD CITY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the City of Redwood City, California, is authorized to 
     participate in the design, planning, and construction of 
     recycled water system facilities.
       ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds 
     for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized 
     by this section.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $8,000,000.

     ``SEC. 16. PALO ALTO RECYCLED WATER PIPELINE PROJECT.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the City of Palo Alto, California, is authorized to 
     participate in the design, planning, and construction of 
     recycled water system facilities.
       ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds 
     for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized 
     by this section.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $8,250,000.

     ``SEC. 16. IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT (ISD) ANTIOCH RECYCLED 
                   WATER PROJECT.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD), California, is 
     authorized to participate in the design, planning, and 
     construction of recycled water distribution systems.
       ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds 
     for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized 
     by this section.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000.''.
       (b) Project Implementation.--In carrying out sections 1642 
     through 1648 of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater

[[Page H11420]]

     Study and Facilities Act, and the sections added to such Act 
     by subsection (a), the Secretary shall enter into individual 
     agreements with the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water 
     Recycling implementing agencies to fund the projects through 
     the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) or its successor, 
     and shall include in such agreements a provision for the 
     reimbursement of construction costs, including those 
     construction costs incurred prior to the enactment of this 
     Act, subject to appropriations made available for the Federal 
     share of the project under sections 1642 through 1648 of the 
     Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 
     Act and the sections added to such Act by subsection (a).
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents of the 
     Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 
     (43 U.S.C. prec. 371) (as amended by section 512(a) of the 
     Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1649. CCCSD-Concord recycled water project.
``Sec. 1650. Central Dublin recycled water distribution and retrofit 
              project.
``Sec. 1651. Petaluma recycled water project, phases 2a, 2b, and 3.
``Sec. 1652. Central Redwood City recycled water project.
``Sec. 1653. Palo Alto recycled water pipeline project.
``Sec. 1654. Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) Antioch recycled water 
              project.''.

     SEC. 3. MODIFICATION TO AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

       (a) Antioch Recycled Water Project.--Section 1644(d) of the 
     Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-27) (as amended by section 512(a) of the 
     Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) is amended by 
     striking ``$2,250,000'' and inserting ``$3,125,000''.
       (b) South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility.--
     Section 1648(d) of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
     Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-31) (as amended by 
     section 512(a) of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 
     2008) is amended by striking ``$8,250,000'' and inserting 
     ``$13,250,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2442.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to, in the very beginning, commend 
the gentleman from California, the chairman of our Committee on 
Education and Labor, Mr. George Miller, for the tremendous leadership, 
dedication, persistence and patience with which he has handled the 
pending legislation. I wish to also commend our distinguished chairlady 
of our Subcommittee on Water on our Natural Resources Committee, the 
gentlelady from California, Mrs. Grace Napolitano.
  I do rise in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Natural 
Resources to support the pending legislation which was favorably 
reported out of our committee without controversy.
  By now, I would think that most of us are aware that there are major 
issues associated with drought and agriculture in California. While the 
rainy season has hit parts of the State, it will do little to refill 
reservoirs that haven't seen normal level of rainfall for years. The 
impacts of the drought are obvious, whether we're talking about brown 
lawns, fallowed fields or increased water rates for struggling 
families.
  To address this dire situation, the pending measure is based on the 
practical idea of conservation through reuse. By recycling water, this 
bill would create 39,000 acre-feet of water or enough water to supply 
over 24,000 homes. We're bringing this legislation up under a rule 
today because a very vocal minority opposed this bill for reasons 
unrelated to the merits of the legislation.
  I'm fortunate to come from a State with abundant water resources. I 
understand how water is critical for both people and our economy. What 
I do not understand is why some Members on the other side want to use 
this bill as a strawman so they can demagogue Democrats on the drought 
issue.
  One Republican Member from California in particular filed a number of 
amendments that are very good at generating headlines and controversy. 
Unfortunately, the amendments were not germane to the subject matter of 
the bill before us, nor are they very thoughtful or realistic solutions 
to the crisis before us.
  Opposition to this legislation is like cutting off one's nose to 
spite one's face. Water supply issues in California are not a zero sum 
game. Creating more water through reuse in urbanized areas reduces 
pressure on water demands elsewhere in the State. If opponents to this 
legislation want to work towards solving California's water woes, then 
I suggest getting real about finding solutions and stop the partisan 
political attacks.
  The bill before us today creates new water resources through reuse. 
We have brought up bill after bill doing the same thing before this 
body without any controversy, including bills for my Republican 
colleagues in southern California, Utah and Oregon.
  The only reason we are here today debating this legislation is 
because one Member thinks a solution to a severe drought is to gut 
environmental laws and overturn court decisions. Perhaps that Member 
should propose a rain dance as well.
  So it is time to support H.R. 2442 and move forward with practical 
solutions for a real drought in California. I urge support of the 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill. I say 
reluctantly, because I and colleagues on my side of the aisle do 
support water recycling. We think it's a valuable tool for providing 
water to our farmers and communities across America, just as water 
storage is, Mr. Speaker, a tool for providing water for our 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrat sponsor of this legislation, and the 
manager of this bill, the gentleman from California, has said 
previously, and is correct, that Republican water recycling bills have 
passed this House. That's correct. The question is, then, why is this 
bill different?
  And the answer, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. When there is an 
economic disaster occurring in the San Joaquin Valley of California, 
when man-made and government-enforced drought has dried up farm after 
farm in that valley, with 40,000 workers unemployed, standing in food 
lines and being ignored by the leadership in this House, when solutions 
to bring water and relief to this area have been blocked and stymied 
again by the leadership in this House, then a point comes, Mr. Speaker, 
when Members of this House have to say enough is enough.
  The water recycling bill before us benefits the San Francisco Bay 
Area. The Speaker of the House represents the city of San Francisco, 
and one of her top deputies, who happens to be the sponsor of this 
bill, is also from the Bay Area.
  This bill provides millions of Federal taxpayer dollars for the Bay 
Area while tens of thousands of their fellow citizens suffer economic 
devastation just a few hours south and inland in the San Joaquin 
Valley.
  All that was sought by the two Republican Members from the San 
Joaquin Valley, with the express support, I might add, of one of their 
Members from California in the same area on the Rules Committee, was to 
a have a chance, just a chance, to make their case on the House floor 
and to vote for a solution to this disaster in the San Joaquin Valley.
  Mr. Speaker, they didn't ask that the amendments that they wanted 
made in order be passed. They just asked for the ability to be heard so 
they could persuade others to perhaps vote with them. That is all any 
of us could ask. Mr. Speaker, that chance has been denied. It has been 
blocked. Their amendments were deemed nongermane. It has been labeled 
as irrelevant to the bill before us.
  Mr. Speaker, might does not make right when it comes to who controls 
the House because what the leadership is unwilling to do is potentially 
provide relief to those that have been hurt by

