[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1031-H1041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1837, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 
                         WATER RELIABILITY ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 566

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1837) to address certain water-related 
     concerns on the San Joaquin River, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, it 
     shall be in order to consider

[[Page H1032]]

     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112 15. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  This resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of 
H.R. 1837. It's entitled the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water 
Reliability Act and provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Committee on Natural Resources.
  This is a bipartisan bill that came from our committee on a 
bipartisan vote.

                              {time}  1240

  In like manner, the Rules Committee has decided to make this a 
bipartisan amendment process because we made in order all amendments 
filed at the Rules Committee which were germane, which complied with 
the House rules. I think this is very fair, and it's a generous rule to 
talk about a bill that has support on both sides of the aisle.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'd like to begin by acknowledging the service of David Timothy 
Dreier to this House of Representatives and to this country. There will 
be many more opportunities prior to his departure to acknowledge his 
work for his country, but our chairman today announced that he will be 
retiring at the end of this session. Chairman Dreier said:

       We all know that this institution has an abysmally low 
     approval rating, and the American people are asking for a 
     change in Congress. So I am announcing today that I will 
     leave Congress at the end of the year.

  I would like to reassure my chairman that the change the American 
people, my constituents, and our country had in mind was not, in fact, 
his retirement. That will be a tremendous loss to this body.
  David Dreier is a proud institutionalist, somebody who has capably 
served the country, has been a friend and mentor to me, first as 
ranking member and now chair of the powerful Rules Committee, and 
somebody that I've had the opportunity and the privilege to work with 
on a number of bipartisan issues around trade and U.S.-Mexico 
relations.
  His retirement will constitute the loss of not only a wealth of 
knowledge but of a tireless and dedicated and honorable public servant, 
and I hope that he continues to find opportunities to serve the public, 
as he truly has much more to give and is too young to call it quits. I 
hope that, at the end of this session, his retirement from this body 
will be a new beginning for our chair.
  I rise today with great concern over this bill's impact on my home 
State and its number one resource and scarcest resource in issue, 
water. You know, we have an old saying in the West that ``whiskey is 
for drinking and water is for fighting.''
  I think, Mr. Speaker, we're going to see some of that fighting here 
on the floor of the House tonight, and I would argue that this isn't 
the appropriate venue to settle inter-California disputes that have 
long been settled through case law and settlements.
  Water fights are long, expensive, tiring, but, you know, they've led 
to an established and workable framework within which States and 
localities have operated for years.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not just about California. This bill has 
far-reaching implications for nearly 17 other States, including my own 
State of Colorado. This bill would override the century-long legacy 
whereby the Bureau of Reclamation respects each State's legal ability 
to control, appropriate, use, and distribute irrigation water. Because 
of this, more than several dozens letters from stakeholders in 
opposition to this legislation, including the nonpartisan Western 
States Water Council and the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Oregon, 
have all been received by the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter in opposition from my 
home State of Colorado.

                                               Colorado Department


                                         of Natural Resources,

                                      Denver, CO, August 19, 2011.
     Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
     Subcommittee on Water and Power, House Committee on Natural 
         Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Grace Napolitano, Ranking Member,
     Subcommittee on Water and Power, House Committee on Natural 
         Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 
     Natural Resources: The State of Colorado would like to join 
     with the Western States Water Council (WSWC) in an expression 
     of unified opposition to House Resolution 1837, the ``San 
     Joaquin Water Reliability Act''. The State concurs that this 
     Act is an ``unwarranted intrusion on the rights of the states 
     to allocate and administer rights to the use of state water 
     resources.'' Furthermore, in light of the current atmosphere 
     of cooperation and amiability between the Western states and 
     Federal agencies, this Act could detract from the hard work 
     and efforts that have gone into the evolution of Western 
     water law and policy.
       The development of water law in the arid West has been a 
     long incremental process, involving ratification of treaties, 
     negotiation of interstate compacts, and litigation before the 
     United States Supreme Court. To allow this Act to proceed 
     would have the effect of throwing a proverbial ``monkey 
     wrench in the machinery'', especially in regards to current 
     projects, such as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a 
     bipartisan deal reached by the California Legislature.
       The testimony on June 2 of John Laird, Secretary for the 
     Natural Resources Agency of California, reminded the 
     Subcommittee of Justice Rehnquist's opinion in the 1978 case 
     California v. United States: ``The history of the 
     relationship between the Federal Government and the States in 
     the reclamation of the arid lands of the Western States is 
     both long and involved, but through it runs the consistent 
     thread of purposeful and continued deference to state water 
     law by Congress.''
       For these reasons, and the reasons stated in the Western 
     States Water Council correspondence and resolution passed on 
     July 29, 2011, the State of Colorado opposes the passage of 
     House Resolution 1837.
           Regards,

                                                    Mike King,

                                               Executive Director,
                         Colorado Department of Natural Resources.

  In this letter that I submitted to the Record from my home State of 
Colorado, our Natural Resources Department wrote:

       The development of water law in the arid West has been a 
     long incremental process, involving ratification of treaties, 
     negotiation of interstate compacts, and litigation before the 
     United States Supreme Court. To allow this Act to proceed 
     would have the effect of throwing a proverbial ``monkey 
     wrench in the machinery.''

