[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1041-H1079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WATER RELIABILITY ACT
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 1387.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 566 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1837.
{time} 1422
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1837) to address certain water-related concerns on the San
Joaquin River, and for other purposes, with Mr. Yoder in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). Pursuant to the rule,
the bill is considered read the first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1837, the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.
Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent
on irrigated water to support my agricultural industry. I understand
the importance of having a stable, reliable water supply. I've
witnessed how government regulations and environmental lawsuits can
create conflicts for people, and jobs are the losers. However, Mr.
Chairman, I have never seen anything like the economic devastation that
California's San Joaquin Valley has experienced as a direct result of
Federal policies that restrict water supply and that created this man-
made drought.
Mr. Chairman, in 2009, Federal regulations to protect an endangered
species 3-inch fish led to the deliberate diversion of over 300
billion, Mr. Chairman, 300 billion gallons of water away
[[Page H1042]]
from the San Joaquin Valley farmers. This caused hundreds of thousands
of acres of fertile farmland to dry up. It put thousands of people out
of work, and it caused unemployment to reach 40 percent in some
communities.
Last April, the Natural Resources Committee traveled to Fresno,
California, for a field hearing where we heard directly from
farmworkers and valley growers who have been devastated and seen their
livelihoods pushed to the brink by this man-made drought. We heard
stories of farmworkers who normally feed the Nation, being forced to
stand in food bank lines to receive handouts of carrots--carrots from
China.
Mother Nature temporarily rescued this region with historic
precipitation last year, but another man-made drought is just around
the corner if we do nothing. Rain and snow levels have declined, and
just last week the Federal Government announced that the San Joaquin
Valley farmers would receive only 30 percent of their initial water
allocation for this year. This is unacceptable, and if Congress doesn't
act now we will once again see farmworkers having to abandon the fields
and return to the food lines.
Families and communities in California have waited far too long for
Congress to act. In 2009, Mr. Chairman, and in 2010, Mr. Chairman,
while this man-made drought was devastating California, the Obama
administration and a Democrat-led Congress did nothing. Republicans are
ready to act today on bipartisan legislation that will end this man-
made drought and protect up to 30,000 jobs.
This comprehensive solution would restore water deliveries that have
been cut off due to Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits. It
will ensure a reliable water supply for people and for fish and it will
secure water rights just generally, and it will save taxpayer money by
ending unnecessary and dubious government projects.
I want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that this man-made drought does not
just impact California but has rippling effects across the entire
Nation. California's San Joaquin Valley is a salad bowl for the world
and provides a significant share of fruits and vegetables for our
country. The inability of these farmers to do their jobs would lead
negatively to increased reliance on foreign food sources. Why, Mr.
Chairman, would we want to do that?
Also, according to an initial analysis by the nonpartisan CBO, this
bill will repeal and reduce nearly $300 million in Federal spending
over the next 10 years while also generating nearly $250 million in
revenue. To repeat, this bill cuts spending by $300 million and it
increases revenue by a quarter of a billion dollars.
This bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to
end future man-made droughts, and to protect jobs and economic
livelihood of farmworkers, farmers, and their families. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I really applaud my good friend, Doc Hastings, with some of the
statistics that he was quoting about the farmers in the valley. There
were misrepresentations, which were later clarified, of the actual
figures that were affected and, unfortunately, they were very far
apart, and that's just for the record. I will be glad to give them to
anybody who wants them later.
H.R. 1387, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act is
anything but. It repeals existing State law as written for the use of
the water from the San Joaquin River in California's Central Valley. It
reallocates water in a way that elevates agricultural uses above all
other water needs--that's municipal, fisheries, and environmental uses.
This bill was mostly aimed at California; believe me, mostly
California. If enacted, it would set precedent: an unprecedented
standard of State preemption, environmental disregard, and
privatization of a public resource for the benefit of a select view. It
could be, in my estimation, renamed the Barrister Employment Act.
{time} 1430
The California State legislature stated it best:
H.R. 1837 is almost breathtaking in its total disregard for
equity and its willful subjugation of the State of California
to the whims of Federal action.
May I point out that in the past my colleagues on the other side have
asked for less intrusion of the Federal Government, less government
control, let the locals handle it. This would do the reverse. It would
put it in the hands of the Federal Government to be able to determine
the State's right to enact its own water laws.
Despite amendments to the bill by the majority, it still seeks to
make sweeping negative changes to the State's ability to manage water
in the west.
It amends the State constitution, and undermines California's ability
to manage its own resources.
It would repeal or overturn nearly 20 years of environmental
protections under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the
CVPIA, and the Endangered Species Act, which is normally under attack
by my friends on the other side.
It repeals the San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act, a compromise
widely supported by all stakeholders, and diminishes funds for
restoration. It also completely eliminates the coequal goal of
protecting the environment and allowing for water deliveries.
It puts jobs of fishermen at risk. The Pacific Fishery Management
Council has raised concerns about the impacts on the fishery and
fishing communities. The northwest fisheries were closed in 2008 and
2009 and parts of 2010. They had no fishing. The industry was lost to
them.
The Subcommittee on Water and Power received over 34 letters with
nearly 300 stakeholders opposing this legislation. They include the
Western States Water Council; seven States--California, Colorado,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Wyoming; the Department of
the Interior; and a statement of administration policy. Also, the
senior Senator and the junior Senator of California oppose this. And
the list goes on: elected officials, environmental groups, State
legislatures, attorneys general offices, Governors' offices, and
letters from these different States, not to mention the nonpartisan, 18
Governor-appointed Western States Water Council.
The scope of harmful provisions included in this legislation is
matched only by the number of necessary provisions left out. Also, the
severity of this legislation, which benefits only a small group, not
all of California.
Through a series of amendments, my colleagues seek to address the
glaring issues associated with the legislation--the subsidies reform,
construction of new facilities, and use of best available science.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the
chairman of the subcommittee that developed this legislation on the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I compliment the gentlelady from California on stating the opposite of
this bill with remarkable precision.
It does not repeal 20 years of California water law; it restores it
by restoring the allocation that was agreed to by a broad bipartisan
coalition in the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994. In fact, at that time, the
Democratic Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, assured all parties that
this agreement would be honored by the State and Federal governments.
His promise was broken first by his own Department and most recently
when a Federal court deemed the delta smelt to be more important than
the livelihoods of thousands of Central Valley farmworkers. Hundreds of
billions of gallons of water that these communities had already paid
for and depended upon were simply expropriated and blissfully and
cavalierly dumped into the Pacific Ocean, turning much of California's
fertile Central Valley into a dust bowl.
This bill redeems the promise made to the people of California and
restores the allocations that were agreed to.
We hear: Well, that was then and this is now, and the science has
changed. What they are referring to is not
[[Page H1043]]
science; it is ideology masquerading as science. In 2010, their claims
were thrown out of the Federal court, which cited ideological zealots
who had attempted to, in the words of the court, ``Mislead and to
deceive the court into accepting what is not only not the best science,
it's not science.''
The science is this: the Northwest Fisheries Science Center
determined the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a principal factor in
salmon migration. Ocean currents.
The California Department of Water Resources determined that pumps
which deliver water to the Central Valley had a negligible influence on
salmon and delta smelt migration.
The National Academy of Sciences reported that nonnative and invasive
predators, like the striped bass, are a far more significant influence
on salmon and delta smelt populations.
So the second thing that this bill does is to replace the ideological
zealotry that created this human disaster with practical and fact-based
solutions to support native delta smelt and salmon populations. For
example, as I said earlier, it's common to find striped bass in the
delta gorged with salmon smolts and delta smelt. This bill allows open
season on these destructive, invasive, and nonnative predators.
Fish hatcheries produce millions of salmon smolts each year, and tens
of thousands return as fully grown adults to spawn, but these fish are
not allowed to be counted. This bill counts them, ensuring that
hatcheries will produce thriving and bountiful populations of salmon
and delta smelts and any other species considered endangered.
The San Joaquin River Settlement Act envisions an absurdly
impractical year-round cold war salmon fishery on the hot valley floor
at an estimated cost of $2 million per individual fish. That act was
adopted by the Democrats 2 years ago when they controlled this House.
It is so expensive because it attempts to establish something that only
existed sporadically in nature. Instead, this bill establishes a year-
round warm water fishery that acts in concert with the habitat at a
fraction of the cost.
Third, the bill removes disincentives in current law that discourage
farmers from purchasing surplus water in wet years to recharge
groundwater banks.
It removes prohibitive regulatory restrictions on water transfers
between willing buyers and willing sellers, which once had efficiently
distributed water throughout that system from areas of surplus to areas
of shortage.
It allows environmental flows to be recycled and used by human
communities once those flows have achieved their environmental
purposes.
Fourth, it brings the full force of Federal law to invoke and protect
State water rights and forbid their violation by any bureaucracy:
local, State, or Federal. In fact, this provision specifically
addressed concerns raised by the very same opponents to the original
bill who feared that, because of the unique joint operating agreement
between the State and Federal Governments, changes in Federal
allocations could lead to raids on senior water rights holders by the
State government.
This provision fully addresses those concerns through the Federal
Government's legitimate constitutional authority in the 14th Amendment
to protect the property rights of its citizens against encroachment by
any government bureaucracy. This is the preemption issue that the
opponents are raising. They are some of the same opponents who attacked
the original bill for not protecting those rights. This bill doesn't
preempt those rights; it specifically invokes them and protects them.
It brings to an end the predation on the working people of
California. It places senior water rights holders in a safe and secure
position, and treats our water as the precious resource it is.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlewoman.
One hardly knows where to start, when you take California water law
and push it aside and preempt it with Federal water law, really running
over the top of the State of California, and then you steal 800,000
acre-feet and transfer it to your buddies--yes, you're going to come up
with a lot of reasons why it makes sense. But the reality is quite
different.
Let us understand very clearly here that 150 years of California
water law is thrown out and a new Federal law is put in place that
preempts California water law. The 1994 CALFED agreement was an interim
agreement. It was never, ever intended to be a permanent statutory
agreement on how water would be delivered in California.
In addition to that, let me understand--yes, I see your little chart
over there that you're going to throw up. That was 1994, and it said
precisely what we ought to do today. And that is: today, we ought to be
working together to solve the problems of California water. And guess
what, California is.
But with this law in place, it won't happen. The ability of
California to work together to solve its problems are thrown out. What
sense does that make unless you want to steal 800,000 acre feet of
water and take an agreement that was forged over 20 years ago to solve
a problem on the San Joaquin River that is not for year-round salmon
flows but only for the spring salmon flows. Why would you want to do
that, except you want to take somebody's water?