[[Page H11421]]

this man-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley and the policies of 
this Federal Government.
  It has been stated, also, that the drought disaster is a California 
issue. The implication of that is that this is not of concern to other 
Americans. Mr. Speaker, that simply is wrong. What is happening in the 
San Joaquin Valley of California does affect all Americans. If this 
water recycling bill to benefit the Bay Area is worthy of consideration 
by the representatives of all 50 States in this House, then so is the 
drought disaster issue.
  Mr. Speaker, if this can happen in California, then what of the 
farmers in the central Washington district that I represent? Hundreds 
of thousands of acres of farmland are irrigated in my district with 
water delivered by Federal pumps and from Federal reservoirs. I do not 
ever want to see the day that a government-enforced drought devastates 
these communities that I represent.
  This isn't the first instance when Federal policies have threatened 
to cut off water to tens of thousands of people. Earlier in this 
decade, the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was threatened with the 
loss of its water supply due to the presence of the silvery minnow. 
Congress acted rightfully to provide relief to New Mexico when the 
House and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, voted for a remedy to 
Albuquerque's problem. Today, unfortunately, there is no relief to come 
to the San Joaquin Valley as relief did come to those in Albuquerque.
  And the relief that is being sought, I might add, Mr. Speaker, is not 
a bailout. The amendments that were offered simply were a plea, and it 
was not a plea for stimulus funding or for any money. It was simply for 
an opportunity to allow the Federal Government to provide for water 
flow. It didn't cost anything. But yet it was not given an opportunity.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if the House is going to provide authorization to 
spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to provide recycled water to 
the Francisco Bay Area, then this House should be voting on legislation 
that brings relief to Californians suffering from this devastating man-
made drought.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, it's on these grounds, even though I support the concept 
of water recycling, it's on these grounds that I have to stand here and 
urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 
minutes for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee on Water and Power.
  Madam Chair, I appreciate your support for my legislation for helping 
to expand California's water supply. Is it true when the House 
considered the water recycling bill for Mr. Gallegly of California just 
last month no amendments were sought by the minority and none were 
included, in his water recycling bill, and that was approved by a voice 
vote?
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The gentleman is correct. The water recycling bill 
for California for Mr. Gallegly was approved by a voice vote by the 
House last month, and no amendments were asked for and none were 
included.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, is it also true that so 
far this year the House has approved five water recycling or water 
reuse bills for Members of the minority party and that no amendments at 
that time were sought for any of those five bills, that those five 
water bills were each approved under suspension of the rules, either by 
a voice vote or by a substantial majority vote?
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Again, the gentleman is correct. So far this year 
the House has approved five water bills, all for recycling or water 
reuse for Members of the minority party, and no amendments were offered 
by the minority or the majority to any of those five bills which, by 
the way, were Mr. Issa, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Chaffetz, and 
Mr. Dreier; and they were approved by a voice vote or by substantial 
majorities.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Madam Chair, if I can pursue further, finally, is it true that when 
my bill, H.R. 2442, was considered by the Water and Power Subcommittee 
in the full Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, no 
amendments were offered by the minority or the majority and the bill 
was reported out by unanimous consent?
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. True, the gentleman is again correct. H.R. 2442 was 
approved by unanimous consent, and no amendments were offered by the 
minority or the majority.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for engaging 
me in this colloquy, and I also want to thank her for her 
groundbreaking work in bringing water recycling and reuse to the 
forefront of the consideration by the Bureau of Reclamation as an 
important source of new water in California and throughout the west and 
southwestern United States.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California, a former member of the 
Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Calvert.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances, the legislation 
before us would be approved without much attention or controversy. The 
bill simply authorizes water recycling projects, which I strongly 
support.
  However, we are not living under normal circumstances. We are living 
in the midst of a crisis. The ongoing water crisis in California has 
created an economic downturn up and down the State. Statewide, the 
unemployment rate has risen to more than 12 percent. In the Central 
Valley, regional unemployment has reached 20 percent, with some 
communities' unemployment now over 40 percent.
  California's water crisis is the result of water conditions, on top 
of the federally imposed pumping restrictions that have been placed on 
our State's critical water infrastructure. While the water pumping 
restrictions are undeniably hurting California's water economy, there 
is no clear evidence that endangered species are actually benefiting 
from the measures intended to protect them.
  The fact remains that the flaws and shortcomings of the Endangered 
Species Act have tied the hands of judges and water resource planners, 
creating a man-made drought that is killing jobs in California. So what 
is the majority of the House doing to address the clear and obvious 
deficiencies in the Endangered Species Act? The answer is absolutely 
nothing.
  The reality is that the leadership of the House is too afraid to 
allow an open and free debate on these policies because they know if 
reasonable people are given a chance, they would overwhelmingly reject 
failed policies aimed to protect fish and support efforts to give water 
to people who are struggling just to survive.
  There are a number of bills sponsored by Members in the minority that 
would restore some common sense to our water and environmental 
policies. Perhaps if the Democratic leadership would allow these bills 
to come to the floor, legislation like this would be approved without 
much attention or much controversy.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from California 
say that if we would just allow some of these proposals to come to the 
floor, they would just be approved without any controversy.
  I beg to differ. Suspending the Endangered Species Acts, overturning 
biops, dealing with issues that have been in the works for years to try 
and balance the equities would be noticed. It's one of the reasons why 
the Republicans, when they controlled everything for 6 years, didn't 
move anything remotely like that.
  The American public, Native Americans, hunters and fishermen, the 
fisheries industry, they rely on some semblance of reality when we are 
dealing with water policy. I commend the gentleman for bringing forward 
something that is a constructive solution that can pass and isn't going 
to be tied up in court for years. That's not going to put people out of 
work. That's, in fact, going to create jobs. It's going to create 
water. It's going to reduce the pressure.
  Instead, we are hearing our friends from the other side of the aisle 
ignore

[[Page H11422]]