  And so today, under this rule, this House will be considering, with 
one broad, sweeping stroke of the Federal legislative brush, numerous 
unintended consequences that will undo the existing framework, wiping 
away decades of settled water law, wiping away relative certainty, to 
the detriment of our Western States and to the sole benefit of 
attorneys.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that many of us in this body are concerned about 
frivolous lawsuits and States rights. Anybody who shares my concerns 
about

[[Page H1033]]

States rights and frivolous lawsuits should join me in opposing this 
bill. This legislation will open up a century of water law to new 
litigation across the West. If you ask me, that's the definition of 
needlessly frivolous lawsuits.
  This bill imposes Federal law over bipartisan local agreements, in 
this case those reached by the California legislature on the Bay-Delta, 
all while imposing unintended consequences and burdens on other States. 
This bill simply isn't true to our values of local control.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the committee has refused to address many 
issues with this bill and how it will impact the West. Now, that's not 
because the committee was unaware of the problems. In fact, the 
testimony on June 2 of John Laird, the Secretary for the Natural 
Resources Agency of California, reminded the subcommittee of Justice 
Rehnquist's opinion in the 1978 case, California v. United States, 
where Justice Rehnquist wrote:

       The history of the relationship between the Federal 
     Government and the States in the reclamation of the arid 
     lands of the Western States is both long and involved, but 
     through it runs the consistent thread of purposeful and 
     continued deference to State water law by Congress.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill does the exact opposite. The Western States 
Water Council wrote to express their strong opposition to H.R. 1837 as 
an ``unwarranted intrusion on the rights of States to allocate and 
administer rights to the use of State water resources.''
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would set a dangerous precedent of preempting 
State water rights, leaving other States vulnerable to this kind of 
Federal infringement, effectively letting Representatives from New 
York, from Michigan, from Florida and from Texas vote on California 
water. And I know as the Representative from Colorado, I wouldn't want 
the shoe to be on the other foot and having Representatives from across 
the country deciding what we do with our water.
  Finally, this bill would erode any efforts in the multistate work to 
recover listed salmon species along the West Coast, with immense impact 
to local economies and fisheries. It would preempt California State 
law, which is why the California Natural Resources Secretary has 
written in opposition to this bill, and why the California Attorney 
General is also opposed.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in a ``no'' vote on the rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a colloquy, 
please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado controls the 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), who is the sponsor of this 
bipartisan piece of legislation, to talk about his particular 
underlying bill.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I was asking my good friend from Colorado to 
enter into a colloquy with me, and that's okay. But I do want to say 
that the gentleman from Colorado and myself work in a bipartisan 
manner. We're both cochairs of the Mexico-U.S. Caucus. We've worked 
hard on that, and I would hope that the gentleman from Colorado would 
listen to the debate today because I think after we listen to the 
debate--I understand some of the concerns that he raises.
  But as Mr. Bishop pointed out, the Rules Committee was very gracious 
to allow all the amendments on the Democrat side and the Republican 
side to be offered and accepted to be debated here on the floor. So I 
would just urge my colleague, with whom we work together on numerous 
other issues in this Congress, that we find today a way to come 
together in a bipartisan manner. Hopefully, the gentleman from Colorado 
will listen to all the facts as they're presented.
  Mr. Speaker, after decades of California water being controlled by 
the Federal Government, Congress can conclude one thing: flushing water 
into the San Francisco Bay is not helping to recover species, and 
people are suffering needlessly.
  We're going to hear a lot from opponents about this bill, about 
science. I want to start right off the bat and make one thing clear: 
we're supporting sound science with H.R. 1837, and we are rejecting 
junk science that has long been foisted on the people of California, 
junk science the Federal court has labeled the unlawful work of 
zealots.
  It is important for me to impress upon the House, the opponents of 
H.R. 1837 do not possess scientific high ground, as they are all but 
certain to allege. Their experts, and the activists masquerading as 
experts who support them, have been biased from the beginning and have 
molded their work to produce the findings that best suit their radical 
agenda.

                              {time}  1250

  We can say this with certainty that this agenda has not improved the 
fish populations. If that were true, we would not be here today.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. District Court has thrown out the biological 
decisions used to justify the horrible regulations that cut off water 
supplies to families throughout California. The court's decision was a 
shocking indictment of the kind of government operating in America 
today when it comes to our environmental laws. The U.S. District Court 
judge said, I've never seen anything like it. He went on to say that 
government scientists acted like zealots and had attempted to mislead 
and to deceive the court into accepting junk science.
  These are powerful statements by the Federal court and should give 
anyone who believes in due process, open government, and justice a 
cause for concern.
  But the band has marched on without missing a beat; and instead of 
disciplining these scientists, the Fish and Wildlife Service actually 
gave them an award for outstanding service under pressure.
  The arrogant disregard for public trust didn't stop there. Just 
yesterday, the President issued a veto threat, essentially doubling 
down on the dishonest smear campaign accusing House Republicans, and I 
believe many Democrats, of doing just the sort of thing that his 
administration has been found guilty of by a Federal court.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not ignoring the latest science in favor of 
special interests. We are not the people who are sending zealots into 
the Federal court to lie in the defense of junk science. We are not the 
people rigging regulations to favor a small minority of special 
interest groups.
  The agenda of junk science governing the bay delta is indefensible. 
Just as the Federal court had said, it's dishonest.
  Congress needs to ask itself, who are these people that come up with 
these things? Who are they?
  I think the Congress will be interested to find out that one of the 
leaders just weeks ago, a guy by the name of Dr. Peter Gleick, he spent 
his career trying to dry up farmland in rural communities throughout 
California; and, in fact, he's even testified before Congress to this. 
But Dr. Gleick is an activist. He's an activist who poses as a 
scientist.
  Just a few weeks ago, he admitted to impersonating another person and 
stealing information from a nonprofit. He then mingled that stolen 
information with a fake memo in an effort to discredit his intellectual 
critics. Radicals like Dr. Gleick lie; they make it their mission to 
destroy scientists who do not agree with their twisted, anti-human 
views.
  Meanwhile, they are used by some in this House as an excuse to take 
people's water away, to take their private property rights away, to dry 
up farm land and, worst of all, to justify human suffering.
  Mr. Speaker, people in our Nation's bread basket are standing in food 
lines, and they're getting carrots that have been imported from China.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, their sacrifices have done nothing to improve 
the environment. Fish populations have declined, and I think what we 
will prove today here in the Congress is that there is a better path 
forward, and H.R. 1837 provides that path forward.
  So I would urge not only my Republican colleagues but also my 
Democrat colleagues to listen to the evidence, and I would urge them to 
vote for this rule so we can move on to the debate so we can finally 
restore sanity to California's water system.