{time} 1440
The water is the water of the fishermen as well as the water of the
farmers.
By the way, facts are ugly little things. There are no 3,000 people
that lost their jobs, no 60,000 people that lost their jobs. The
University of California, Berkeley, the University of California,
Davis, and the University of the Pacific all say that the losses were
less than 7,000, which almost equaled the loss of the fisheries.
When we get to the end of this story, it is going to be a story of
the rest of the Nation. If you happen to be a Western State, if you
happen to be a Midwestern State that has a Federal water project from
the Bureau of Reclamation, beware, because this is the first-ever
attempt to throw aside 100 years of reclamation law in which deference
is given to the States over the power of their water rights and their
water laws.
Yes, you can say section 4 of this bill deals with that. No, it
doesn't. It does not deal with the totality of California law. In fact,
the bill destroys that totality.
Western States are opposed to this. The list has been given. Other
States, watch out. This is a power grab. This is a water grab. This is
an imposition of the Federal authority over the States, and
specifically over California.
Yes, Mr. Chairman--excuse me, if I might, through the Chair--you said
that there is 100 percent water. No water district except those that
preceded the Federal project have 100 percent allocation. Every other
water district has shortage provisions in those water contracts.
By the way, whatever power we may have, we don't have the power to
overcome a natural drought, which is precisely what is happening in
California today and happened during the period that this bill speaks
to. It was a natural drought. Yes, there were restrictions placed on
the pumps, restrictions that were necessary to protect an endangered
species.
By the way, the judge that you cited took a job 45 days after he quit
with the water contractor that is supporting this bill. Figure it out
yourself. Figure out what is going on here. This is a theft of 800,000
acre feet of environmental water. This is an overturning of California
water law, and we ought not do it.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the
sponsor of this legislation, I yield myself 30 seconds to simply point
out that the statistics I used as it relates to unemployment come from
Fresno County. That is a county where all of this was impacted. The
statistics that were cited by my friends across the aisle were from
outside that area.
The second point I want to make is that I have letters here from 14
senators and 18 members of the California legislature. I insert their
letters in support in the Record.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act--Organizations in
Support
Water Agencies/Organizations
California Water Alliance
[[Page H1044]]
Families Protecting the Valley
Northern California Water Association *
Family Water Alliance
California Watershed Posse
Westlands Water District
San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority: Banta-Carbona
Irrigation District, Broadview Water District, Byron Bethany
Irrigation District (CVPSA), Central California Irrigation
District, Columbia Canal Company, Del Puerto Water District,
Eagle Field Water District, Firebaugh Canal Water District,
Fresno Slough Water District, Henry Miller Reclamation
District #2131, James Irrigation District, Laguna Water
District, Mercy Springs Water District, Oro Loma Water
District, Pacheco Water District, Pajaro Valley Water
Management Agency, Panoche Water District, Patterson
Irrigation District, Pleasant Valley Water District,
Reclamation District 1606, San Benito County Water District,
San Luis Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District,
Tranquillity Irrigation District, Turner Island Water
District, West Side Irrigation District, West Stanislaus
Irrigation District
Placer County Water Agency *
Nevada Irrigation District *
El Dorado Irrigation District *
Exchange Contractors **
Modesto Irrigation District **
San Joaquin Tributaries Association
**
Kern County Water Agency: Belridge Water Storage District,
Berrenda Mesa Water District, Buena Vista Water Storage
District, Cawelo Water District, Henry Miller Water District,
Kern Delta Water District, Lost Hills Water District,
Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Semitropic Water
Storage District, Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District,
Tejon-Castac Water District, West Kern Water District,
Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District
Tehama Colusa Canal Authority: Proberta Water District,
Kirkwood Water District, Thomes Creek Water District, Corning
WD, Orland-Artois Water District, Glide Water District,
Kanawha Water District, Holthouse Water District, Cortina
Water District, Davis Water District, LaGrande Water
District, 4M Water District, Dunnigan Water District, Colusa
County Water District, Westside Water District
Bella Vista Water District
Reclamation District No. 108 *
Maxwell Irrigation District *
Sutter Mutual Water Company *
Provident Irrigation District *
Natomas Mutual Water Company *
River Garden Farms *
Glenn Colusa Irrigation District *
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District *
Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District *
Chowchilla Irrigation District*
National Organizations
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
National Federation of Independent Business
Americans for Limited Government
National Taxpayers Union
Americans for Tax Reform
Citizens Against Government Waste
American Land Rights Association
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Western Business Roundtable
National Farm Organizations
Western Growers
Family Farm Alliance
Agricultural Retailers Association
National Turkey Federation
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Agricultural Aviation Association
National Cotton Council
American Pima Cotton Producers
National Chicken Council
Milk Producers Council
National Onion Association
Supima
Western Plant Health Association
Dairy Farmers of America
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Irrigation Association
California Farm Organizations
California Wool Growers Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Grain Feed Association
California Cotton Ginners & Growers Assoc.
California Citrus Mutual
California Olive Growers Council
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Dairies Inc.
California Poultry Federation: Foster Farms; Aviagen
Turkeys, Inc.; Zacky Farms; Squab Producers of California;
Willie Bird Turkeys
Apricot Producers of California
Allied Grape Growers
Almond Hullers & Processors Association
Local Farm Organizations
Fresno County Farm Bureau
Kern County Farm Bureau
Tulare County Farm Bureau
Kings County Farm Bureau
Madera County Farm Bureau
Merced County Farm Bureau
Fresno-Kings Cattlemen
California Businesses
Paramount Farms
Harris Ranch
Harris Woolf Almonds
Borba Farms
Land 0' Lakes
Sagoupse Enterprises LLC
Sagouspe Family Orchards I, II, III, IV
Lyons Magnus
Wawona Packing
Lyons Transportation
Triple J Partners
Ghost Ranch LLC
Old West Management LLC
Panoche Creek Packing, Inc.
Double D Farms
Penny Newman Grain Company
Chaney Ranch
Wind Fall Farms
Panoche Creek Farms
J.G. Avila Farms
Rock'n JK Farms
Sano Farms
Quad Knopf--Civil Engineering
Alvarado Building Group
Kingsburg Federal Land Bank
AGRI Crop Insurance Agency
Redding Electric Utility
Proteus Inc.
Aquarius Aquarium Institute
Ferguson Farming Company
Lost Wagon Wheel Ranch
Brooks Ransom Associates
Bettencourt Farms
Kings Ranch
Waymire Farms
Nelson Ranch
Triple J Trust
Westside Ranch
Freitas Farms 1
JHP Ranch Inc
Joseph G Freitas Farms
Brooks Farms
GCM Farms
Farmer's Fury Winery
Stone Land Company
Errotabere Ranches
Houlding Farms
Tea Party Supporters
Mark Meckler, Co-Founder Tea Party Patriots
Central Valley Tea Party
North Valley Patriots
Other Supporters
Stewards of the Sequoia
Kelly Lilies, Area Administrator, Catholic Charities
Tribal Governments
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
STATE ELECTED LEADERS
Senator Jean Fuller
Senator Bill Emmerson
Senator Anthony Cannella
Senator Joel Anderson
Senator Bob Huff
Senator Tom Berryhill
Senator Mimi Walters
Senator Tony Strickland
Senator Mark Wyland
Senator Bob Dutton
Senator Tom Harman
Senator Sharon Runner
Senator Ted Gaines
Senator Doug LaMalfa
Minority Leader Connie Conway
Assemblyman David Valadao
Assemblyman Jeff Miller
Assemblywoman Diane Harkey
Assemblywoman Shannon Grove
Assemblyman Jim Silva
Assemblyman Brian Jones
Assemblyman Cameron Smyth
Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian
Assemblyman Donald Wagner
Assemblyman Mike Morrell
Assemblyman Allan Mansoor
Assemblyman Brian Nestande
Assemblyman Steve Knight
Assemblywoman Linda Halderman
Assemblyman Paul Cook
Assemblyman Martin Garrick
Assemblyman Curt Hagman
CITIES/COUNTIES
Kings County Board of Supervisors
Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Merced County Board of Supervisors
Fresno County Supervisor Phil Larson
Fresno County Supervisor Deborah Poochigian
Fresno County Supervisor Judith Case
Madera County Supervisor Frank Bigelow
Madera County Supervisor David Rogers
Madera County Supervisor Ronn Dominici
Stanislaus County Supervisor Terry Withrow
Fresno City Council President Clinton Olivier
Madera City Councilwoman Sally Bomprezzi
Madera City Councilmember Robert Poythress
Madera City Councilmember Gary Svanda
City of Clovis
City of Orange Cove
City of Reedley
City of Huron
City of Dinuba
City of Visalia
City of Lindsay
City of Tulare
City of Woodlake
City of Farmersville
City of Fire baugh
City of Kingsburg
City of Kettleman City
City of Lemoore
City of Coalinga
City of Porterville
City of Chowchilla
City of Waterford
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Fresno County DA Elizabeth Egan
Tulare County DA Phil Cline
Tulare County Sheriff Bill Wittman
Fresno County Sheriff Margret Mims
Madera County Sheriff John Anderson
[[Page H1045]]
Kings County Sheriff Dave Robinson
LOCAL BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Clovis Chamber of Commerce
Visalia Chamber of Commerce
Tulare Chamber of Commerce
Kingsburg Chamber of Commerce
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Greater Reedley Chamber of Commerce
Riverbank Chamber of Commerce
Home Builders Association of Tulare-Kings
* Support limited to Title IV.
** Supports bill but no opinion on Title II.
*** Friant settling party supports bill--recommends
settling parties adopt Title II.
____
Assembly,
California Legislature,
Sacramento, CA, June 9, 2011.
Congressman Devin Nunes,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Congressman Devin Nunes: We, the undersigned members of the
CA State Legislature, support The San Joaquin Valley Water
Reliability Act, H.R. 1837, as introduced by Congressman
Devin Nunes (R 21) and co-sponsored by Congressman Jeff
Denham (R 19) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R 22).
H.R. 1837 is sensible water policy that codifies the
bipartisan Bay-Delta Accord into law and also reforms the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). By doing so,
water supplies will be increased by 1.4 million acre-feet
annually, which will create 25,000 30,000 jobs in the San
Joaquin Valley, a region suffering from 20 40% unemployment.
Additionally, by repealing and replacing the San Joaquin
River Settlement with a viable alternative, H.R. 1837 will
save taxpayers $1 billion.