the very real problems that we are facing today. This is not a man-made 
government-enforced drought. The water isn't there. To overturn minimal 
protections for the environment, for the fisheries in the Pacific 
Northwest, for people at the end of these rivers is not a solution 
that's going to restore water that isn't there.
  It's not going to help California that's tied in knots. Its 
legislature can't even deal with meaningful management of its own 
groundwater. We have a crisis in this country that is man-made and 
government created, and that is that we haven't been serious about the 
management of water resources.
  This is going to get worse because of climate change, global warming, 
and extreme weather events. We are going to be facing things like this 
in the Pacific Northwest with the disappearing snow pack, more strain 
on reservoirs, more conflict between cities and towns in rural areas, 
between wildlife and Native Americans.
  We have got to get serious. We have to get serious with legislation 
like this and being realistic about working together to create a 
framework for dealing with water policy. Let's roll up our sleeves and 
do that together. In the meantime, let's not demagog important 
legislation that will make a difference for water in California now, 
putting people to work and maybe, just maybe, starting an honest 
conversation about how we are going to deal with a nationwide water 
crisis.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking Republican on the 
Water and Power Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. 
McClintock.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, those who blame the drought for our problems ignore the 
fact that this is a very mild drought by historical standards. In fact, 
during much more severe droughts than the one we are currently 
experiencing, far more water flowed to the Central Valley than it does 
right now.
  I wonder if the proponents would seriously deny that 200 billion 
gallons of water have been diverted from the Central Valley by these 
regulations. It's morally unconscionable that water recycling bills to 
benefit the pampered and privileged communities of San Francisco can 
sail through the House while 40,000 families have lost their jobs in 
the San Joaquin Valley because this government has diverted 200 billion 
gallons of water in order to indulge one of the environmental left's 
pet causes, the delta smelt.
  But I would like to address some of the basic economics of these 
recycling bills. A generation ago the principal objective of our water 
policy was to create abundance. That was an era when vast reservoirs 
produced a cornucopia of clean and plentiful water on a scale so vast 
that many communities didn't bother to meter it. That clean, cheap, and 
abundant water also made America the breadbasket of the world and the 
Central Valley of California the breadbasket of that State.
  But the majority party has abandoned that policy. It has replaced it 
with a very different philosophy that the government's principal focus 
should not be to produce abundant water, but rather to ration and 
recycle water shortages that government has caused by abandoning 
abundance as its primary objective.
  The result is increasingly expensive water that now affects our 
prosperity as a Nation. By its own admission, this administration is no 
longer analyzing the costs and benefits of projects in the bill now 
before us. In committee, the administration admitted that it faces a 
$600 million backlog of 53 water recycling projects like these and 
still hasn't bothered to prioritize them, let alone to figure out how 
to pay for them.
  This bill provides a 25 percent Federal match for six local water 
recycling projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. It increases the 
maximum Federal cost share for two others.
  The total cost to American taxpayers for this bill is $38 million. 
According to sponsors, it will produce 2.6 billion gallons of water. 
That comes to about 8,000 acre feet.
  Now, let's do the math here, $38 million for 8,000 acre feet. That 
comes to $4,500 per acre foot. That's just the Federal share. The total 
cost of these projects is four times that amount, or more than $18,000 
per acre foot.
  Now, let's compare that to the capital cost of the nearby Oroville 
Dam. That was roughly $600 million in 1968, due to the inflation 
adjustment. It's $3.5 billion in today's money. That dam produces 3.5 
million acre feet of water.
  In other words, the modern-day inflation-adjusted cost of the 
Oroville Dam, including its massive power plant, comes to about $1,000 
per acre foot. The projects in this bill cost more than $18,000 per 
acre foot overall, including $4,500 per acre foot directly from the 
national Treasury, which, in case you haven't noticed, is empty.
  I raised these issues in committee. I did not actively oppose the 
bill, because the House has yet to set fiscal standards for recycling 
measures like this one. It needs to.
  But I also must agree with Ranking Member Hastings and Congressman 
Nunes and others that it's a travesty that we should vote for 2.5 
billion more gallons of water for San Francisco while taking away 200 
billion gallons of water from the Central Valley of California.
  At the same time that the Central Valley taxpayers are struggling 
with up to 40 percent unemployment rates, at the same time that all 
taxpayers are paying higher grocery bills as a result of these 
heartless water diversions, those same taxpayers are being asked to pay 
a super-premium subsidy to Bay Area water users, whose Representatives 
have endorsed this folly.
  To add insult to injury, Mr. Nunes is not even allowed to offer 
amendments to restore water deliveries that would mean jobs for 40,000 
unemployed California families without costing our Treasury a dime.
  For all of those reasons I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. 
Not only can we do much better; we could not possibly do any worse.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, this bill is about freeing up 2.5 million 
gallons of water per day through recycling, water that would be able to 
be used throughout the affected areas in California. This reduces water 
demand for our State, again, 2.5 million gallons a day.
  I want to speak to something that was said earlier, and that was that 
the salmon fishermen in California, the salmon fishing families, were 
not hurt, and that the claims that they were were bogus.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, the salmon fishermen and their families in 
my district on the north coast of California have been out of work for 
3 of the past 4 years, mostly because of illegal biological opinions 
issued by the past administration.
  At the same time, the farmers south of the delta have been receiving 
disaster funds for their water shortages, $95 million over the course 
of the last 2 years. The biological opinions, the illegal biological 
opinions that I mentioned, helped kill some 80,000 spawning salmon on 
the Klamath River and decimated the salmon fishery along the Sacramento 
River. Those fisheries in the Sacramento River saw their salmon 
populations go from 800,000 to 66,000 in 3 short years.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, fishing families have been put out of work 
in my district and up through and into Oregon. They have lost their 
homes, they have lost their savings, and they have lost their 
livelihoods. It's not bogus, and it's shameful to suggest that it is.
  The heart of the issue that's here today, the opponents of this bill 
feel very comfortable choosing one business as more superior to 
another. The opponents' debate isn't about solutions but rather----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 30 additional seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Suggesting that some hardworking farmers are more 
important and more worthy than hardworking fishermen. That is wrong.

                              {time}  1530

  This bill will ultimately conserve 2.5 million gallons of water per 
day for

[[Page H11423]]