[[Page H1034]]

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California, a former member of the Rules Committee, 
Ms. Matsui.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to this 
bill. The issue of water in California has been debated for many 
decades because it is such a critical issue for our States. As a 
daughter of a California Central Valley farmer, I grew up on a farm; 
and I deeply understand the value of and the controversy over water.
  Being able to plan the next growing season is critical for farmers. 
Unless they can count on the water being provided, there is no 
assurance for their crops. Now, in northern California, we have 
balanced our watershed. We have provided water for our farms, our 
cities, and our sensitive habitats in a way that we can have 
sustainability. But this legislation throws out the ability of the 
people of California to decide their own water future.
  Mr. Speaker, any real solution to California's water issues will need 
to be crafted with consensus within California, not in a partisan 
manner on the House floor the way H.R. 1837 has been written.
  This legislation purports to have the support of northern California, 
but I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. 
My district, the Sacramento region as a whole, the five delta counties, 
are among countless others who oppose this bill, and the list continues 
to grow.
  Some of the strong concerns include the loss of the State's right to 
manage its own water, the decimation of environmental protections for 
our Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the ability to manage the Folsom Dam 
reservoir for the benefit of the lower American River, and, most 
importantly, the overall instability that this bill would create in 
California. The idea of usurping the rights of States to control their 
own water is incredibly damaging, not only to the Sacramento area but 
to California and even to our country.
  For those of our colleagues who represent areas outside of California 
and plan to support the bill because they may not impact your State, I 
have news for you. This is not just about California. H.R. 1837 will 
set a precedent that will create a domino effect so that it could 
happen next in Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and so forth. We don't 
need Federal legislation that only creates more problems for an already 
intractable problem. We cannot afford to give up California's right to 
control its own water future. The stakes are just too high.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly reject this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of attending a 
public hearing in California with the gentleman to my right from 
California. It was an honor to listen to these people, and I'm pleased 
to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that worked 
through this bipartisan bill, Mr. McClintock.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2009 and again in 2010, hundreds of billions of 
gallons of contracted water were expropriated from California farms and 
instead dumped into the Pacific Ocean in the name of the delta smelt.
  This tragic policy fallowed hundreds of thousands of acres of some of 
the most fertile and productive farmland in America. It threw thousands 
of hardworking families into unemployment. It devastated communities 
throughout the region, and it created the spectacle of unemployed farm 
workers standing in food lines to receive carrots imported from China 
in a region that, just a short time before, had produced much of 
American-grown fruits and vegetables; and it contributed to rising 
grocery prices that families felt far beyond the congressionally 
created dust bowl of California's Central Valley.
  In the last Congress, the then-minority Republicans begged and 
pleaded for hearings to address this catastrophe. The majority turned a 
deaf ear.
  Last year, we returned as the new House majority to take testimony on 
what could be done to correct this disaster. The result of those 
hearings is the bill by Mr. Nunes that this rule brings to the floor.
  This bill restores the water allocations established under the 
historic Bay-Delta Accord in 1994. When that agreement, commanding 
broad bipartisan support, was signed, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt 
assured all parties:

       A deal is a deal. And if it turns out that there is a need 
     for additional water, it will come at the expense of the 
     Federal Government.

  The water diversions shattered that promise. This bill redeems it.
  The Federal Central Valley Project is part of a coordinated operating 
agreement with the State Water Project at California's request and 
consent. The two are inseparable. In order to protect the water rights 
of every Californian, this bill brings the full force of Federal law to 
protect those rights so that there is no ambiguity. This protection has 
earned this provision the support of the Northern California Water 
Association, representing the water districts that serve the farms and 
communities and families throughout the areas of origin in California.
  My opponents just said this preempts State water rights. It doesn't 
preempt State water rights. It specifically invokes and protects State 
water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy--local, State, or 
Federal--a legitimate constitutional function of the Federal Government 
established under the 14th Amendment and made essential by the terms of 
the State-approved joint operating agreement of these intertwined water 
systems.