We would like to express our support for this important
piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
David G. Valadao, 30th District; Diane Harkey, 73rd
District; Jeff Miller, 71st District; Shannon Grove,
32nd District; Jim Silva, 67th District; Connie Conway,
34th District; Katcho Achadjian, 33rd District; Mike
Morrell, 63rd District; Brian Jones, 77th District;
Cameron Smyth, 38th District; Donald P. Wagner, 70th
District; Allan R. Mansoor, 68th District; Brian
Nestande, 64th District; Linda Halderman, 29th
District; Martin Garrick, 74th District; Steve Knight,
36th District; Paul Cook, 65th District; Curt Hagman,
60th District.
____
California State Senate,
Sacramento, CA, February 27, 2012.
Congressman Devin Nunes,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Congressman Devin Nunes, We, the undersigned members of the
California State Legislature, support the San Joaquin Valley
Water Reliability Act, H.R. 1837, as introduced by
Congressman Devin Nunes (R 21) and co-sponsored by
Congressman Jeff Denham (R 19) and Majority Whip Kevin
McCarthy (R 22).
H.R. 1837 is sensible water policy that codifies the
bipartisan Bay Delta Accord into law and also reforms the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). By doing so,
water supplies will be increased by 1.4 million acre-feet
annually, which will create 25,000 30,000 jobs in the San
Joaquin Valley, a region that is suffering from 20 40%
unemployment. Additionally, by repealing and replacing the
San Joaquin River Settlement with a viable alternative, H.R.
1837 will save taxpayers $1 billion.
We would like to express our support for this important
piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Jean Fuller, 18th Senate District; Anthony Cannella, 12th
Senate District; Bob Huff, 29th Senate District; Bill
Emmerson, 37th Senate District; Joel Anderson, 36th
Senate District; Tom Berryhill, 14th Senate District;
Mimi Walters, 33rd Senate District; Mark Wyland, 38th
Senate District; Tom Harman, 35th Senate District; Ted
Gaines, 1st Senate District; Tony Strickland, 19th
Senate District; Bob Dutton, 31st Senate District;
Sharon Runner, 17th Senate District; Doug LaMalfa, 4th
Senate District.
At this time, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Nunes), the sponsor of this legislation, who has
been an absolute leader on bringing this to national attention.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman from
California that facts are a funny thing, and the Deputy Under Secretary
approved this bipartisan agreement in 1994.
I remind the gentleman also that I defended his right in the Rules
Committee. I defended the right of the Democrats to have all their
amendments made in order.
Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Government began to pass State
preemption to take their water away, you can see here that up until
this time we had full water allotment throughout California. Yes, when
there was a drought, there were a few years we didn't have water, but
look at the chaos that has erupted since. This is an important point.
The Congress, by using State preemptions, has managed to take water
away from cities, communities, and families.
The opponents of this bill claim that somehow the salmon population
is decreasing. We can see here in this graph at the bottom--I know it
may be hard for some folks to see. The water exports are here. The
green represents total water that flowed into the delta throughout the
last 25 years. The red line indicates salmon populations. Lo and
behold, there is no correlation between the water inflow into the delta
and salmon population.
But I will agree that the salmon population has declined, and this
bill begins to fix that problem. Why? Because the delta smelt and
salmon are being eaten by predator fish that are nonnative to the
delta. Let me say that again. Striped bass, nonnative to the delta.
This scientific evidence shows, as the bass population has increased,
the smelt population has declined. This bill rectifies this. This bill
allows fishermen to fish for the nonnative species. What this is about
is we're shutting off the water to Californians and to their families
because of the delta smelt right here.
They talk a lot about these dangerous pumps that are pumping this
water, these engineering projects that allowed this valley to bloom,
that have improved the environment over time. Less than 2 percent of
the juvenile salmon--it is negligible in the pumps. Instead of looking
at ways to stop that negligible impact, we allow the predator fish, the
striped bass, to eat 65 to 90 percent of the juvenile salmon that are
being eaten by this bass.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. NUNES. Here we have evidence of this. You can see the bass--I
know this is a little gruesome for some folks at home. Here you have
the smelt inside the bass. Yet this government is allowing this
nonnative species to eat the thing that they so love, the delta smelt.
What has been the result, Mr. Chairman? Food lines. In the
breadbasket of the world where they used to grow the Nation's carrots,
we now import carrots from China to feed the people in the food lines.
This is what this is about. These are children in a food line eating
carrots imported from China.
Does this Congress have a moral compass to do the right thing with
regards to children in food lines eating carrots imported from China?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional
minute.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, we don't need any fancy speeches here today.
A sixth-grader from an elementary school in my district--I won't read
the whole thing--sent this letter:
Not only does this problem affect the farming industry, it
also affects the farmers, families, and their livelihood. I
am sure you've heard this complaint. But before, as with
future generations, it is of great concern to me. Please do
what you can to get the water to the farmers once again, then
we can use the fertile soil that the people of this valley
have been blessed with.
This sixth-grader is correct. This Congress should do the right
thing. We need Democrats and Republicans to come together today. As the
Speaker of the House stated earlier, this is to right a wrong.
I urge passage of this bill.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I can't believe how many of these
people that wrote letters and the stakeholders, including 105 fishing
agencies, could be so wrong.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
While this bill directly affects the State of California, even though
the State of California opposes the legislation, it is also opposed by
representatives of the other western water interests--the State of
Montana, the State of New Mexico, the State of Oregon, the State of
Wyoming, the State of Colorado--which have all joined California in
saying they don't want this bill.
[[Page H1046]]
Why are they all saying that? They are saying it because of the
precedent that it will set in upsetting settled water rights in the
West.
{time} 1450
Now, to address that issue, the Republicans have inserted in the bill
language that says this bill does not set a precedent in upsetting all
the water rights in the West, as it upsets all the water rights in
California. So, what's that like? Well, in 1929, the Belgian surrealist
painter, Rene Magritte, painted a painting of a tobacco pipe. Under the
pipe, he painted the words, ``This is not a pipe.'' But of course it
was a pipe--or at least a painting of a pipe. This bill has a similar
surrealistic quality to it.
The bill states that the violence of this bill in upsetting water
rights is not a precedent, that nothing that happens in California will
be a precedent for any other State--which is why of course all the
other States are opposing the bill because of the precedent that it
sets. This bill sets the precedent to upset all those other
arrangements. Others in the West who may wish to restructure water
rights elsewhere around the West will look to it as a precedent. So I
would say to the majority: nice job, but no cigar.
Clearly, this bill does set a bad precedent, and we can't get around
that fact just by putting in the bill that it does not set a precedent.
You are, for all intents and purposes, taking all of those arrangements
set up over generations and in one bill--opposed by all those States--
upsetting the apple cart and setting a brand new era. And you cannot
get around it by saying in the bill: This does not set a precedent.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from northern California (Mr. Herger),
an individual who unfortunately is leaving Congress after this, but who
has been a leader on property rights in that part of his State of
California.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I originally voiced strong concerns when
this legislation was first introduced last year, arguing that it would
negatively impact northern California's water supplies and undermine
our senior water rights; but under Chairman Hastings' leadership, it
has come a very, very long way.
We have amended the bill so it not only protects northern California
water and power users I represent, but in many respects puts them in a
materially better position. As such, I intend to strongly support it.
It contains important reforms to the CVPIA, a law that has, like so
many others, gone awry, including greater certainty for agriculture
through longer-term contracts, improved financial accountability, and a
cap on the amount ratepayers I represent must pay into the restoration
fund.
Most importantly, a new title 4 contains an explicit Federal
recognition of California water rights priority system and area of
origin protections. Going forward, it will also ensure water users in
our area are not harmed by efforts to address environmental and water-
quality challenges in California. We have created an important baseline
for any water legislation to ensure northern California's water needs
will be met first.
There is broad support for these provisions, including from the
Tehama Colusa Canal Authority, representing 17 water districts; the
Northern California Water Association; eight absolute priority
settlement contractors; the city of Redding; Redding Electric Utility;
and the Family Water Alliance, a group representing Sacramento Valley
landowners.
In short, the bill seeks to solve another tragic ESA-caused water
shortage facing our family farmers in California. And it does so while
fully protecting senior water rights holders in my district, and in
many ways enhancing their positions.
I urge strong support for the bill.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss a matter of great importance to my
constituents in the San Joaquin Valley, and that's the future of our
water supply. More importantly, it's our Nation's food supply and,
therefore, an important part of the world's food supply.
H.R. 1837 is not perfect and has issues I think the authors should
seriously consider, but I am supporting the legislation today because
of a number of important provisions it contains.
Titles 1 and 3 of the legislation aim to address the biggest
challenges for water policy in California. In 2009 and 2010, valley
communities suffered through a hydrological and regulatory drought that
was insufferable. This year, we are again faced with below-average snow
pack in the mountains and may see as little as a 30 percent allocation
for water in our area.
My congressional district is the most impacted in California by this
shortfall. Farmers, farmworkers, and farming communities that live in
my district is what I'm talking about. Our water system is broken in
California; but while we're trying to fix it, we need operational
flexibility while we continue to work on the long-term issues of the
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan.
We should be discussing more constructive ways in which we can work
together.
Title 2 of this measure repeals and replaces the San Joaquin River
Restoration Act. After 18 years of litigation, the parties involved
decided to reach an out-of-court settlement agreement. We can all
dispute that, but it was those 22 districts' local government that we
respected who asked them to codify their out-of-court settlement
agreement. I note that the Friant Water Authority continues to oppose
title 2 of the bill, as do many of the districts who were involved with
the writing and the negotiation of the settlement agreement.
Now, we do have problems with the implementation of the program--
Congressman Cardoza and I will tell you--from the schedule, to costs,
to third-party impacts, to the fulfillment of the water management
goal, which is critical to the water users. These issues need to be
addressed. But simply repealing the settlement agreement won't solve
any of these problems, in my view. In fact, I'm certain they'll be back
in court the next day, and that's not solving a problem.
We have had a long history of working on a bipartisan basis in
California and in the San Joaquin Valley among our Representatives on
water. It frustrates me to see the division on the House floor that has
politicized this situation and arguably does nothing for the people
that I represent. I have always been willing to work on both sides of
the aisle, with the Senate, and with the administration to get things
done for our valley; and I have done that throughout my career. But
unless we are willing to work with Senator Feinstein, who I know wants
to be helpful, I predict that this measure today, as it is proposed,
will never be heard in the United States Senate. Therefore, it will
never bring an additional single drop of water to our region that is
desperately in need of more water.
I think we can do better for our constituents by working together on
a bipartisan basis with both Houses to develop and implement solutions
both in the long term and the short term. These are the efforts that
really will increase our water supply, which all Californians need and
deserve to have.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining
on both sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), a new Member
who represents part of this area that has been devastated and who was
an integral player on developing this legislation.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about our area of the
State, where you have 30 to 40 percent unemployment in some areas. It's
not a Republican issue; it's not a Democrat issue. It is an American
jobs issue--to put people back to work.