drought-stricken California. This is a good idea and it helps bring 
flexibility to our system.
  I want to thank Mr. Miller for his bill and his effort to address 
this issue and provide maximum flexibility. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against the motion to recommit and for the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time 
is left on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. You have 17\1/2\ minutes remaining and the 
majority has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from the southern San Joaquin Valley, Mr. 
McCarthy.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank my dear friend.
  Mr. Speaker, as I sit and listen to this debate, I have many 
colleagues on the other side that happen to be in the majority. They 
not only show it in committee by the number of one on one side and 
fewer on the other, but they show it when the bills come to the floor.
  The idea that the power of the idea would win at the end of the day 
doesn't happen here. They go to the Rules Committee and they deny an 
amendment to even come forward. They do a colloquy on the other side to 
talk about bills that have been brought up. I would like to see a 
colloquy that talked about the bills that have been denied.
  I come from the Central Valley, where unemployment is double digit. 
Some cities have 40 percent unemployment. But I don't hear the colloquy 
from my friends on the other side of the aisle to talk about H.R. 3105, 
the Turn the Pumps on Act.
  You have 200 billion gallons a year being denied to the Central 
Valley. The party in power shows where their desire is to go, to deny 
the valley the ability to grow, to deny the valley the ability to go 
create jobs.
  I want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle when we 
had the Rules debate of a quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He once 
said, the Nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.
  The pumps are off, the pipes are dry, the land is no longer able to 
produce, so the soil is being destroyed. But it does not have to stay 
that way. Man-made droughts can change. And what the debate today is 
about and what the passion you feel from this side is, it is not a 
partisan passion. This is a passion of Independents, a passion of 
Democrats and a passion of Republicans, that you allow the bills to 
come to the floor.
  I listened to a colleague on the other side of the aisle say, well, 
these bills will fail. Well, bring them here. You have the power. You 
have the majority. Do not deny them. Do not deny the amendments. Let 
the people who have the power of the idea win at the end of the day.
  When you talk about a bill that will produce 2.6 billion gallons a 
year, but you deny bills that provide 200 billion gallons this year for 
the Central Valley, no longer do you talk of the valley feeding the 
world; you talk of the valley being dry.
  You look at the rallies that are being created and you look at the 
faces in the rallies. They are a microcosm of America, from every walk 
of life. They come there with one sign, ``Turn the pumps on,'' and that 
is our message today. That is our message with this bill, that we have 
the power to make the decision to get the water pumping again.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, California is in the 
third year of a drought. The salmon fishers are in the third year of no 
season. Farmers are hurting, fishermen are hurting. But this bill 
actually helps that problem.
  I come from Silicon Valley, where half of our water comes from the 
Delta. I have heard the name San Francisco mentioned. They don't get 
any of their water from the Delta. In fact, they don't have any 
projects in this bill. But Silicon Valley gets half its water from the 
Delta, and the projects that will flow to Silicon Valley to reuse the 
water we have from our groundwater sources are going to free up water 
for the Delta. It will free up water for the farmers and for the 
fishermen, and I count that a good thing.
  We can get bombastic here, all of us. It hurts us when our 
constituents are hurt. But it is important to note that this is a 
solution. This is a solution.
  Silicon Valley doesn't have any farmers and it doesn't really have 
any commercial fishermen. We make chips. We also have double-digit 
unemployment.
  So we all need to pull together here. Silicon Valley is willing to do 
its part to recycle so the water can flow to those in need.
  I would like to just point out that although we all value San 
Francisco, San Jose has 1 million people, and since San Francisco 
really isn't part of this bill at all, perhaps we should refer to this 
as the San Jose Bay Area in the future. The San Jose Bay Area is 
willing to help out by supporting this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, reference was made as to why we are debating this bill 
on the floor, which obviously the concept of this bill brings forward 
water recycling and has broad support in this House. I certainly 
support that concept. But the inference was made that the only reason 
we are debating this is because of one Member--they didn't say where he 
is from, but I assume he is from California--who has been very, very 
outspoken about the economic disaster that is going on in the San 
Joaquin Valley of California.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that that individual is defending 
what he thinks is right for his constituents, and he is doing all the 
right things within the rules of this House to bring this issue forward 
so that we can have a debate.
  The inference was also made by those remarks that this was partisan 
in nature. Well, I would just remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that 
on the rule, bringing this bill to the floor of the House had 
bipartisan opposition. As you know, when there are rule votes, they are 
generally along party lines. Yet, Mr. Speaker, 23 Democrats voted 
against this rule.
  Now, I don't know the motivation of all of them, but I would 
certainly hope, and I would guess that they probably voted ``no'' 
because they felt this issue was worthy of debate. And, I might add, of 
those 23, four of them are from the Natural Resources Committee, in 
which this bill passed out of by unanimous consent, but there was some 
discussion in the subcommittee on the issue, and the cost, as Mr. 
McClintock pointed out so well.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this point: if somebody is accused 
of defending their constituents and that is done in a negative way, 
that is not what this House is all about. Every Member should be doing 
everything they can to defend their constituents.
  So the debate on this really, I believe, is evolving into a 
bipartisan debate to have a debate on the underlying issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself another 30 seconds.
  But we have been denied that. I would just hope that there will be 
some opportunity later on for us to revisit that and have these 
potential solutions that were brought forward by my colleagues that 
live in these areas in a bipartisan way to be debated.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 2442 and 
salute my good friend and colleague, Mr. Miller, on his good work.
  This bill will provide, as has been said already, 2.6 billion gallons 
of water per year to drought-stricken California, adding enough water 
supply to meet the demands for nearly 25,000 households, and it will 
also generate, either direct or indirectly, 3,500 jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, attacking a water recycling measure that is designed to 
help all of California is truly counterproductive. The North Coast 
County Water District, based in Pacifica in my congressional district, 
has said, ``As California continues to experience drought conditions, 
increased demand for water, and strain on the Delta ecosystem, 
alternative water supplies like those authorized in H.R. 2442 provide a 
long-term sustainable solution essential to California's economy.''
  The bottom line is that Republicans and Democrats alike agree that 
water

[[Page H11424]]

recycling helps reduce stress on California's fragile freshwater 
system, and they have approved water recycling projects for California 
and across the Western region on a bipartisan basis in Congress. I hope 
we can do that again.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from the San Joaquin Valley, California (Mr. 
Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington.
  Since this House is being denied the opportunity to debate 
legislation that would have a meaningful impact on the California water 
crisis, I think it is appropriate to take a closer look at the bill 
before us today. This bill funds a water recycling project for the Bay 
Area. That is it.
  The sponsor of this bill pounds his chest and says he is providing 
2.6 billion gallons of water for his constituents. Congratulations. 
What the sponsor will not disclose is that he has worked consistently 
to deny delivery of 200 billion gallons of water to an area that has 40 
percent unemployment in some cases, that has folks standing in food 
lines, and land dry with tumbleweeds.
  Now, it is ironic that this bill provides water only to one little 
area of San Francisco, the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, which 
already receives pristine water from a beautiful glacial valley that is 
not far from where I live in the Yosemite National Park called Hetch 
Hetchy. You heard me correct. The Bay Area gets water from one of the 
Nation's flagship national parks.
  The City of San Francisco, knowing that it needed to provide water to 
its citizens, destroyed a portion of Yosemite National Park to 
construct its own water supply reservoir. I actually have a picture of 
what it looked like.
  This is what it looked like before. If you have ever been to 
Yosemite, you can see that it looks very similar to Yosemite Valley. 
But now it is dammed up. It is dammed up to provide water to the people 
of San Francisco.
  Now, that is really not the worst of it, because we hear so much 
about how the other side of the aisle cares so much about the fish and 
the poor fishermen that are losing their jobs because the water is not 
being delivered to the Delta to save all these fish that need to be 
saved.
  Well, let's go back and look at a little map of Hetch Hetchy. This is 
Hetch Hetchy, Yosemite National Park. Here is the dam. And the water is 
piped. There is not a river. It is piped directly into the San 
Francisco Bay Area. This is the same water, Mr. Speaker, that would go 
down to save the fish that they care about so much. So do they honestly 
care about fish, or do they really just care about providing water to 
their people and serving their radical environmental friends that have 
worked for decades to cut water off to people that are just trying to 
provide food for America?
  The leaders in the Bay Area and the surrounding region have used 
their muscle in the past to actually get by other environmental laws. 
They destroyed not only the beautiful national park when they needed 
water, they subsequently exempted their water project from the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act. That is why they built the pipe, so they wouldn't 
even have to have a river.
  When the Bay Area needed to add to its runway, they exempted 
environmental laws to build a new airport in the beautiful San 
Francisco Bay, one of the greatest areas of California.
  But despite their own record, when folks a mere two hours away are 
bled dry of water, they have opposed a temporary waiver to allow not 2 
billion gallons of water like this does, but 200 billion gallons of 
water.
  I support these water recycling projects, but I oppose this bill 
because the author of this bill is the leader of the effort to cut off 
200 billion gallons of water that would serve the greater San Joaquin 
Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego. So absent the inclusion of language 
that will address this government-imposed drought, this bill should be 
rejected.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  I have no projects in this bill.