                              {time}  1300

  The bill also restores common sense and practicality to protections 
for endangered native species like salmon and the delta smelt. One of 
the greatest threats to these endangered native species is nonnative 
invasive predators like the striped bass. Indeed, it is common to find 
striped bass in the Sacramento Delta gorged with endangered salmon 
smolts and delta smelt. This bill allows open season on these 
predators, and it encourages the use of fish hatcheries to assure the 
perpetuation of thriving native populations of salmon and smelt.
  It replaces the cost-prohibitive provisions of the San Joaquin River 
Settlement Act, which contemplates spending an estimated $1 billion to 
achieve the stated goal of establishing a population of 500 salmon 
below the Friant Dam. That comes to $2 million per individual fish. 
This bill replaces the absurd mandate of a year-round cold water 
fishery on the hot valley floor with a warm water fishery that actually 
acts in concert with the habitat. It removes disincentives in current 
law that discourage groundwater banking in wet years. It allows for the 
recycling of environmental flows by communities once they've achieved 
their environmental purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, the movement for stronger environmental protections 
began over legitimate concerns to protect our vital natural resources; 
but like many movements, as it succeeded in its legitimate ends, it 
also attracted a self-interested constituency that has driven far past 
the borders of common sense and into the realms of political extremism 
and outright plunder.
  This bill replaces the cost-prohibitive and unachievable dictates 
that caused so much human suffering in California with workable, 
affordable, and realistic measures based on real science and not on 
what one Federal judge rightly called the ``ideological zealotry'' of 
rogue bureaucrats.
  This debate will determine if we are about to enter a new era when 
common sense can be restored to our public policy and when a sensible 
balance can be restored between environmental and human needs. I 
welcome that debate, and I ask for the adoption of the rule to bring it 
forth.
  Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  174 days ago, the President of the United States came to this floor 
and made a series of proposals to help small businesses and big 
businesses create jobs for the American people.
  Only one element of that jobs plan has been dealt with, belatedly, 
which is the extension of the middle class tax cut. There has been no 
vote on a bill to create construction jobs, on the rebuilding of our 
libraries and schools; no

[[Page H1035]]

vote on a bill to cut taxes for small businesses that create jobs; no 
vote on bills that would put our police officers and firefighters back 
on the job or our teachers back in the classroom.
  Nothing.
  Now, the bill that is before us today is very important, not just for 
California but for the country, and it is something that needs to be 
taken up. I respect all views on all sides, but I think it's time that 
the House leadership respected the urgent economic problems of this 
country.
  Since the President came here, there has been another increasingly 
urgent economic problem, which is the manipulation of gasoline prices 
by speculators, and Americans are seeing the consequences of this at 
the pump every day. Members on our side have some ideas to stop this 
speculation and to stop the pillaging of the wallets of American 
consumers at the gas pumps every day. Not surprisingly, that's not 
coming up for a vote either.
  The priorities of the House are misaligned with the priorities of the 
American people. Let's put on this floor legislation that creates jobs 
and that gives relief to our people at the fuel pumps.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's 
comments. I would remind him also that the CBPA, the bill that started 
this problem, was actually authored by the Senator from New Jersey at 
the time, and I appreciate that. This is one of those things we are 
trying to fix.
  I gladly yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. First, I want to mention to my friend from New Jersey that 
we have several bills, including that of the Keystone pipeline, sitting 
over in the Senate. They're bills that will create tens of thousands of 
jobs, maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet it does not seem that 
Harry Reid would like to bring those to the floor, so we are doing our 
job here.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill today is about creating, really, a new 
environment for job creation in recognizing the human suffrage that has 
occurred in the Central Valley. I visited out there almost 2 years ago 
and saw the level of employment and the human impact of this Federal 
mandate upon California under the Endangered Species Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. TERRY. I don't know about the court case where it really raised 
some serious issues regarding the credibility behind the rule, itself. 
What I do know is that, by passing this bill today, we basically push 
the restart button so that the entities that are hurt and the 
environmentalists can work together for an appropriate balanced rule 
that protects people's livelihoods as well.
  This should be a bipartisan bill. It came out of committee as a 
bipartisan bill. This is exactly the type of thing that we should be 
working together and across the aisle on, and I would encourage my 
friends on the Democratic side of the aisle to join with us in passing 
this bill.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1837.
  California's water system is broken. For too long, the San Joaquin 
Valley, which many of us represent, has borne the brunt of the water 
challenges facing our State. We have a water system designed for 20 
million people. We have 38 million people today living in California. 
By the year 2030, we could have 50 million people. My district was and 
is ground zero for the hydrological and regulatory drought that 
occurred in 2009 and 2010. I was in the food lines in which 
farmworkers, sadly, found themselves because there wasn't sufficient 
water to employ them.
  My constituents who rely on water for their livelihoods are looking 
to Congress to see that we are listening and that we care to work on 
real solutions that impact their futures. The politics of water are not 
new in California nor in the West. They've existed for decades. I would 
hope that at some point we could put the politics aside. This debate is 
too important. It has been put off for too long.
  For the farmers, the farmworkers, and the farm communities that I 
represent, I urge my colleagues to support this rule on a bipartisan 
basis.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With gratitude to the last speaker, this may be 
about California water, but it impacts all of us who eat, and as you 
can tell, I am one who does that very well.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill, 
a bill which is a piece of bipartisan legislation that was introduced 
not to serve mere partisans but to serve real people, not to promote 
one's party but to promote everyone's prosperity.
  I say this in a true spirit of inclusion as someone who comes from a 
manufacturing State, as one whose auto companies stared into the abyss 
of potential bankruptcy. It was a bipartisan coalition that helped to 
save it and a policy that was put forward by a Republican President 
named Bush and continued by a Democratic President named Obama.
  Today, we must come together in a similar bipartisan fashion, for 
there is a federally dictated drought in the San Joaquin Valley, one 
that devastates farmers and all of our fellow Americans who live and 
who, if they can, work there.
  To me, as someone who has watched and lived with my constituents 
through such an experience, I see no choice but for the Federal 
Government to rectify its legislatively imposed drought and to allow 
the people of the San Joaquin Valley the same rights that we have to 
pursue our prosperity and continue to keep the fruits of our labor 
without the heavy hand of government coming in and making it more 
difficult for us to pursue and to create a better life for ourselves 
and for our children.