Some people say, Well, those aren't the kinds of jobs that we want.
You know, it's a dusty, dirty way to earn a living. Yeah, it is dusty;
it is dirty. I'm a farmer. And without water, you shut down not only my
farm, but you shut down farms throughout the valley, you
[[Page H1047]]
shut off our food supply, you shut off all of those jobs that
desperately rely on water.
Now, a lot of people like to talk about a deal is a deal. Back in
1994, we had this grand deal that took CVPIA water, took 800,000 acre-
feet for environmental purposes. The deal was that water was supposed
to be replaced. The Department of the Interior never did that, just
stole 800,000 acre-feet of water, which still has to be paid for by the
contract; but nevertheless, we need to make sure that our valley
farmers are held whole.
Let me talk about a couple of different issues within this bill.
{time} 1500
Again, this is about our priorities as the House. The Senate may or
may not agree with them, but we'll never know if we don't have the
debate. Shouldn't the Senate at least have an opportunity to look at
this bill and vote on the bill and debate the bill?
If they don't like the bill, present us your own; but don't just
ignore valley farmers. Don't just ignore the amount of jobs that we're
losing as a State. You don't like it, come up with your own bill. We'll
vote on that; we'll debate on that.
But we're going to express our priority, and our priority is about
the jobs of the Central Valley. We're going to send you a bill that not
only deals with greater water certainty, but also deals with
duplicative regulation.
I'm also on the Transportation Committee; and whether it's the
Resources Committee or the Transportation Committee, when you have a
higher environmental law, like California does, why go through these
same environmental policies twice? Why not streamline NEPA so that you
don't have that duplicative regulation that shuts down our water
projects?
And while we're at it, we can fight all we want on where the water
that we currently have is delivered or who wins and who loses; but we
lose as a State, we lose as a country until we get more water storage.
We've put an amendment in this bill in committee that will authorize
new water storage, whether it's Sites Reservoir, Los Vaqueros, Shasta
or, in my area, Temperance Flat. But we have to have more off-stream
storage.
And in Los Vaqueros, in Congressman Garamendi's own district, in his
own backyard, we can have water storage today without any cost to the
Federal taxpayers. Where we've got users that are willing to pay for
more water storage, and the water is desperately needed, why wouldn't
we approve those projects?
That's authorized in this bill. This bill deals with certainty. This
does deal with a number of years of a problem, and it certainly deals
with drought years, as well as certainty in wet years. But it also
deals with greater water storage.
So if you want to end this debate once and for all, let's make sure
we keep up with the population growth of California. Let's have greater
water storage, and let's solve this problem so that we don't have the
double-digit unemployment in the Central Valley.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I must mention that California
agriculture had the biggest banner year during that period, in other
words, in the billions more than they had in prior years during this
drought.
So with that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, someone needs to stand up and defend the
delta. I'm standing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1837. This
legislation will do tremendous damage and harm to the San Joaquin
Delta, an area that I'm honored to represent.
The San Joaquin Delta is a treasure for California and the entire
Nation. The delta flows through five counties and sustains major
cities, small towns, and lush farmland. Agriculture is the economic
backbone of the delta, generating nearly $800 million per year revenue
in 2009.
Unfortunately, the delta ecosystem is now in decline due to excessive
water shipments to the south. Poor water quality is a threat to the
region's entire agricultural economy and heritage. H.R. 1837 would even
ship more water out of the delta, turning this precious estuary into a
salty, stagnant marsh, crushing the local economy, and costing the
delta region thousands and thousands of jobs.
This bill is a blatant water grab meant to help some communities at
the expense of others. Contrary to the conservative principles that
this bill's proponents claim to cherish, H.R. 1837 uses the power of
the Federal Government to undermine states' rights.
Dozens of local governments, businesses, agricultural advocates,
environmental groups and others oppose H.R. 1837. I have letters from
these groups, and I will insert them into the Record.
February 27, 2012.
Re OPPOSE H.R. 1837 (Nunes).
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner: On behalf of the undersigned
organizations, we urge you to oppose the ``San Joaquin Valley
Water Reliability Act,'' (H.R. 1837), which was introduced by
Representative Nunes. Furthermore, we do not believe that
this bill merits a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives.
H.R. 1837 overrides the public trust as defined in the
California Constitution and state water laws. It reverses the
long-standing Congressional principle that the federal
government should follow state water law whenever possible.
H.R. 1837 would reduce water quality and water availability
for Delta communities and Delta farmers. It seeks to ensure
water flows to corporate agribusiness in the western and
southern San Joaquin Valley at the expense of Delta family
farmers. The recently-released Economic Sustainability Report
authored by the Delta Protection Commission shows that Delta
agriculture is worth $4.2 billion annually and provides tens
of thousands of jobs. Delta agriculture and jobs should not
be sacrificed to benefit water users in other parts of the
state, some of whom do not even use that water for
agriculture.
H.R. 1837 would hinder efforts to restore fish populations
in the Delta. Science-based protections for salmon and other
endangered species are required under both California state
law and the Endangered Species Act. Since 2009, the State of
California has consistently opposed legislation that would
weaken the Endangered Species Act in the San Francisco Bay-
Delta and Estuary. Title I of H.R. 1837 would substitute
measures that were part of a short-term agreement in 1994,
when the health of the Delta had not deteriorated so
seriously and when recent scientific studies had not yet been
done.
H.R. 1837 would reverse San Joaquin River restoration,
thereby further impacting water quality and quantity for the
south Delta. While the San Joaquin River restoration allows
for a limited flow of additional water into the south Delta,
breaking the promise of San Joaquin River restoration would
signal to Delta communities the federal government's
sacrifice of the Delta for the preference of another region
in California.
This deeply-flawed bill joins a long list of water
strategies created behind closed doors without input from the
Delta communities that rely on a healthy Delta for their
livelihoods. It threatens the economic security of families,
farmers, and small business owners in the Delta, as well as
those in the Delta and Northern California who depend on
recreational and commercial fisheries. It also threatens the
urban economy surrounding the Delta--an area that is home to
four million Californians and that is dependent on the Delta
to meet its water user needs.
H.R. 1837 deserves your opposition.
Sincerely yours,
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director, Restore the
Delta; Carolee Krieger, President & Executive Director,
California Water Impact Network; Ann Johnston, Mayor, City of
Stockton, Delta Coalition Chair; Ron Addington, Executive
Director, Business Council of San Joaquin County; John
Herrick, South Delta Water Agency; Roger Mammon, President,
CSBA West Delta Chapter; Bill Jennings, Executive Director,
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Jack Chapman,
State Board President, California Striped Bass Association;
John Beckman, Chief Executive Officer, BIA of the Delta;
Bobby Barrack, Professional Bass Fisherman, Back to Class
Guide Service.
Bill Berryhill, Assemblyman, 26th District, California
State Assembly; Roger Mammon, President, CSBA West Delta
Chapter; Jeff Shields, General Manager, South San Joaquin
Irrigation District; Bill Wells, Executive Director,
California Delta Chambers & Visitor's Bureau; Jeremy Terhune,
Executive Director, Friends of the lower Calaveras River;
Steve Dial, Deputy Executive Director/Chief Financial
Officer, San Joaquin Council of Governments; Jack Chapman,
President, CSBA Sacramento, The River City Chapter; Alyson L.
Huber, Assemblymember, 10th District, California State
Assembly.
[[Page H1048]]
____
The Board of Supervisors,
San Joaquin County, CA,
February 24, 2012.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom McClintock,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on
Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Edward J. Markey,
Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Grace Napolitano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on
Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Letter in Opposition to H.R. 1837
Dear Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, Chairman
McClintock, and Ranking Member Napolitano: The County of San
Joaquin is writing to express its opposition to H.R. 1837,
the proposed San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act. H.R.
1837 contains a number of provisions that appear to
arbitrarily block legal protections for the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta (Delta). If enacted, H.R. 1837 would overturn
important environmental protections for the Delta provided by
State law, and would reverse the San Joaquin River
Settlement.
We recognize and appreciate the inclusion of language in
Title IV mandating that the Central Valley Project be
operated in a manner consistent with State water law
provisions related to ``area of origin, watershed of origin
and county of origin. . . .'' This language is consistent
with our long-held view that federal law should specifically
and fully recognize and respect California's water rights
priority system and statutory protections for ``areas of
origin''.
However, H.R. 1837, taken as a whole, would move the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River region and the State in the
wrong direction. The bill is focused on the past; it takes us
backwards, and that is not a direction that holds any promise
for collaborative, consensus-based solutions to California's
complex water challenges or a healthier Delta. If enacted,
H.R. 1837 would stall and potentially disrupt current efforts
of various State and Federal agencies as they work toward the
implementation of California's 2009 Comprehensive Water
Package (SB1, SB 6, SB7, and SB8), which mandates a reduced
reliance on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, provision of a
high quality supply of water, and restoration of the Delta's
ecosystem (e.g., the forthcoming Bay Delta Conservation
Plan).
In addition, we oppose the closed-door process used in
constructing the bill. H.R. 1837 was put together with
neither public transparency nor any meaningful input from the
diversity of California's water and environmental interests.
We appreciate your consideration of our concerns regarding
H.R. 1837, and we look forward to continuing to work with you
to ensure that any legislation that moves forward will
promote and protect a healthy Delta environment and clean
water supply to support a Delta economy. If you have any
questions, please contact Tom Gau, Public Works Director at
(209) 468 3100 or me at (209) 468 3113.
Sincerely,
Ken Vogel,
Vice-Chairman, Board of Supervisors,
San Joaquin County.
____
The Board of Supervisors,
Contra Costa County, CA,
February 23, 2012.
Re H.R. 1837--OPPOSE.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner: As Chair of the Board of Supervisors
of Contra Costa County, I write to express my opposition to
H.R. 1837, and I urge you to do everything you can to prevent
this ill-considered bill from becoming law.
As one of the five counties located in California's
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Contra Costa County
depends on Delta waters for drinking, recreation,
environmental health and a good portion of our economy which
is related to boating, fishing and other service businesses
in the Delta area.
Reading the amended bill broadly, it will provide more
water, at subsidized prices, to Central Valley agribusiness
at the expense of Delta water quality and ecological health,
which in turn threatens Contra Costa County water users, the
Delta economy, and ultimately the economy of California.