                              {time}  1545

  I have no benefit in this bill. I represent some of the greatest 
agriculture in the United States of America. And guess what? We don't 
get a drop of that water from anywhere but the sky that it falls out of 
and all of the wastewater that we recycle, the largest recycling 
project in the United States and the world irrigating agriculture.
  You know what? You people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw 
stones. You took a desert in the San Joaquin Valley, and using 
taxpayers' money, you built all these public systems, damming up those 
rivers--and I'm glad Mr. Nunes is going to support us in tearing down 
the Hetch Hetchy dam--and dammed up those rivers to get all the water 
into the canals to take them into a desert. And what happened? It 
didn't rain. All of a sudden you're caught in a drought. So who do you 
blame? You blame everything. You blame the Democrats. You blame the 
water. You blame the sky. It didn't fall out of the sky. But you blame 
every law that's out there.
  People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones because what 
are you doing about recycling all the wastewater that you're creating? 
You've always had that. Our communities have bellied up to the bar. 
They put their money up. This bill says you've got to put up three-
quarters of the money before you even come and ask for help from 
Washington. Frankly, it ought to be the other way around. Recycling is 
so important we ought to be doing it in every community in the United 
States, and the government ought to be at two-thirds help and the 
community at one-third help.
  This bill is a good bill. And don't think that because one part of 
one State didn't get enough rain last year that we ought to bury the 
whole thing trying to get recycled water. Guess what you do when you 
get that recycled water? You free up potable water that can go to other 
things.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. No. You have time.
  When you have that potable water, you ought not to be using it for 
agriculture. You ought to be using that for drinking purposes. All the 
golf courses on the Monterey Peninsula are irrigated by recycled water, 
Pebble Beach, Cypress, all these big famous golf courses.
  So I think that those people that are criticizing this bill and 
criticizing the fact that we didn't get enough rain in the San Joaquin 
Valley ought to be asking for us to help them get recycling projects in 
their communities like we have in the Salinas Valley. We can solve this 
problem, but we've got to solve it in a multiplicity of ways, and one 
of the ways to do that is recycling. This bill makes a giant step 
forward for a lot of communities in northern California.
  I would urge an ``aye'' vote.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my Democrat colleague on the 
other side of the aisle that there were two Presidents that were 
instrumental in building the water projects that turned a desert into 
the most productive agricultural land in the world. One was named 
Franklin Roosevelt and the other was named John F. Kennedy. Last time I 
checked, they were both Democrats. That was back when the Democrats 
cared about providing jobs to people instead of serving their radical 
environmental friends in the Bay Area. My, how we've gone a long ways 
in this Democratic Party. It's sad to see this.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I have no further speakers, so I'll 
reserve until time to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I stood up and asked my dear friend from California (Mr. 
Farr) to yield, and he said he didn't have time to yield, because I 
wanted to point out something that he had said and to clarify at least 
what I think is his interpretation of what he was saying.
  He was saying that these water recycling bills are a 25/75 match, and 
that's

[[Page H11425]]

what the bill says. There's no requirement, however, in this bill for 
those recipients of these Federal dollars to repay these Federal 
dollars.
  On the other hand, I come from central Washington, the Columbia Basin 
Project, Bureau of Reclamation area, irrigated by Grand Coulee Dam, and 
while they were built by the Federal Government, it's true, those 
monies have to be paid back by those irrigation districts. We don't get 
a 25 percent cut or a 50 percent cut. So I just wanted to point that 
out. We're not talking about apples and oranges, no pun intended on 
that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, the reason that I 
reluctantly oppose this bill is because of what it does not do. And of 
course what it does not do is to provide for an opportunity to address 
a very, very serious economic problem in the San Joaquin Valley of 
California.
  As I mentioned on the rule, there were 23 Democrats that supported 
Republicans on this. This would indicate to me, I would hope, that 
there is growing support for having this addressed in a manner in the 
House, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. I certainly 
hope that that is the case. And if opposition from me and others is a 
way to get to that point, I will be very, very proud of that.
  But with that, Mr. Speaker, I have to stand up and reluctantly oppose 
this bill for the many reasons I said in my previous remarks.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to begin by thanking Chairwoman Napolitano and 
Chairman Rahall, the Chair of the full committee, and Chairwoman 
Napolitano of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, for their support of 
this legislation for supporting the expansion of water supplies in 
drought stricken regions of our country.
  At the end of the day, after all of the debate, this is legislation 
to provide for water reuse and recycling. Water reuse and recycling is 
desperately needed in our State of California. This is a policy that is 
supported throughout the entire State, including the valley, throughout 
southern California and northern California. Every part of the State 
understands the extent to which we can continue to create new supplies 
of water through use and reuse, recycling, that the entire State 
benefits.
  Someone said, well, I was here in the drought and it wasn't this bad. 
We've added almost 16 to 20 million new people to the State of 
California since the last serious drought. We didn't do much about 
water policy during that time, but we've now put together a coalition 
from people who have battled over the years, Metropolitan Water 
District, Contra Costa Water District, L.A. County, San Diego County, 
the Central Valley.
  Why are they coming together? Because they recognize how valuable 
reuse and recycling will be in the State of California going forward to 
meet the needs of its growing economy, of its diverse economy, of the 
importance of agriculture, of the importance of bringing new businesses 
to California, of developing and make sure we have clean water 
available for high technology industries throughout the State. That's 
why this bill, this policy speaks.
  It speaks to so many areas of the State. It speaks, this policy 
speaks to Orange County and San Diego County and L.A. County and 
Riverside County and Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County and 
Monterey County and Alameda County and San Joaquin County. Why? Because 
it's important that we take the pressure off a system that's 
oversubscribed not just in drought years but every year. But we can get 
by in a normal year. We can't get by in the third year of the drought.
  Now, my colleagues have suggested that somehow this is the bill in 
which we should settle California water issues. I find it rather 
interesting in February of last year when we passed the South Orange 
County Recycled Water plan for Mr. Calvert there was no discussion of 
this. There was no suggestion of amendments. There was no suggestion 
that this was high noon on California water.
  When we passed the Lake Hodges Surface Water Improvement Act in April 
for Mr. Bilbray, no discussion of amendments, no need to settle these 
issues here. They never asked for time. They never asked for 
amendments. They didn't ask for a vote. They did it unanimously and by 
voice vote.
  The Magna Water District for Mr. Chaffetz in Utah, no suggestion that 
we should take the Utah bill and battle it out over California water. 
No suggestion that somehow we were going to do something other than 
that.
  In September, just a month ago, with Mr. Gallegly, for the Calleguas 
Municipal Water District, no suggestion of this. No requests for 
amendments. No debate in the committee on this.
  And then, again, last month, Mr. Walden from Oregon, no suggestion 
we're going to take the Oregon bill and settle the California issue. 
Why? Because we know what's going on in California. We have a very 
difficult complex problem. The legislature, our State legislature, has 
been struggling with it for 2 years. They're in special session right 
now. They're locked in, and they don't know whether they will have the 
votes or not to do that. But people are getting together to try to 
solve it.
  When this new administration came in, because I don't remember you 
asking for this in the first year of the drought or the second year of 
the drought or going into the third year of the drought, but Mr. 
Obama's been in town, what, 10 months, and somehow it's his problem. 
But when his administration did come to town, and when he did have a 
Secretary of the Interior and he did have a Secretary of Commerce, they 
immediately focused their attentions on this problem. And what did they 
do? They met with a cross section of our delegation to see how they 
could bring the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior 
together, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
They sent millions of dollars to the valley to try to give relief to 
the farmers. They've supported our efforts.
  I've supported the efforts to change the law that I wrote 10 years 
ago, 20 years, so we can have water transfers from east to west in the 
valley. That's people working together. That's not people just standing 
back and sniping at bills as they come through and pretending like they 
want to make policy or they want to change policy that's just political 
sniping. But it's interesting that they chose not to snipe on any 
Republican bills. They just decided they would snipe on this bill.
  But at the end of the day, at the end of the day, this legislation is 
about whether or not we can move California into the future, whether or 
not we can continue to have economic growth, whether or not we can use 
the technology that's now available to us to provide for recycling, to 
provide for reuse of water. This bill alone supplies enough water for 
24,000 households. That's not counting the legislation that we've 
provided for southern California, for Orange County, for San Diego, for 
San Bernardino and the projects that are waiting.
  This bill was criticized because there's a $600 million backlog 
because the last administration would never release any money. We would 
have loved to have had the attention. We would have loved to have had 
the attention of the Bush administration's Secretary of the Interior to 
help solve this problem. What did she do? What did he do? They let some 
Under Secretary wander around changing the science, so we lost almost 
18 months and we had to go back to redo all of the science because they 
changed it and they got caught at it. Criminal charges were pending at 
one point.
  So what are we talking about here? The suggestion that somehow this 
all comes together around this bill is to forget history, to forget the 
inattention to this problem we've dealt with over the last 8 years, and 
to suggest that somehow that this can all be settled here. What this 
bill can do is make a major contribution to relieving the urban 
pressure on the system by creating this reuse and recycling of water.