                              {time}  1310

  Finally, on a note, I know that these are very contentious times, and 
one of the underlying issues regarding this bill is the Endangered 
Species Act. But whether you are wholeheartedly for the Endangered 
Species Act or wholeheartedly opposed, can we agree on one thing? The 
Endangered Species Act exists to preserve wildlife, not to impoverish 
human life.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the 
legislation.
  There is going to be an argument today about science. This bill makes 
it very simple. It ends that argument. It simply says that we will use 
the science that was in effect in 1994.
  We use the science that's what, 18 years ago? That will be the 
science for the purposes of this legislation. You might as well tell 
the people of California to use the same telecommunications systems 
they had in 1994, no iPhones, no BlackBerries, no advancement in 
knowledge, skills, training, or technology.
  It's a pretty simplistic approach to science. You might say it's 
mindless. The Federal Government is going to come in and tell the State 
of California that it cannot use its regulatory process or scientific 
process to determine what's best for its State.
  As the Attorney General of our State says and the Supreme Court says, 
the Federal Government simply cannot commandeer the legislatures of the 
States, but that's what this legislation does. I love the fact that we 
have people here with wonderful conservative credentials who are now 
suggesting the Federal Government should preempt California law, 
preempt the California Legislature, preempt the Federal law, and go 
back to 1994.
  Where else would you take America back to 1994 in terms of imposing 
the will of the Congress on the States, and that's why almost all of 
the Western States, their water agencies, their executive offices, 
oppose this legislation, because this is the greatest preemption of 
State water rights in the history of this country.
  The people who are supporting this, these heavily subsidized farmers 
who have more than one or two or three subsidies from the Federal 
Government to grow their crops, are now insisting that the Federal 
Government take what is a contract right. It's a contract

[[Page H1036]]

right, that's it. They want to turn it into perpetuity. They want the 
water in perpetuity, and the hell with the rest of the State of 
California. That obviously isn't acceptable.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is not acceptable to any Member 
of this Congress about their own State. Why is it acceptable all of a 
sudden to do that to the State of California?
  You simply cannot do this. We have in place a process that is working 
today for the first time in 40 years, and that's why the resources 
director of the State of California, that's why both of our Senators 
oppose this process, because this group of people had never come 
together in the last 40 years to work on California problems.
  The urban users, the rural users, the agricultural interests, the 
manufacturing interests, the municipal interests, with the blessings of 
the State legislature that set out the guidelines, that set out the 
goals, that set out the purposes--that's going on today. Every party to 
that agreement except for this select few of special interests. This 
party is the only party that says ``blow it up.'' Use the United States 
Congress to blow up a process that for the first time has the 
possibility of solving the water problems in this State and making it 
sustainable for agriculture, for the environment, for manufacturing, 
and for municipal use in our State. Yes, we have a tough problem. We 
have 30 million people. The drought that they talk about, that was 
imposed.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That was a Statewide drought. Yes, 
they lost some employment in farm work, but, in fact, agricultural 
employment, even through the drought, was pretty stable.
  The big employment in the Central Valley came because we were selling 
homes to people who couldn't pay for them. That was the crash. It was 
first place and the longest crash that we had in this country in terms 
of mortgages and the loss of the people who were working in those 
trades.
  But that drought was still felt across the State. Thousands of people 
lost their jobs in tourism in northern California, in commercial 
fisheries, in recreational fisheries, in the bait shops and the support 
services all across our State. That drought was an equal destroyer of 
this California economy from north to south.
  Don't wreck this opportunity for California to settle California's 
problems.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the 
House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price 
Gouging Prevention Act. Mr. Andrews mentioned that, rather than 
discussing this, why aren't we tackling the big issues of the day, such 
as gas prices? Well, my colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop) has a 
proposal to do just that.
  I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) to 
talk about his proposal.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge the House to 
defeat the previous question so we can bring to the floor today my bill 
that would have an immediate impact on lowering gas prices.
  Leap day arrives more often than a Republican energy plan. A year 
ago, when it became clear that the Republican leadership wouldn't help 
Americans fight rising gas prices, I introduced a bill that this motion 
is modeled after to crack down on speculation, which forces prices up 
artificially.
  This legislation makes it illegal to sell gasoline at excessive 
prices and prevents Big Oil from taking advantage of consumers by 
manipulating prices. This is real help for consumers in a tough 
economy.
  Domestic oil output is the highest it's been for 8 years. In fact, 
we've become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that we 
produce. And yet it's clear speculators are behind the spike in prices. 
They will never take delivery of oil, but they make up 64 percent of 
the market.
  When speculators place their bets that prices will rise, it follows 
that actual prices will rise. They have for 21 straight days. In that 
time, the average price per gallon went up 60 cents in my district.
  Still the Republican leadership has yet to address market 
manipulation or turn off the spigot of subsidies for Big Oil, which 
made a record-high $137 million in profits last year. That's up 75 
percent from the profits they realized in 2010.
  We could invest in an energy plan that further expands domestic 
production, develops renewable sources, and forges a long-term strategy 
that weans us off Middle Eastern oil and protects consumers from rising 
gas prices over the long run. Mr. Speaker, let's make a leap to support 
American families while striking at the heart of rising American gas 
prices.
  To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about two issues here, one 
of which was discussed by my colleague from California, which is the 
bill that will be up later this afternoon.
  While the rule allows for amendments, some of the amendments that 
were proposed are not going to be before us. Specifically, this bill is 
a blatant attempt to do two things: one, steal 800,000 acre feet of 
water and transfer it to heavily subsidized farmers on the west side of 
the San Joaquin Valley; and, secondly, completely overrule and override 
State law. That's why, I suppose, States such as Colorado, Montana, New 
Mexico, Oregon, Wyoming, and the Western States Water Council, which is 
composed of the representatives of the Governors of 16 Western States, 
are all opposed to this bill.
  This is a terrible precedent. If you care anything about your State's 
ability to control its own destiny insofar as water is concerned, you 
do not want this bill to pass because it is a blatant attempt by the 
Westside Farmers to simply grab water and take total control of the 
California water system.
  It blows away all of the environmental laws of the Federal Government 
and all of the environmental laws of the State of California and even 
overrides the State Constitution. I cannot think of a worse policy for 
anyone to be supporting if you care anything at all about States' 
rights.
  In addition to that, the bill totally destroys the efforts that have 
been underway to solve the problems that do exist in California water. 
There is absolutely not one new drop of water in this bill, but there 
is 800,000 acre feet stolen and delivered to the southern water 
contractors. For many, many reasons it ought to be defeated.
  Briefly on Mr. Bishop's attempt to have his bill heard on this floor: 
not a bad idea. Consider for a moment the fact that 26 million gallons 
of gasoline are exported from the United States every day. Something is 
wrong when that is occurring at the same time we're finding higher and 
higher gas prices.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I remind the body, once again, that 9 out of the 
10 amendments were made in order, and the only one that was not made in 
order had a question of its germaneness to the body here.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Denham), who does have a germane amendment that will be debated later 
on on the floor.
  Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this 
not only in support of the rule, but in support of the bill. This is 
something we went through in committee with very great debate, but it 
goes well beyond the debate of committee.
  We've debated this in the State of California for many, many years, 
if not decades now. To have Members from California come down to the 
floor and say that this is mindless, this is anything but mindless. 
These are jobs. When you go down to Dennis Cardoza's district and see 
30 percent unemployment in the Los Banos area or