Reading the bill at a more detailed level, it will gut some
of the best provisions of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (CVPIA), and it repeals the San Joaquin River
Settlement. Both of these prior acts helped provide a
foundation for restoring Bay-Delta health and establishing
sound water management practices in California. To gut them
or eliminate them for the benefit of a specific group of
water users flies in the face of long-standing California
water policy and would be an unprecedented and ill-advised
act for the Congress to take.
The amended bill specifically would implement the following
harmful actions.
1) It would repeal the San Joaquin River Settlement, an
agreement from 2006 that was decades in the making among
public and private interests and provided the foundation for
the San Joaquin River Restoration Program,
2) It would eliminate the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program, which is critical to restoring Bay-Delta flow, Delta
water quality, salmon population and ecosystem health. By
cutting this program when it has only just begun, H.R. 1837
will stymie progress in restoring the highly dammed,
constrained and polluted San Joaquin River and will further
jeopardize Delta water quality and wildlife populations.
3) The bill would significantly reduce the allocation of
federally provided (Central Valley Project) water that is
currently used for wildlife and habitat restoration each year
per the CVPIA. This water will instead be provided to
specific agricultural users.
4) H.R. 1837 also would remove the tiered pricing structure
that the CVPIA put in place to encourage wise water use and
conservation. Under the tiered structure, the CVP provides
below-cost, subsidized prices to its water recipients for up
to 80 percent of their contract amounts of water, slightly
higher prices for the next 10 percent of their contract
amounts, and full-cost pricing for the final 10 percent of
their contract amount. Since water deliveries have rarely
been over 90 percent in recent years, recipients generally
have benefited from below-cost pricing provided by the
federally subsidized rates.
5) The bill will discard the past two decades worth of
scientific research about Delta conditions by rolling back
water-supply regulations to those of a 1994 agreement known
as the Bay-Delta Accord. The Accord was developed before the
crash of numerous Delta species and before the scientific
community developed its current base of knowledge about these
issues. By rolling back water operations guidelines to 1994,
there will be even greater harm to species including fall-run
Chinook salmon. This will cause further economic harm to
fisheries and fishing-related businesses in the Delta,
6) H.R. 1837 waives the current requirement that new
federal dam projects in the Central Valley comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act. The lesson learned from
construction of the Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River by
the Bureau of Reclamation is that ignoring environmental
impacts can wipe out entire runs of salmon and adversely
impact other species that rely on adequate water flows. All
water resources projects must undergo full and detailed
environmental review and any environmental impacts must be
fully mitigated.
Finally, I will add a comment about the process this bill
has undergone. It is our understanding that no public
hearings were held on the amended bill, which was considered
in Committee less than 48 hours after the bill was made
public. Had there been more time allotted for comment on this
bill, undoubtedly objections would have been voiced sooner.
Such critical decisions on water policy should have been
debated in full public view with adequate time for comment,
particularly in this instance where the Congress is
attempting to overturn long-standing state water management
practice.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these
concerns.
Sincerely,
Mary Nejedly Piepho,
Chair, Board of Supervisors.
____
Delta Counties Coalition, Contra Costa County, Sacramento
County, San Joaquin County, Solano County, Yolo County,
``Working Together on Water and Delta Issues,''
February 24, 2012.
Re H.R. 1837.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Madam Leader: The Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Counties of Contra Costa, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo, working together as the Delta
Counties Coalition (DCC), write to express our strong
opposition to H.R. 1837, as currently constructed.
The DCC is concerned that H.R. 1837 contains a number of
provisions that arbitrarily block legal protections for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and its fisheries for
the benefit of a specific group of agricultural water users.
Among our concerns are the consequences of provisions that
would change or limit the use of the 800,000 acre-feet of
Central Valley Project (CVP) water that was devoted to fish
and wildlife purposes in the original Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (CVPIA). We also have significant concerns
about the impacts to Delta fisheries, water quality, and
sensitive ecosystems that would result from the bill's
requirement to revert back to the provisions of the 1994 Bay-
Delta Accord as the benchmark environmental document to be
used in meeting today's biological and hydrological needs in
the Delta. Additionally, we are gravely concerned about the
consequences of provisions that preempt state land, water and
environmental laws which currently require more stringent
protections than those outlined in the Accord, which was
agreed to
[[Page H1049]]
nearly 18 years ago. This would ignore the last two decades'
worth of scientific research about Delta issues and would
base water operations on out-of-date science that was in
place before the crash of Delta wildlife species in recent
years. Furthermore, as a bipartisan coalition, we are
surprised that this House would consider top-down, big
government legislation preempting state law in a manner that
is antithetical to core philosophies of the Majority. We must
ensure that any legislation that moves forward will avoid
cannibalizing one part of California's economy to benefit
another's--our litmus test will be to see if the bill
supports, rather than jeopardizes, a Delta economy based on
agriculture, fishing/hunting, recreation, and tourism.
Another major problem with the bill is that it scraps the
San Joaquin River Restoration Program, which is needed to
begin restoring the San Joaquin River to reestablish salmon
runs, improve river water quality and restore the river's
Bay-Delta flow. The restoration is needed to improve the
health of the river and the Delta.
While some of the provisions of the bill are consistent
with our long held view that federal law should specifically
and fully recognize and respect California's water rights
priority system and statutory protections for areas of
origin, taken as a whole, H.R. 1837 takes our region and the
State in the wrong direction. By undercutting decades of
agreements and ongoing negotiations, this bill brings us no
closer to solving California's complex water challenges. We
also are troubled by the way the bill was constructed. It was
put together behind closed doors, with neither public
transparency nor meaningful input from the diversity of
California's water and environmental interests. There were no
hearings held on the version of the bill that the Committee
considered less than 48 hours after it was made public. A
balanced, consensus based solution is only possible if the
interests of all stakeholders are considered.
The DCC looks forward to continuing to work with
California's congressional delegation to promote and protect
a healthy Delta environment. If you have questions, please do
not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Mary Nejedly Piepho, Supervisor, Contra Costa County; Don
Nottoli, Supervisor, Sacramento County; Larry Ruhstaller,
Supervisor, San Joaquin County; Michael J. Reagan,
Supervisor, Solano County; Mike McGowan, Supervisor, Yolo
County.
____
Central Delta Water Agency,
Stockton, CA, February 24, 2012.
Re Opposition to H.R. 1837 (Nunes).
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: The Central Delta Water Agency encompasses
approximately 120,000 acres in the central portion or
California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We are concerned
with the adequacy of the quality and flow of water in the
channels of the Delta. Although the use of such water in our
agency is primarily agricultural, there are also significant
urban, recreational, industrial and habitat uses. We are
opposed to the passage of H.R. 1837 for the following reasons
among others:
H.R. 1837 would override State constitutional protection
for the public trust, State water rights law and even
preclude the State's ability to set limits on the take of
non-native fish. (Pages 19 and 20 of the bill.)
This intrusion on State's rights is not only a break with
tradition and respect but is of questionable
constitutionality. This is bad law and bad precedent which
does not address the underlying problem of insufficient water
to meet needs in dry years.
H.R. 1837 would represent yet another significant breach of
the promises by the United States to the people of California
that exports would be limited to surplus water.
``On February 17, 1945, a more direct answer was made to
the question of diversion of water in a letter by Acting
Regional Director R.C. Calland, of the Bureau, to the Joint
Committee on Rivers and Flood Control of California State
Legislature. The committee had asked the question, `What is
your policy in connection with the amount of water that can
be diverted from one watershed to another in proposed
diversions?' In stating the Bureau's policy, Mr. Calland
quoted section 11460 of the State water code, which is
sometimes referred to as the county of origin act, and then
he said: `As viewed by the Bureau, it is the intent of the
statute that no water shall be diverted from any watershed
which is of will be needed for beneficial uses within that
watershed. The Bureau of Reclamation, it its studies for
water resources development in the Central Valley,
consistently has given full recognition to the policy
expressed in this statute by the legislature and the people.
The Bureau has attempted to estimate in these studies, and
will continue to do so in future studies, what the present
and future needs of each watershed will be. The Bureau will
not divert from any watershed any water which is needed to
satisfy the existing or potential needs within that
watershed. For example, no water will be diverted which will
be needed for the full development of all of the irrigable
lands within the watershed, nor would there be water needed
for municipal and industrial purposes or future maintenance
of fish and wildlife resources.' '' (See 84th Congress, 2d
Session House Document No. 416, Part One Authorizing
documents 1956 at Pages 797 799.)
H.R. 1837 attempts to repeal the San Joaquin River
Settlement--The actions of the United States in deliberately
dewatering portions of the San Joaquin River and
collaborating in its degradation is a national disgrace and
should be corrected. The San Joaquin River Settlement is a
voluntary and contractual resolution to years of litigation
which is but a small step towards remediation of longstanding
patterns of wrongdoings. It should be honored not
circumvented.
H.R. 1837 would remove much of the CVPIA protection for
fish which was the quid pro quo for the significant benefits
extended to Federal water contractors and in particular the
ability to profit from transfer of subsidized water.
This would be but another action confirming the lank of
credibility of our Federal government. Although not a party
to the negotiations leading to the CVPIA, it would appear
that any repeal of the environmental benefits should include
a repeal of the benefits to water contractors. We suggest no
change.
H.R. 1837 represents the wrong approach to addressing water
issues in the State of California and would be a terrible
precedent for similar actions affecting other States.
Yours very truly,
Dante John Nomellini,
Manager and Co-Counsel.
H.R. 1837 would devastate my entire region, but folks from other
States should also oppose this bill. With little debate, and complete
disregard for the consequences, this bill sets a dangerous precedent so
that the Federal Government can undermine State water law developed
over decades. Your State could be next.
This bill is a shameful attempt to rewrite California water laws to
benefit a few selected water users, regardless of how much harm is done
to other parts of the State. Democrats and Republicans should stand
united in our desire to block this legislation from becoming law. I
urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to oppose H.R. 1837.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), another Member from the West,
and the chairman of the Western Caucus who knows this issue very well.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1837. The
Nation is faced with trillion-dollar deficits, persistent unemployment
above 8 percent, and we continue to use the Federal Government to kill
jobs and to export them to China.
You can take a look at what the President recently did regarding the
Keystone pipeline. You can look at the export of the rare-Earth mineral
mines to China.
But this is the one that is most offensive, this exporting of our
agriculture products. San Joaquin Valley used to place vegetables, safe
vegetables grown in America on store shelves across the country. Today
we import vegetables from countries that use pesticides that are
disallowed here.
We have an unsafe food supply. We have more people out of work, and
we have deficits because we don't have tax-paying citizens.