                              {time}  1600

  And that's what the projects that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, that's what they were contributing. This was one piece; we 
hope it grows. We think it will become more valuable.
  It is bipartisan and has been from the very beginning. When I asked 
for stimulus money to go to recycling, I asked the administration, I 
said, do it on the

[[Page H11426]]

basis of their priorities, do it as they're standing in line. Some 
cities have been waiting a long time for this; they may be further 
along. Just let them come as they come up in line.
  This isn't partisan; this is about whether or not people want to 
solve problems. You want to make political points, all well and good; 
but the circumstances won't change, the circumstances won't change 
across our State.
  H.R. 2442 is supported by a number of agencies, municipalities and 
organizations, including: Association of California Water Agencies, 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Central Contra 
Costa Sanitary District, Dublin San Ramon Services District, City of 
Mountain View, Redwood City, City of Palo Alto, WateReuse Association, 
Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, 
Iron House Sanitary District, City of Petaluma, Santa Clara Valley 
Water District, North Coast County Water District, and City of San 
Jose.

                                                  October 5, 2009.
     Representative George Miller,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Miller: The Association of California 
     Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to write in favor of H.R. 
     2442, legislation to expand the Bay Area Regional Water 
     Recycling Program. As you know, ACWA's 447 public agency 
     members are collectively responsible for 90 percent of the 
     water delivered in California for residential and 
     agricultural uses.
       Since H.R. 2442 contains local projects with regional as 
     well as national benefits, the legislation meets the criteria 
     established in our blueprint ``No Time to Waste: A Blueprint 
     for California Water''. In particular, the projects in H.R. 
     2442 will allow for a direct response to help mitigate 
     current and devastating drought impacts in California. In 
     this regard, ACWA encourages the House of Representatives to 
     move expeditiously and pass important water recycling project 
     legislation.
       As California's water supply challenges multiply, ACWA 
     appreciates your efforts to provide federal resources for 
     local projects to assure water supply reliability. Thank you 
     for sponsoring this legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                                Timothy Quinn,

                                               Executive Director,
     Association of California Water Agencies.
                                  ____

                                            The Metropolitan Water


                              District of Southern California,

                                 Los Angeles, CA, October 6, 2009.
     Hon. George Miller,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Miller: The Metropolitan Water District 
     of Southern California is very pleased to support an increase 
     in resources for the Bureau of Reclamation's local water 
     supply development program under Title XVI, as authorized by 
     Congress.
       Metropolitan believes that local water supply projects and 
     expansion of the Title XVI grant funding program are 
     essential. This is especially the case as California 
     continues to aggressively pursue comprehensive policy and 
     infrastructure solutions to address the challenges of chronic 
     drought and restricted water supply conditions throughout the 
     state. The development of new and expanded local water supply 
     projects is key to addressing these critically important 
     water supply issues including projects such as the design, 
     planning and construction of recycled water distribution 
     systems, such as those included in H.R. 2442, which include 
     regional and national benefits.
       Your continued leadership and efforts on California's 
     critically important water supply issues are greatly 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jeffrey Kightlinger,
     General Manager.
                                  ____

                                                  October 5, 2009.
     Congressman George Miller,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Miller: On behalf of the WateReuse 
     Association, a national association representing more than 
     180 public water agencies and 375 organizational members 
     dedicated to the advancement of using limited water supplies 
     efficiently and safely, I am writing to express our deep 
     concern over the recent House floor debate on water recycling 
     legislation. Specifically, we are alarmed that the 
     authorization of Title XVI water recycling projects whose 
     purpose is to enhance the availability of a safe and reliable 
     water supply to local communities, have become ensnared in 
     the ongoing disputes surrounding restoration of the 
     California Bay-Delta. We urge the House of Representatives to 
     move expeditiously and debate and pass pending water 
     recycling project legislation, including H.R. 2442. These 
     projects will allow for a direct response to the impacts of 
     the ongoing drought currently being experienced in California 
     and other western states.
       We appreciate that the drought has wreaked havoc on the 
     lives of many residents throughout the arid West. Clearly, 
     the events surrounding the operation of the federal and state 
     water projects in California serve to spotlight the 
     challenges created by the drought. We were encouraged by the 
     recent commitment of Secretary of the Interior Salazar to 
     increase efforts to put in place responses that will 
     alleviate the impacts on the Bay Delta. However, we believe 
     that a powerful tool exists to address water scarcity, namely 
     water recycling projects that can create water supply in an 
     environmentally protective and sustainable manner. With a 
     small federal contribution, these projects have demonstrated 
     that they can deliver water and reduce demand on limited 
     water supplies. It is to no one's advantage to hold hostage 
     the authorization of these kinds of projects because of 
     disputes over the operation of federal water projects. 
     Indeed, we believe it only serves to exacerbate the very 
     problem all of us are seeking to resolve--to reduce the 
     impacts of the drought and provide safe, reliable, and 
     sustainable water supplies to our communities, industries, 
     and agricultural interests.
       Again, we are strongly supportive of timely consideration 
     and passage of Title XVI water recycling project 
     authorizations by the House of Representatives.
           Sincerely,

                                               G. Wade Miller,

                                               Executive Director,
     WateReuse Association.
                                  ____

                                                  October 5, 2009.
     Subject: Support for H.R. 2442, Bay Area Regional Water 
         Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009.