[[Page H1037]]

down to Jim Costa's district and see 30 to 40 percent unemployment in 
Firebaugh or over in Mendota, and you call it mindless? Come down and 
talk to the people in our districts and tell them that their jobs are 
mindless, that their homes are mindless, that their cars that they're 
having to give up are mindless. These are farmworkers. These are 
individuals. These are farmers that are seeing their families destroyed 
right now. It is not mindless. They are certainly not special 
interests. Come down to these districts.
  We have invited the President, on a bipartisan basis, many times now 
to come to California. Don't just go to L.A. and San Francisco, but 
come see the Central Valley and the challenges that we have. See how, 
when the water is shut off, we see our farms destroyed.
  This absolutely has impact on the rest of the Nation. If you want a 
safe food supply, if you want a reliable food supply, make sure we have 
reliable water delivery. That is simply all this does.
  Anytime that we talk about water throughout the Nation, or certainly 
throughout California, it becomes a battle. A lot have talked about 
pre-'94 when a deal was a deal. That deal hasn't been changed by the 
farmers. That deal has been changed by Members of Congress that have 
preempted State water rights.
  We want a deal. We want a deal every year. We want an agreement that 
says that if you're going to have a contract for 100 percent of your 
water, you actually get 100 percent of your water. This year, because 
we had a lack of storage last year on the wettest of water years in 
California, this year we're going to have a 30 percent water 
allocation. We're still going to pay 100 percent of the cost of the 
contract but have 30 percent of the water, which means once again we 
will see 30 percent unemployment in Jim Costa's district, in Dennis 
Cardoza's district, in my district, and in many of the districts 
throughout the Central Valley.
  Before you start to ignore many of our agriculture acres and many of 
the jobs that go with it, let's come together in a bipartisan fashion 
as we've done in the committee level, as we've done elsewhere within 
the State, but making sure that Republicans and Democrats are working 
together and, more importantly, that the House and Senate are working 
together.
  I give a great deal of praise to the author of the bill, Congressman 
Nunes, for getting a regional perspective for this, getting north and 
south and central California to actually work together. That is a 
tremendous accomplishment. The bigger accomplishment is actually 
getting the Senate and the House to work together.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DENHAM. It is time that we come up with a solution that avoids 
further cost, that avoids further delay, that avoids us having to 
continue to cut jobs in the Central Valley and in California. It's time 
to come to an agreement that will actually save the Central Valley and 
our farming industry and making sure that we've got certainty in water 
year in and year out. This bill will show the priority of the House. If 
the Senate has a different priority, let them show that. But the 
California public expects the Senate and the House to work together, 
just as we've come together in a bipartisan fashion on this bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, 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, I think it was Einstein that said: If you 
start with the wrong numbers in your equation, you can never get to the 
correct solution. What we just heard was a textbook perfect example of 
that.
  The idea that there's 30,000 to 60,000 lost jobs as a result of what 
is happening south of the delta, I don't know where those numbers came 
from. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but you're not 
welcome to your own facts. The facts tell a whole different story.
  If you look at what UC Davis did, if you look at what the University 
of the Pacific did, UC Berkeley, all their numbers point to a loss 
associated with certain things: a loss of jobs associated with the 
drought, a loss of jobs associated with an endangered species. But 
these are in the hundreds or the single-digit thousands, not anywhere 
close to 30,000 or 60,000. We need to get this thing right.
  My friend from California was absolutely correct when he called for 
us to work together. That's exactly what we've been trying to do, to 
work together. This bill was not crafted with the stakeholders at the 
table. This bill was crafted in the proverbial back room with not all 
of the stakeholders present. None of us who have a legitimate dog in 
this fight were included in this.
  If this bill were to pass, there will be thousands of jobs lost. 
They'll be north of the delta. They'll be farming jobs; they'll be 
fisheries jobs; they'll be recreational jobs. They'll be all kinds of 
jobs associated with the economy north of the delta.
  You can't come to this floor with legislation that creates winners 
and losers in the marketplace without bringing everybody to the table 
to work on that. That's exactly what this bill does--it creates winners 
and losers. It chooses jobs south of the delta at the expense of jobs 
north of the delta. That's wrong and this bill should be defeated.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is hard to estimate 
jobs when you're thirsty, but I realize if there was even one job that 
is cost because of bad Federal behavior, that is one job too many.
  I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I'm glad, sir, that you just mentioned that, because 
I just heard here that, no, no, it's not maybe X thousands of jobs that 
are going to be lost; it is X minus a few thousand jobs that are going 
to be lost.
  What? Did I just hear that? I just did.
  Rarely do you see such a reckless and immoral disregard for American 
families, for American farmers, for American farmworkers, for 
hardworking people than what we have in front of us and what this bill 
is trying to solve in a bipartisan way, because this does have 
bipartisan support.
  I keep hearing about all of these horrors. But wait a second. Take a 
step back, Mr. Speaker. These are farmers who have been farming that 
very land for generations. This is not like they are trying to do 
something new. They've been doing this for generations.
  Can you imagine the circumstances if the Federal Government steps in 
and says, ``No, we are going to cut off your water. You're not going to 
be able to farm, and forget about those jobs. Go do something else,'' 
just because some bureaucrat someplace decides that they found a fish 
all of the sudden after these farmers have been there for generations?
  Sometimes a little common sense has to prevail and sometimes a little 
moral sense has to prevail. Let's stand up for these farmers who have 
been there for generations. Let's stand up for these farmworkers, the 
poorest, hardest working individuals for generations. Let's say ``no'' 
to a Federal Government that thinks that, oh, just a few less jobs 
won't hurt, won't matter.
  This is grotesque. This is immoral. Let's stand up together in a 
bipartisan way to stand up for American families, for American farmers 
like they deserve this Congress to do for them.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from 
Utah how many speakers he has remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. To be honest, I'm not quite sure. I know I have a 
speech and there may be another one coming down here.
  Mr. POLIS. I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I had the opportunity of going down to California to one of the 
hearings where we met the farmers who are living in this particular 
area. I heard their anguish. I understood their anger. Their ability to 
make a living was being prohibited while we in Congress simply talked 
about unrealistic concepts. They were living in pain while we continued 
to talk. Actually, our actions and talking were causing that particular 
pain.
  This bill is about trying to help people. This is time to put people 
in the forefront and put our ideology behind