This bill simply is a commonsense, bipartisan solution that puts
people back to work, provides a safe food supply, and makes America
more sound. It's common sense. We should vote for it.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to this jobs killer act that ignores more than 20 years of established
science.
Tens of thousands of people depend on the Bay-Delta for their
livelihoods, including many farmers, fishermen, and sportsmen who
contribute billions of dollars to our economy every year.
Sadly, the sponsors of this bill are using the legislation to create
winners and losers by preempting California State law. This bill would
take water from folks in northern California for use in California's
Central Valley. This means even less water to sports fishermen and to
commercial fishermen, the basis of two thriving industries in our
State.
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations strongly
opposes the bill. They estimate that over 25,000 jobs were lost in the
salmon fishing industry due to the 2008 and 2009 closures.
The American Sportsfishing Association shows that California's
economy suffers $1.4 billion in loss each year that the salmon fishery
season is
[[Page H1050]]
closed. If this bill becomes law, these jobs would be lost forever, and
the economic losses would be permanent.
Appropriate amounts of water are also critical to support the
economies for wildlife-associated recreation. In California, 7.4
million sportsmen contribute over $8 billion to the economy every year.
Without water, many of these hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching
activities will be lost.
More than 200 sportsmen's organizations have written to express their
opposition to this bill. These men and women recognize the extreme
consequences of this measure.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to insert this letter that I have signed by
those over 200 organizations into the Record.
February 26, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The
California Environmental Water Caucus, and the numerous
environmental, environmental justice, recreational and
commercial fishing groups, legal and advocacy groups, and
Indian tribes, whose logos and names are attached to this
letter, would collectively like to express our strong
opposition to the ill-conceived and regressive legislation
contained in H.R. 1837, the misleadingly entitled
``Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.'' We
do not believe that this bill merits a vote by the U.S. House
of Representatives.
In summary, this radical legislation preempts state water
law, eliminates environmental protections for salmon and
other commercially valuable species, guts the 1992 Central
Valley Project Improvement Act, and overturns the broadly
supported, court approved settlement to restore the San
Joaquin River. As a result, this bill threatens thousands of
salmon fishing jobs and communities in California and Oregon,
water quality in the Bay-Delta, and the reliability of
California's water supplies.
H.R. 1837 would overturn the fundamental Congressional
principle which requires the federal government to follow
state water law whenever possible. This principle has been a
bulwark of rights reserved to the individual states and
should not be violated by this kind of legislation. Even more
specifically, this radical legislation would preempt the
public trust doctrine as defined in the California
Constitution and eliminate the implementation of a bipartisan
package of water policy reform legislation adopted by the
State of California in 2009.
H.R. 1837 would defeat efforts to restore fish populations
in the Delta. Science-based protections for salmon and other
endangered species are required under both California state
law and the Endangered Species Act. In order to support
recovery of endangered fish species, the State of California
has consistently opposed legislation that would weaken the
Endangered Species Act in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and
Estuary. H.R. 1837 would strip those protections.
H.R. 1837 would gut the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act of 1992, which corrected numerous deficiencies built into
the federal Central Valley Project. The Act requires
compliance with state law, encourages water conservation,
makes modest reforms to reduce water subsidies, and
contributes water for the recovery of endangered fish
species.
H.R. 1837 would overturn the 2009 court approved San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act which ended twenty
years of litigation on the San Joaquin River. The Settlement
and the Act were supported by all parties to the litigation
and numerous water districts in the San Joaquin Valley and
across the State, along with Members of Congress from both
sides of the aisle. H.R. 1837 attempts to preempt state law
that requires river restoration, and eliminates flood
protection and water supply projects for farmers that were
approved as part of the Settlement and Act.
H.R. 1837 would reduce water quality and water reliability
for Delta communities and Delta farmers. It seeks to ensure
water flows to agribusiness in the western and southern San
Joaquin Valley at the expense of smaller Delta family
farmers. The recently released Economic Sustainability Report
authored by the Delta Protection Commission shows that Delta
agriculture is worth $4.2 billion annually and provides tens
of thousands of jobs. Delta agriculture and jobs should not
be sacrificed to benefit water users in other parts of the
state, some of whom do not even use that water for
agriculture. This legislation would further aggravate the
water supply divide within the state and would help
perpetuate the destructive ``water wars'' which characterize
water rules in California.
In summary, H.R. 1837 is an unprecedented assault on a
state's ability to enact and support its own water laws, and
it is an undisguised water grab in favor of one district to
the detriment of other parts of the state, all engineered by
the federal government.
For all of the above reasons, we oppose H.R. 1837 and
request that you withdraw the legislation.
David Nesmith,
Co-Facilitator.
Nick Di Croce,
Co-Facilitator.
The following 190 organizations are signatories to this
comment letter:
Bill Jennings, Executive Director, California Sportfishing
Protection Alliance; Dave Britts, President, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fisherman's Associations; Carolee Krieger,
Executive Director, California Water Impact Network; Jonas
Minton, Senior Water Policy Advisor, Planning and
Conservation League; Ron Stork, Senior Policy Advocate
Friends of the River; Jennifer Clary, Water Policy Analyst
Clean Water Action.
David Lewis, Executive Director Save the Bay; Joan
Clayburg, Executive Director, Sierra Nevada Alliance; Deb
Self, Executive Director, San Francisco Baykeeper; Jim
Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California; Chris
Wright, Executive Director Foothills Conservancy; John Merz,
President, Sacramento River Preservation Trust.
Conner Everts, Executive Director, Southern California
Watershed Alliance; Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla Executive
Director, Restore the Delta; Caleb Dardick, Executive
Director, South Yuba River Citizens League; Barbara Vlamis,
Executive Director AquAlliance; Caleen Sisk-Franco, Spirtual
Leader & Traditional Chief Winnemen Wintu Tribe; Victor
Gonella, President, Golden Gate Salmon Association.
Geoffey McQuilkin Executive Director Mono Lake Committee;
Huey D. Johnson, President, Resource Renewal Institute; Adam
Scow, California Campaign Director Food and Water Watch;
Linda Sheehan, Executive Director Earth Law Center; Leda
Huta, Executive Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Capt.
Roger Thomas, President, Golden Gate Fishermen's Association.
Mondy Lariz, Director, Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition;
Larry Collins, President, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners
Association; Leaf G. Hillman, Director, Karuk Department of
Natural Resources, Karuk Tribe; Lloyd Carter, President,
California Save Our Streams Council; Eric Wesselman,
Executive Director Tuolumne River Trust; Don Rivenes,
Conservation Chair, Sierra Foothills Audubon.
Esmeralda Soria, Legislative Advocate, California Rural
Legal Assistance Foundation; Mark Rockwell, Co-Conservation
Director, Northern California Council Federation of Fly
Fishers; Dan Bacher Editor, Fish Sniffer; Alan Levine,
Director, Coast Action Group; Zeke Grader, Executive
Director, Institute for Fisheries Resources; Siobahn Dolan,
Director, Desal Response Group.
Andrew J. Orahoske, Conservation Director, Environmental
Protection Information Center; Scott Greacen, Executive
Director, Friends of the Eel River; Mati Waiya Executive
Director Wishtoyo Foundation, Karen Schamback, California
Field Director, California Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility; Rich Cimino, President, Alameda Creek
Alliance; Milo Vukovich, President, Sonoma County Abalone
Network.
Jeff Miller, Conservation Advocate, Center for Biological
Diversity; Bill Wells, Executive Director, California Delta
Chambers & Visitors Bureau; Dave Steindorf, California
Stewardship Director American Whitewater; Bill Ferrero,
Owner, President, Mokelumne River Outfitters; Lorna Elness,
President, San Joaquin Audubon; Carol Perkins, Water
Resources Advocate Butte Environmental Council.
Michael Warburton, Executive Director, The Public Trust
Alliance; Sylvia Kothe, Chairperson, Concerned Citizens
Coalition of Stockton; Frank Egger, President, North Coast
Rivers Alliance; Luke Breit, Legislative Advocate Forests
Forever; Marily Woodhouse, Director, Battle Creek Alliance;
Jeremy Terhune, Coordinator, Friends of the Calaveras.
Don McEnhill, Riverkeeper, Russian Riverkeeper; Tim Little,
Co-Director, Rose Foundation; Steve Shimek, Chief Executive
The Otter Project, Greywolf, Jeff Kelly Chief, Modoc Nation;
Alan Harthorn, Executive Director Friends of Butte Creek;
Larry Hanson, Manager, Northern California River Watch.
Steve Shimek, Program Manager Monterey Coastkeeper; Steve
Pedery, Conservation Director, Oregon Wild; Melanie
Winter, Founder & Director, The River Project; Larry
Glass, President, Safe Alternatives for our Forest
Environment; Lynne Plambeck, Executive Director, Santa
Clarita for Planning and the Environment; Marie Logan &
Jessie Raeder, Co-Presidents, SalmonAid Foundation.
Karen Schambach, President, Center for Sierra Nevada
Conservation; Rain Ananacel, Executive Director, Northcoast
Environmental Center; Michael Schweit, President, Southwest
Council Federation of Fly Fishers; Chris Poehlmann,
President, Friends of the Gualala River; Brenda S. Adelman,
Chairperson, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee;
Nate Rangel, President, California Outdoors.
Chet Ogan, Conservation Chair, Redwood Regional Audubon
Society; Susan Robinson, Board Member, Ebbetts Pass Forest
Watch; Bob Dean, President, Upper Mokelumne River Watershed
Council; Trevor Kennedy, Executive Director, Fishery
Foundation; Dan Silver, Executive Director, Endangered
Habitats League; Jane Humes, Chair, Waldo Holt Conservancy.
Michael Garabedian, Friends of the North Fork American
River; Mike Hudson, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fisherman's
Association; Allison Boucher, Project Manager, Tuolumne
Conservancy; Michael Martin,
[[Page H1051]]
Ph.D., Director, Merced River Conservation Committee; Beth
Werner, Baykeeper, Humboldt Baykeeper; Kelli Gant, President,
Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance.
Rick Coates, Executive Director, Forest Unlimited; Sue
Lynn, Secretary, Cascade Action Now; Larry Glass, President,
South Fort Mountain Defense Committee; Seymour Singer,
President, Pasadena Casting Club; Dick Harris, President,
Santa Clarita Casting Club; Ken Javorsky, President, Tri-
Valley Fly Fishers.
Jim Cox, President, West Delta Chapter, California Striped
Bass Association; Jackson Chapman, President, Sacramento
Chapter, California Striped Bass Association; Roger Mammon,
President, Lower Sherman Island Duck Club; Larry Dennis,
Conservation Chair, Mission Peak Fly Anglers; Henry Sandigo,
Conservation Chair, Granite Bay Flycasters; Jim Tolonen,
Conservation Chair, Santa Cruz Fly Fishermen.