     Hon. George Miller,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Miller: On behalf of the Bay Area Recycled 
     Water Coalition, a partnership of eleven public agencies 
     committed to developing recycled water as a resource for over 
     six million residents of the counties we serve in the San 
     Francisco Bay area, I'm writing to thank you for introducing 
     H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program 
     Expansion Act of 2009.
       As California continues to experience drought conditions, 
     increased demand for water, and strain on the Delta 
     ecosystem, alternative water supplies like those authorized 
     in H.R. 2442 provide a long-term sustainable solution 
     essential to California's economy. The six additional water 
     recycling projects authorized in H.R. 2442 would provide in 
     excess of 7 million gallons of drought-tolerant water per 
     day. This will result in reduced demand from Bay Area 
     communities on scarce fresh water from the Delta. These 
     projects will also support over 3,500 direct, indirect and 
     induced jobs.
       The Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition members remain 
     committed to our proven partnership with the Federal 
     Government to provide a long-term sustainable solution to 
     California's water challenges. We strongly support H.R. 2442, 
     and look forward to continuing to work with you as we develop 
     new water supplies for California.
           Sincerely,

                                              Gary W. Darling,

                                                  General Manager,
     Delta Diablo Sanitation District.
                                  ____



                                    South Bay Water Recycling,

                                    San Jose, CA, October 5, 2009.
     Congressman George Miller,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Miller: On behalf of the City of San Jose, 
     I am writing to thank you for introducing H.R. 2442, your 
     bill authorizing the use of federal funds to support 
     additional water recycling projects in the San Francisco Bay 
     area, and to lend our support to your efforts to have it 
     reconsidered at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
       The City of San Jose operates the largest urban nonpotable 
     water recycling facility in northern California. Each year 
     South Bay Water Recycling supplies nearly 600 Silicon Valley 
     schools, parks, businesses and industries with over 10,000 
     acre-feet of high-quality recycled water, conserving drinking 
     water that can be used for other purposes. Over the past 15 
     years we have invested over $200 million in local funds in 
     this system, and received more than $30 million in Title XVI 
     grants from the Bureau of Reclamation. Furthermore, as a 
     founding member of the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition (a 
     partnership of eleven public agencies) San Jose is committed 
     to assisting other communities in the Bay area to develop 
     this important resource, and we encourage you to continue to 
     fund and expand this important stimulus to local investment.
       Recycled water is sustainable water, and the only new water 
     available to help California and other western states deal 
     with the combined pressures of drought and population that 
     threaten to exhaust our existing supplies. We understand that 
     much additional work needs to be done by Congress, by 
     Interior Secretary Salazar and others to develop a 
     comprehensive approach to supplying water to the western 
     United States, including an integrated program to protect and 
     restore the Bay-Delta system. However, in our opinion any 
     sustainable solution will necessarily include intensive use 
     of recycled water as the most reliable source of water 
     currently available, including the nearly seven million 
     gallons of water per day produced by the projects authorized 
     in H.R. 2442.
       Thank you again for your steadfast support for these 
     important programs.
           Sincerely,

                                             John Stufflebean,

                                 Director, Environmental Services,
                                                 City of San Jose.


[[Page H11427]]


  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the closed rule and 
passage of H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Expansion 
Act of 2009. My opposition to H.R. 2442 is not due to the projects 
authorized in the legislation--they are meritorious projects, worthy of 
consideration by this body. However, the San Francisco Bay area is not 
the only area in California that needs additional water. Only 2 hours 
away from San Francisco, California's Central Valley is literally dying 
of dehydration and yet this Congress has ignored every plea for help 
from the people of the valley and those of us who are fortunate enough 
to represent that region.
  The San Joaquin Valley is the fruit-basket of the Nation, producing 
over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in America. Ninety-nine 
percent of all almonds and walnuts are produced in the Central Valley, 
while over 90 percent of tomatoes, pistachios, plums and strawberries 
are produced in the State of California. However, without water for the 
farmers the whole Nation suffers. Without California's agriculture 
production, there is a significant national security risk--we would be 
forced to import foreign produce that does not meet the same quality 
and food safety standards that California produce does.
  Because of radical environmentalists and the actions of Federal 
agencies based on unreliable and questionable science, the San Joaquin 
Valley is now suffering from a man-made drought. Hundreds of thousands 
of acre feet of water that was formerly delivered to the farmers in the 
Central Valley are being sent to the ocean in an attempt to protect a 
3-inch minnow, the Delta Smelt. Ironically, while the restrictions on 
pumping are doing nothing to stop the declining numbers of Delta Smelt, 
they are significantly contributing to the declining number of farmers 
and jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. Farmers must come before fish.
  I offered two amendments to this bill which would have assured that 
the urgent needs of the San Joaquin Valley are met, through the Two 
Gates project in the delta and temporarily waiving the Endangered 
Species Act to increase delta water deliveries for storage in the San 
Joaquin Valley. Neither of my amendments would have authorized the 
spending of taxpayer dollars. Once again the Democratic leadership in 
the House of Representatives denied these amendments, denying relief to 
the ravaged San Joaquin Valley.
  Time and time again during this Congress my valley colleagues and I 
have offered bills and amendments to address the government created 
drought in the San Joaquin Valley and time and time again we have been 
denied the courtesy of a simple legislative hearing, let alone a markup 
or vote. After so many attempts to save California agriculture, I am 
left with no alternative but to believe that the Democrat leadership of 
this Congress, under direction from environmentalists, is bent on 
destroying the largest economic engine in California.
  There is always a lot of talk about special interests controlling 
policy decisions in Congress, and I would be remiss not to say that the 
elite environmental community is one of the largest and currently most 
influential special interests around. They have worked very hard and 
spent a lot of money to ensure that a 3-inch fish has more rights than 
the farmers and farm workers in my district. To me, and any American 
with an ounce of common sense, that action is absolutely 
unconscionable, but apparently not to the majority of Congress.
  The water crisis in California must be addressed in a holistic manner 
and while I am more than happy to sit down with my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to work on long term solutions to California's 
aged water infrastructure system, the people of the valley need help 
now. Therefore, I am opposing this bill because it contains $38 million 
worth of projects that benefit the San Francisco Bay area while denying 
projects that would not cost any taxpayer dollars and would benefit the 
distressed San Joaquin Valley.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I oppose both the rule and the passage 
of H.R. 2442 and urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
rule.
  We have heard a lot of debate this year about California's water 
crisis.
  We are suffering from our third year of drought, and the situation 
has been compounded with a ``regulatory drought'' that has restricted 
our ability to deliver water even when it is available. Over 40,000 
people are out of work, over 500,000 acres of some of the world's most 
productive farmland have been fallowed, farmworkers are now standing in 
food lines, people are losing their homes, and more importantly people 
are losing their hope, all because of a lack of water.
  The Federal Government is in part responsible for the regulatory 
drought, and it is time for the Federal Government to take action to 
address this crisis.
  I support this underlying bill, Mr. Speaker. But quite frankly, I am 
completely fed up with the lack of a response to our water crisis in 
the San Joaquin Valley.
  My definition of ``crisis'' is a disaster that requires an immediate 
response. The fact is, there still is no immediate response--in fact 
there is hardly even any response. And it's high time that the Federal 
Government admits that not enough is being done to address the valley's 
water needs.
  In fact, I have with me a list of 26 projects that the Federal 
Government can work with us on to relieve the pressure that the lack of 
water has created on the valley.
  My friends and colleagues from the San Joaquin Valley, Mr. Radanovich 
and Mr. Nunes, offered amendments in Rules Committee last night but 
they were not made in order.
  My folks need relief. They are suffering and can't wait any longer. 
And farmers in the valley have planting decisions to make in the near 
future. They simply can't go through another farm season not knowing if 
they will have any water.
  Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Nunes deserve to have their amendments on the 
floor today. Their amendments would have ended this regulatory drought 
once and for all and provided much-needed relief to our farmers.
  Because San Joaquin Valley farmers are prevented from getting the 
water they so desperately need, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose 
this rule.