[[Page H1038]]

so that we can solve a problem that has been caused by us. This effort 
is to put forward legislation that corrects harms that are inflicted by 
onerous, extreme, completely unbalanced Federal regulations which too 
often seem to favor a narrow special interest group constituency as 
opposed to a balanced approach to protect our environment while 
considering jobs and the needs of real human people.

                              {time}  1330

  As many have said already, our colleagues have put forth a program 
which, unfortunately, is causing massive unemployment in the San 
Joaquin Valley, causing thousands of acres which were the most 
productive farmland to go fallow, and risks turning this productive 
area into a dust bowl causing erosion. These are negative environmental 
and economic impacts that were not considered in the Federal 
Government's original decision, but ought to have been and should be 
considered now.
  The unfortunate reality is that California's Central Valley is one 
place where our actions and other regulations have had a negative 
impact on the country, leaving those farmers in danger but also 
affecting all of us. If you are an artichoke lover, which I am not, 98 
percent of those that are sold in the supermarket are raised in San 
Joaquin Valley of California. For those who enjoy walnuts--I'm now zero 
for two--or almonds and garlic--which I finally like--98 percent of 
those supplies come from California. Nearly all of the domestic 
avocados and nectarines are raised in California. Just for the record, 
I'm three out of six for those particular food items.
  California's man-made drought does not just impact Californians. It 
attacks and it touches each and every one of us in some way. The next 
time we go to the grocery store and stop and take a look at where these 
products come from, the chances are pretty good they're coming from 
California's Central Valley. You can nearly have a complete food meal 
group just by looking at what comes out of a 10-square-mile area of 
Central Valley California.
  As prices continue to rise at the grocery store for fresh produce of 
all kinds, you can be assured that some of the main drivers of those 
increased costs come from a combination of skyrocketing fuel costs 
under this administration's poor domestic energy production policies, 
as well as less domestic food caused by this water diversion.
  Ironically and sadly, in recent years since the Federal water 
takings--and that's takings by the Federal Government--more and more 
produce has found its way from other foreign sources to replace what 
should have been produced in our own particular country. This bill 
addresses that problem in a positive way by reinstating water rights to 
farmers from water that was unjustly taken away by Federal regulations.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Colorado I have 
no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I will yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
previous question amendment in the Record along with extraneous 
material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. My colleague, Mr. Bishop, has brought forth something that 
I think is an important national issue that my constituents have 
certainly been calling me about. And I know that there has been concern 
from across the country about rising gas prices. If we defeat the rule 
and the previous question, we will be able to immediately bring forth 
Mr. Bishop's bill and the discussion about price gouging and gas 
prices.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a dangerous precedent for preempting 
State water rights, leaving other States vulnerable to this kind of 
Federal interference. This bill is opposed by the State of California, 
California's two U.S. Senators, the leaders of both State legislative 
houses, commercial and recreational fishing associations, water 
districts, local governments and the California Bay Delta Farmers. This 
bill overrides a bipartisan local settlement to restore the San Joaquin 
River that ended 18 years of costly litigation and uncertainty. This 
bill guts the review process for water projects in California's Central 
Valley and eliminates science-based protections for many species 
required under both California law and the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
  There is simply no reason to support legislation that has a myriad of 
unintended consequences. It is an attack on certainty, and it is an 
attack on issues that should be decided, frankly, by States and 
stakeholders.
  H.R. 1837 would eliminate desperately needed protections for 
fisheries, threatening thousands of fishing jobs and millions of 
dollars in income that sustains families, as evidenced by the impact 
seen during the first-ever closures of California's salmon fishery in 
2008 and 2009 due to collapsing runs.
  This bill is a recipe for lawsuit after lawsuit, an attack on a 
century of State leadership on water law and a dismissal of the 
consensus agreement that the people of California have reached without 
the needless meddling of this body, without those from other States 
being called upon to settle a California matter of water.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a solution in search of a problem, a bill 
that ends up creating more problems for more people than the problem 
it's trying to solve. Simply put, this bill is cutting off the nose to 
spite the face; and my State, along with 17 others, stands to get 
harmed over in the process, particularly by the dangerous precedent of 
Federal second-guessing of local water rights.
  If this bill were really about the delta smelt, then it should be 