Tom Bartos, President, Foothills Angler Coalition; Bill
Carnazzo, President, Spring Creek Guide Service; Grant
Fraser, President, Auburn Flycasters; Mark Allen, General
Manager, Adventure Connections, Inc.; Greg King, Siskiyou
Land Conservancy; Jim Yarnall, President, Humboldt Area
Saltwater Anglers; Joesph Vaile, Campaign Director, KS Wild.
Ron Forbes, Conservation Chair, Delta Fly Fishers; Denise
Boggs, Executive Director, Conservation Congress; Kim
Glazzard, Executive Director, Organic Sacramento; Bill
O'Kelly, President, Sierra Pacific Flyfishers; Cindy Charles,
Conservation Chair, Golden West Women Flyfishers; Ted Shapas,
Conservation Chair, Diablo Valley Fly Fishermen.
Darrell Tichurst, Chairman, Coastside Fishing Club; Steve
Burke, Spokesperson, Protect Our Water; Lillian Light,
President, Palos Verdes Audubon Chapter; John Weisheit,
Conservation Chair, Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper;
Spreck Rosenkrans, Restore Hetch Hetchy; Don Schmoldt,
President, Sacramento Audubon Society; Diane Hichwa,
Conservation Chair, Madrone Audubon.
Stephen Fuller-Rowell, Co-Founder, Oregon Waterwatch; Tom
Chandler, Editor, Trout Underground; Will Harling, Executive
Director, Mid-Klamath Watershed Council; Don Gillespie,
President, Friends of Del Norte; Randa Solick, Co-Chair,
Santa Cruz WILPF; Ken Franke, Executive Director,
Sportfishing Association of California.
Jim Martin, Recreational Fishing Alliance; Sep Hendrickson,
Executive Director, California Inland Fisheries Foundation;
Aaron Newman, President, Humboldt Fisherman's Marketing
Association; Mark Micoch, Co-Chairman, Northern California
Guides Association; Dan Blanton, Chairman, StriperFest; Mike
Augney, Co-Owner, USA Fishing.
Jim Martin, Director, Berkeley Conservation Institute; Bob
Mellinger, Vice-President, Water for Fish; Bart Hall,
Producer, Fred Hall Shows; Randy Repass, Chairman &
Founder, West Marine; Bruce Tokars, President, Salmon
Water Now; Galen Onizuka, Owner, President, Johnson Hicks
Marine.
Angelo Pucci, President, P Line; Dick Pool, President, Pro-
Troll Fishing Products; Liz Hamilton, Executive Director,
Northwest Sportfishing Ind. Assn.; Bob Rees, President, North
West Guides and Anglers Assoc.; Peter Grenell, Manager, San
Mateo County Harbor District; Ken Elie, Owner, President,
Outdoor Pro Shop.
Bill Divens, Salmon King Lodge West; Paul Johnson, Owner,
Monterey Fish Market; Bob Kotula, Outwest Marketing; Danny
Layne, Hawkeye Marketing; Roy Gray, Owner, Roy Gray &
Associates; Dan Pamel, President, Leisure Sales; Paul
Johnson, Owner, Monterey Fish Market.
Michael Scaglione, Pacific Catch Fish Grill; Bill Boyce,
Boyce Image, World Fishing Network; Rich Kato, Sport Sales;
Jack Swanson, Sales Manager, Repala USA; Chuck Cappotto,
Bodega Bay Fisherman's Marketing Assoc.; Gary Coe, Kokanee
Power.
Angelo Pucci, President, G. Pucci and Sons Mfg.; Capt Brian
Smith, Riptide Charters; Capt Bob Ingles, Queen of Hearts
Charters; Capt Brian Cutty, Chubasco Charters; Capt Brian
Guiles, Flying Fish Charters; Capt Chris Chan, Ankeny St.
Sportfishing.
Capt Craig Shimokosu, New Salmon Queen Charters; Capt Dale
Walters, Que Sera Sera Charters; Capt Dennis Baxter, New
Captain Pete Charters; Capt Don Franklin, Soleman
Sportfishing Charters; Capt Ed Gallia, New Easy Rider
Charters; Capt Frank Rescino, Lovely Martha Charters; Capt
Harry Necees, Checkmate Charters; Capt Jack Chapman, Lovely
Linda Sportfishing; Capt Jacky Douglas, Wacky Jacky Charters;
Capt Jay Yokomozo, Huck Finn Charters; Jimmy Robertson, Outer
Limits Charters; Capt Joe Gallia, El Dorado III Charters;
Capt John Atkinson, New Ray Ann Charters; Capt John Kluzmier,
Sir Randy Charters; Capt Nick Lemons, Star of Monterey
Charters; Capt Ken Stagnaro, Stagnaro's Charters; Capt Randy
Thornton, Telstar Charters.
Capt Richard Thornton, Trek II; Capt Rick Powers, Bodega
Bay Sportfishing; Capt Peter Bruno, Randy's Fishing Trips;
Bob Sparre, Bob Sparre's Guide Service; Capt Sean Hodges, Hog
Heaven Charters; George Catagnoia, Owner, Sandy Ann Charters;
Capt Steve Talmadge, Flash Sportfishing Charters; Sal
Vallone, Bob Sands Fishing; Capt Tim Klassen, Reel Steel
Sportfishing; Vance Staplin, Vance's Tackle.
Barbara Emley, F/V Autumn Gale; Capt Chris Acacelo, Chris'
Fishing Charters; Jim Cox, Owner, Jim Cox Sport Fishing
Charters; Jonah Li, Hi's Tackle Box; Sunny Lampre, Owner,
Sunny's Electric Marine; Ron La Force, President, United
Outdoorsmen; Danny Layne, Fish'n Dan's Guide Service; Marilyn
Hendrickson, Sep's Outdoors Inc.; Mike Chamberlain, Ted's
Sports Center; Craig Stone, Emeryville Sportfishing.
That's 200. That's more than the 12 or 14 members of the State
legislature that wrote you a letter.
In the end, H.R. 1837 is nothing more than an attempt by well-funded
water contractors to steal water from other users with no regard for
the fishers, sportsmen, the farmers north of the delta, the families
and the businesses who depend on their delta for their livelihood. It
guts environmental protections and kills local jobs. It should be
rejected, and solutions to California's water challenges should be
based on strong and sound science; and it should be done with all of
the stakeholders at the table, not in the proverbial back room.
{time} 1510
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. So please join me and over 100 outdoor
and fishing organizations and the Western States Water Council to
protect northern Californians from political agendas that harm our
economy, wildlife, and the people. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, here are a number of
organizations that have written in support of this legislation on both
sides of these pages; and at the appropriate time I, too, will insert
them in the Record to show that there is broad, broad support for this
legislation.
I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I must say, for those of us who have seen this with our
own eyes, who saw the devastation in the Central Valley, we know for a
fact that when the aqueduct pumps in California were slowed, when that
water came to a halt because of the orders and opinions issued partly
by the Obama administration, what we saw was devastation. We saw the
worst of it in 2010. Over a million acre-feet of water were lost. Tens
of thousands of jobs were destroyed in our State. The unemployment
rate, my friends, in some of these Central Valley towns reached 40
percent.
Those signs that I saw along the I 5 when I was going up to take a
look at this, they told a certain story, and these were written by
farmers: ``No water = No jobs.'' You'd go down the highway: ``Food
grows where water flows,'' but there was no food growing. The
devastation was incredible.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. ROYCE. My personal favorite: ``New Dust Bowl, created by
Congress.''
Well, this legislation would bring some sanity back to this process.
By restoring water deliveries to the levels agreed upon in the 1994
Bay-Delta Accord between California and the Federal Government, this
bill could bring back 30,000 jobs, and it would save millions of acre-
feet of water which has been sent to the ocean.
My friends, this is a man-made problem. It's going to take
legislation to fix. This bill will fix it.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I also toured that area, and the
devastation was very severe. I wish some of the areas would find
another way to be able to find employment, because this is a chronic
unemployment circle, if you will, for years, for decades; it isn't just
new.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
1837, the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.
This legislation repeals existing State law and, frankly, leaves no
State safe. If enacted, H.R. 1837 would set an unprecedented standard
of State preemption. As a member of the Subcommitee on Water and Power,
I am concerned that the opposition to this legislation, over 300
stakeholders, over seven States, the nonpartisan Western States Water
Council, various
[[Page H1052]]
attorney generals from New Mexico to other States, have voiced their
concern about the preemption and the concern about the intrusion into
what has traditionally been a State's right in terms of water
management.
If enacted, this unprecedented act of State preemption would be a
precedent that brings many States' water settlements into question. In
my State, Arizona, a diverse set of stakeholders, water users, Indian
tribes, municipalities, the Federal Government were involved in lengthy
years in reaching water agreements to try to balance the use of water
in our State. They were crafted, they were difficult, they were
delicate, but agreement happened, and now those are now being
implemented throughout the State.
It raises question about that difficult process, particularly when
you had tribal governments involved in these negotiations and are part
of the settlement. By sovereignty, States' rights are preeminent in
this question.
I urge Members to vote ``no.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, another gentleman from
California who has seen the effects of what this man-made drought is,
Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman
Hastings for his work in committee, and I'd also like to thank, Mr.
Chairman, the subcommittee chairman, Tom McClintock, and the authors of
this bill, Devin Nunes and Jeff Denham, for their work.
Now, in California there's a saying: ``Whiskey's for drinking and
water's for fighting,'' and for too long we've been fighting about
water. For too long this man-made drought in California has been
ignored. Well, you know, today that stops. I'm excited about it
stopping today; because you're going to hear a lot of arguments on both
sides, but that's where we're supposed to debate, on the floor of the
House.
But, you know, the thing we've always yearned for, the thing we've
always taught our children? That an agreement is an agreement, that you
keep your bond. You come into a debate where you make your points, but
when you come to an agreement, you keep it.
Simply put, what does this bill do? This bill simply says an
agreement is an agreement.
When both sides sat down from the Bay Area-Delta Accord--why was it
named that? Because people from the bay area and people from the delta
had discussions, had fights, had policy arguments, and they finally
came to agreement.
Now, who was on what side? Was it all just based upon a farmer or
just based upon environmentalists? No. There was the Clinton
administration. There was Pete Wilson from the State. He was Governor
at the time. There were farmers. There were environmentalists. Mr.
Chairman, there were people that were in the administration that are
even Members of this Chamber today who spoke in support of this. So if
you made an agreement then, why do you want to break it?