    Actions and Projects To Address California's Water Supply Crisis

       Reconsultation of FWS and NOAA Biological Opinions.
       Undertake a National Academy of Sciences 6-month review of 
     all the factors in the decline of the Delta.
       2-Gate Fish Protection Demonstration Project--coordination 
     and funding.
       Delta Mendota Canal and California Aqueduct Intertie--
     coordination and funding.
       Completion of a long-term, multi-year water transfer 
     program.
       Develop a program to coordinate schedules on North to South 
     transfers.
       Support permanent reform of intra county East-West 
     transfers within the CVP.
       Patterson Irrigation District Pumping Plant and Fish 
     Screen.
       Patterson Irrigation District Pipeline Project.
       Diversify Level 2/Level IV Refuge Program.
       Announce 2011 rescheduled water decision in the Spring, 
     2010.
       Additional federal support for the Westside Water Use 
     Efficiency and Conservation program.
       Support the removal of restrictions under the Emergency 
     Drought Relief Act which restrict funds to temporary 
     projects.
       Mendota Dam Replacement.
       San Luis Drain Rehabilitation.
       Allow the use of Whiskeytown Reservoir to be used to meet 
     the water supply needs of the most impacted areas.
       Work in collaboration with the state on the development of 
     a long term Joint Point of Diversion program.
       Friant-Kern and Madera Canals Capacity Correction.
       Friant-Kern Canal Reverse Flow.
       Pipeline Replacements in the San Luis Unit.
       Westlands Water District Reclamation Project for drainage 
     impacted areas and reclamation of poor groundwater.
       West Stanislaus Irrigation District fish screen and 
     pipeline.
       Stockton East Water District intake structure and fish 
     screen.
       Merced Irrigation District New Exchequer Dam Spillway 
     Modification Project.
       Semitropic-Rosamond Water Bank Authority Antelope Valley 
     Water Bank Initial Recharge and Recovery Facility Improvement 
     Project.
       Semitropic Water Storage District Pond-Poso Spreading and 
     Recovery Facility.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 
2009, which will provide Californians 2.6 billion gallons of water per 
year, enough to meet the needs of 24,225 households, and should create 
at least 3,600 jobs. It is a concrete example of the sustainable 
solutions we should be looking for to address drought and promote 
economic development.
  I would like to thank Chairman Rahall for his skill and leadership in 
shepherding this bill to the floor. I would also like to thank my 
colleague, Chairman Miller, for skillfully crafting such an imaginative 
and workable solution to one of the critical challenges facing 
California and other western States.
  Mr. Speaker, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion 
Act authorizes federal assistance for six recycling projects that are 
estimated to create more than 8,000 acre-feet of water annually by 
2010, and more than 14,000 acre-feet annually by 2025. Additionally, 
the legislation is crafted so that fresh water withdrawals from the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are limited and treated wastewater 
discharges into the San Francisco Bay or the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta are reduced. The cost to the federal government to realize all 
these benefits is only 25 percent of the total cost of a project.

[[Page H11428]]

  Finally, this legislation is endorsed by many local government and 
water management organizations, including the Association of California 
Water Agencies, WaterReuse Association, Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Dublin San 
Ramon Services District, City of Mountain View, Redwood City, and the 
City of Palo Alto.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it will 
create badly needed jobs while replenishing clean water supplies. This 
legislation is another example of how the new majority is making good 
on the promise to chart a new direction for our Nation. I want to thank 
Chairman Miller again for his leadership in crafting this extraordinary 
legislation that has my full support.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2442. 
I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to 
House Resolution 830, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as 
amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. NUNES. In its current form, yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Mr. Nunes moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2442 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 4. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT.

       (a) No Restriction, Reduction, or Reallocation of Water.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, may not use discretion to restrict, reduce or 
     reallocate any water stored in Central Valley Project 
     Reservoirs or delivered pursuant to Central Valley Project 
     contracts, including execution of said contracts facilitated 
     by the W.C. ``Bill'' Jones Pumping Plant, to meet the 
     requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, unless 
     such water is acquired or otherwise made available from a 
     willing seller or lessor and the use is in compliance with 
     the laws of the State of California, including but not 
     limited to, permitting requirements.
       (b) Biological Opinions.--For the 2 years immediately after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, complying with the 
     reasonable and prudent alternatives or reasonable and prudent 
     measures and the incidental take limits defined in the 
     biological opinions that immediately preceded the biological 
     opinions issued by on December 15, 2008, by the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of the Proposed 
     Coordinated Operations of the Federal Central Valley Project 
     and the California State Water Project on the threatened 
     delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and the biological 
     opinion issued on June 4, 2009, by the United States National 
     Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion on the Long-Term 
     Central Valley Project and State Water Project Operations 
     Criteria and Plan shall constitute compliance with all 
     requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1531 et seq.).
       (c) Applicability.--This section applies only to those 
     Federal agency and non-Federal actions related to the 
     coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project and the 
     California State Water Project.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of 
order that the motion to recommit contains a nongermane instruction in 
violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California raises a point 
of order. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. NUNES. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit I have is pretty 
simple. In fact, what we have before us is legislation that is 
identical to legislation that this Congress passed in 2003 with 
overwhelming bipartisan support, so I would hope that you would make it 
germane.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there any other Members that wish to 
speak?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point 
of order. That action by the previous Congress does not make it germane 
to this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) makes a point of 
order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Nunes) is not germane.
  The bill, H.R. 2442, amends the Reclamation Wastewater and 
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to expand the Bay Area Regional 
Water Recycling Program. The bill authorizes six new water recycling 
partnerships and modifies two existing partnerships.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from California seeks to 
address water availability related to the Central Valley Project.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no 
proposition on a ``subject different from that under consideration 
shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
  One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that an 
amendment should relate to the subject matter of the underlying 
measure.
  The bill is confined to water recycling projects within a specific 
geographic area. The amendment addresses water availability related to 
the Central Valley Project. By addressing this topic, the amendment 
falls outside the ambit of the underlying measure and is not germane.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the 
appeal of the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on passage of the bill, if arising without further 
proceedings in recommittal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 176, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 788]

                               YEAS--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)

[[Page H11429]]


     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--176

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Boswell
     Boyd
     Cao
     Carney
     Conyers
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Emerson
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Hall (TX)
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     McCollum
     Melancon
     Mollohan
     Radanovich
     Scalise
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1628

  Messrs. JORDAN of Ohio, FLAKE, OLSON, COLE, ROGERS of Alabama, 
COFFMAN of Colorado, McCAUL, BOREN, GRIFFITH, CHILDERS, BROUN of 
Georgia, and GINGREY of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Messrs. BERRY, SCHAUER and GRIJALVA, Ms. SPEIER, and 
Mr. KUCINICH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 788, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 788, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 173, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 789]

                               YEAS--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--173

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Boswell
     Boyd
     Cao
     Carney
     Conyers
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Emerson
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     McCollum
     Melancon
     Mollohan
     Radanovich
     Scalise
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1635

  Mrs. BONO MACK changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

[[Page H11430]]

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________