drafted more narrowly. If this bill were really about jobs, then take 
into account the jobs of the salmon industry which the bill would 
decimate. Take those concerns to local stakeholders and to the State of 
California and work out a solution that is in the best interests of 
California citizens. Unfortunately, this bill is not about real 
problems. It's about scoring political points and advancing sound 
bites.
  I urge my colleagues to join me on a ``no'' vote on the rule and the 
underlying bill and defeat the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in addition to restoring 
agricultural productivity in this area, what has been referred to as 
``America's salad bowl,'' this bill is a comprehensive piece of 
legislation which would reduce Federal spending by $300 million by 
allowing certain water users, presently obligated to repay Federal 
loans on water projects in this area, to repay those loans early on a 
penalty-free basis.
  In addition, as we are facing unprecedented debt, this bill would 
stop wasteful spending, terminate over a billion dollars in unproven 
and unnecessary Federal spending projects, and it codifies the 
historic, previously-agreed-upon bipartisan State and Federal agreement 
known as the Bay-Delta Accord. It is pro-environment by restoring warm-
water fish habitats. It also protects northern California waterfowl 
habitat and still helps those who are trying to make a living as 
farmers in this area.
  Mr. Speaker, in this body, we always use comparatives and 
superlatives at the drop of the hat or any other cliche you wish to 
use. If a bird flies over this Capitol, we will talk about it in 
superlatives. We often do that. We talk about bills being so important. 
In this case, I think superlatives are appropriate. This is a 
significant bill that is life and death for these farmers, and it is 
unique. Even though it deals with California, there is no other State 
that has this particular problem. We are not setting any precedent for 
anywhere else.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), the Speaker.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding. My colleagues 
know that I don't often come to the floor and speak on bills; but as I 
saw this bill coming up today, I thought to myself, here is a perfect 
example of government getting in the way.
  I never thought, in my wildest dreams, I'd ever run for public office 
or ever seek to come here to Congress. But as a small businessman, I 
was concerned about the ever-growing size of

[[Page H1039]]

the Federal Government and the ever-growing reach of the Federal 
Government. I saw it in my own business, I saw it with my suppliers, 
and I saw it with my customers. And out of that frustration, I came 
here because I thought government was too big, spent too much, and was 
far too intrusive into our economy and, frankly, our society.
  Look at this bill and you will see it's a perfect example of the 
overreach of government. We've got a group of people in California who 
don't like production agriculture and who think that using water to 
grow crops to feed the world is environmentally dangerous. They're 
using the endangered species law for what I would describe as an 
unintended purpose. They're using a law to shut down production 
agriculture that they don't like, and they're abusing a law that was 
created by this Congress. It is wrong, and it should not stand.
  Secondly, here we are in a country where the American people are 
asking where are the jobs. The President says he's doing everything he 
can to help create more jobs in America.

                              {time}  1340

  Well, here's a situation where we've got tens of thousands of farmers 
and those who work on those farms in the Central Valley of California 
being denied the use of their own land, being denied the labor to feed 
their own families because someone is abusing the law.
  This is a good bill, and it ought to pass.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 566 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     964) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and 
     other fuels, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. 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 ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 178, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 80]

                               YEAS--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)

[[Page H1040]]


     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--178

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Ackerman
     Bass (CA)
     Cantor
     Crowley
     Goodlatte
     Lee (CA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sherman
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1407

  Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. ALEXANDER, STIVERS, and BURGESS changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 173, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 81]

                               AYES--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--173

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Bass (CA)
     Braley (IA)
     Cantor
     Crowley
     Goodlatte
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rivera
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ruppersberger
     Woolsey


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1415

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 81, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''

[[Page H1041]]

                          personal explanation

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 81 and 80, due to being 
unavoidably detained, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________