And because of what the man-made drought has done, have you ever
examined the pain that it has caused? I know people, when they think of
California, sure, you think of Silicon Valley, you think of Hollywood,
you think of San Diego. Well, you know what? There's this whole area in
the valley. When you start and talk about this area in the valley, you
know where my district is? My district is from the ``Grapes of Wrath.''
It's the shantytown everybody ended up in. Cesar Chavez is buried in my
district. But you know what I saw from my valley on up? Thirty, 40
percent unemployment. I saw people standing in line.
I'm very proud of the district I'm fortunate to represent. There's
two families in my district that grow 80 percent of all of the carrots
in the country. But you know, because of this man-made drought, where
hundreds of people were lined up to get food at the food bank, they
were getting carrots. But were they getting carrots from America? No.
They were getting carrots from China. The breadbasket of America.
Well, you know, that all ends today. It ends with a bipartisan
agreement that America craves for us to find. You know what? In the
Bay-Delta Accord, I didn't get everything that I would represent
philosophically. The other side didn't as well. But, you know, the
greatest thing about America is the rule of law, and if we make an
agreement, we should stick to the agreement. Simply put, that's what
this bill does and ends the man-made drought.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
May I ask what time we have left, sir?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlelady from California has 8 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 3\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
I rise today to offer my support for the legislation.
This bill, like so many others that we vote on, is far from perfect.
However, I'll support this bill because of many provisions, important
provisions for my valley within it.
Mr. Chairman, water is absolutely critical to the economy of the San
Joaquin Valley, the valley I love. Without an adequate water supply,
agricultural fields go fallow and entire communities can be laid to
waste. No one understands this more than myself and my colleague, Mr.
Costa, my friend from the valley. We have both fought for water for our
entire careers for our people. In fact, just last year, he and I
introduced legislation to provide operational flexibility in the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act for water deliveries for
the Central Valley Project. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle haven't felt the importance of holding a hearing on
that bill.
Titles I and III of this legislation aim to address the flawed
regulations that have reduced our vital water deliveries to my friends
and neighbors throughout the valley.
{time} 1520
I have no reservations in supporting these provisions, and commend my
colleagues on the other side for introducing them. I recommend a
``yes'' vote.
When it comes to title II of this bill, which calls for the repeal
and replacement of the San Joaquin River Restoration Act, I would like
to mention that this was a locally requested and locally championed
piece of legislation to end an 18-year lawsuit. Although I had serious
reservations when this bill was first introduced, I supported the
solution when it came through this House. I will say now that the
implementation of this act, as it has been done by the administration,
has left a lot to be desired.
I have significant further reservations with the San Joaquin River
Restoration program, and it has recently become clear that those views
that I expressed during its formation are coming to pass. The
restoration is far too costly, and its schedule is advancing in a way
that landowners adjacent to the new flows are being damaged.
Despite this, just simply saying we will remove the agreement that
has been put in place is not the answer. We don't need to repeal it--we
need to repair it--particularly when the only thing a repeal
accomplishes is a continuation of a lawsuit that prompted the
legislation in the first place.
However, I'd like to make a comment about the process under which
this legislation was drafted.
As many of you know, this is my last year as a Member of this body.
This bill, even while I support it, is a perfect example of how
dysfunctional this body has become.
This bill will never become law. To be frank, I'm doubtful that it
will even be debated in the Senate.
I feel this way because the authors of this bill haven't expressed a
serious interest in engaging either me, Congressman Costa or Senator
Feinstein in drafting a bipartisan piece of legislation that can pass
both chambers of Congress.
It's unfortunate that some continue to exploit the real life
challenges facing the folks we have the honor of representing to score
a cheap political point.
Successful functioning of Congress and the resulting successful
resolution of the problems afflicting this nation will require the
participation of both Republicans and Democrats.
We cannot function individually; we must function in concert to solve
the challenges facing us today.
I think we not only can do better, but we must do better, if we're
going to accomplish what we were sent here to do.
[[Page H1053]]
Only efforts like that will truly solve the complex problems facing
us today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from northern California (Mr. Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.
Let us understand what is taking place here. In California, for the
first time in 40 years, all of the various water parties have gotten
together to try to work out these disagreements and come up with a
sustainable water policy that serves all of the needs of all
Californians--agriculture, manufacturing, municipal uses, environmental
uses--all of that together. For the first time, the State legislature
passed historic legislation empowering these negotiations to take place
in order to take care of disparate interests.
But there are two parties in that negotiation that keep threatening
to walk out of the room. They're going to walk out, walk out, walk out.
Apparently, they did walk out. They walked out, and they came back to
Washington, D.C., to cut a separate deal. These are among the largest
water users in the State. These are among the most highly subsidized
users in the State. One of our conservative friends on the other side
was complaining about the deficit when he started to talk on this bill.
These are people who are getting a $400 million interest-free loan from
the taxpayers of this country. These are the people who are getting
$400 million in subsidies every year from the taxpayers of this
country.
And what do they do?
In this bill, they have an earmark. You gave them 40 years and these
rights in perpetuity to get at least $400 million a year from the
taxpayers of this country. That's not on top of the crop subsidies.
That's not on top of the insurance payments, disaster payments. This is
just in subsidized water that goes to these people who are crying poor.
The largest users have decided they want two negotiations--one in
California and one in Washington. To do that, they want to overturn the
California laws, the California legislature, the Supreme Court
decisions, and the science. We'll go back in time 18 years and say that
this science is good enough.
But the heart of this, more than water, is money, and the money sits
there, and it flows with the water. Every drop of water that goes to
the San Luis Unit and others is subsidized. Right now, they only have a
year-to-year contract. They'd have a 20-year contract possibly if they
reach agreement. You give them 40 years, and then 40 years in
perpetuity: $400 million a year times perpetuity. You figure out what
this earmark is worth. You figure out what this special treatment is
worth.
Do you want to know who is driving this process?
It's those very, very special interests that are moving this process,
and apparently, they can move our friends on the other side to overturn
Supreme Court opinions. They can overturn the State legislature. They
can overturn these negotiations. There used to be a saying around here
that said that it takes some skill and talent to build a barn, but that
any damned fool can kick it down. So what these people have decided is
that they're just going to kick over those negotiations in California,
those negotiations in which people have invested a huge amount of time
and talent--from the legislature, to the agencies, to the farmers, to
the environmentalists, to our cities, to our counties--all of whom
oppose this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to point out that this bill
came out of committee with bipartisan support, and we've had bipartisan
debate for this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the author of this legislation,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman from
California has read the bill, because he complains about the subsidies.
In fact, this bill gets rid of the subsidies as this bill returns
almost $300 million to the Treasury. So we agree. We want to get rid of
the subsidies. We want to cut the deficit. That's what this bill does.
I don't quite understand what he was talking about in terms of
tearing down barns, but I would say that the gentleman's legislation
that was passed with a Senator from New Jersey and a Congressman from
California to preempt State law has been very successful at tearing
apart farms and families.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. NUNES. Once again, as many of my colleagues will say, Secretary
of the Interior Bruce Babbitt made a deal with Republican Governor Pete
Wilson. A deal is a deal. The only problem was that there were some
dishonest brokers at the table who never went to Congress to get this
implemented.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I inquire of the Chair as to how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to say to my friend that, as
I am the last speaker on my side, I am prepared to close when she is
done with her speakers.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I have one more speaker.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues on both sides to
consider what this bill will do.
I now yield my remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. If you know California water, you know that we can get
pretty wound up about it, and the solution for California water is not
to be found in this particular piece of legislation. Facts are
difficult things to deal with, but they are facts. There has been no
manmade drought. There was a very real drought. In addition to that,
there were restrictions on the pumping.
Let us understand that the principal advocates of this bill have the
shortest straw. They came last in line, and therefore they're not
first--they're last. Their contract provided for shortage provisions
for a variety of reasons, among them droughts and environmental
restrictions. So they should have planned for that. Apparently, they
did not.
The losses to the agricultural community were significant to be sure,
but at the same time, the agricultural community in the Central Valley
prospered, having the best years to any previous year that occurred
during this drought period. Certain farmers were shorted--no doubt
about that--but they had a contract that called for those shortages.
Now let us understand that this bill has profound implications on
every State, some 21 States that have contracts with the Bureau of
Reclamation. This bill, should it pass and become law, is a signal to
every State that you cannot count on State law allocating the water
within your district. Instead, it will be Congress that will allocate
the water within your State. That is a profound change: 100 years of
reclamation law are pushed aside by this piece of legislation. For the
State of California, it is a total preemption of State law--a total
preemption of State law--and the State constitution is pushed aside.
{time} 1530
There is within the California constitution a thing called the
``public trust.'' The legislature and the government of California hold
in trust for the people of California the water of California, and this
legislation pushes that aside and gives that water to a very special
group.
Groups Opposed to H.R. 1837
Statement of Administration Policy
U.S. Department of the Interior
State of Colorado
State of Montana
State of New Mexico
State of Oregon
State of Wyoming
Western States Water Council \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 18 member body, composed of governor-appointed
representatives from the 18 Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elected Officials
California Secretary for Natural Resources
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
[[Page H1054]]
Congressman John Garamendi
Congressman Mike Honda
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Congresswoman Doris Matsui
Congressman Jerry McNerney
Congressman George Miller
Congresswoman Grace Napolitano
Congresswoman Jackie Speier
Congressman Mike Thompson
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Newspapers
The Sacramento Bee
The San Francisco Chronicle
The San Jose Mercury News
Water Districts and Local Governments
Central Delta Water Agency
City of Sacramento
City of Stockton
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Grassland Water District
Reclamation District 999
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Sacramento County
San Joaquin Council of Governments
San Joaquin County
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
San Mateo County Harbor District
Solano County
South Delta Water Agency
South San Joaquin Irrigation District
Water Replenishment District of Southern California
Yolo County
Business and Civic Groups
BIA of the Delta
Business Council of San Joaquin County
California Delta Chambers & Visitor's Bureau
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton
The Contra Costa Council
Environmental Entrepreneurs
Hawkeye Marketing
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Stockton Chamber of Commerce
Environmental Groups
Alameda Creek Alliance
American Rivers
AquAlliance
Audubon
Battle Creek Alliance
The Bay Institute
Berkeley Conservation Institute
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance
Butte Environmental Council
California League of Conservation Voters
California Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility
California Save our Streams Council
California Water Impact Network
Cascade Action Now
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation
Clean Water Action
Conservation Congress
Coast Action Group
Defenders of Wildlife
Desal Response Group
Earth Law Center
Earthjustice
Ebetts Pass Forest Watch
Endangered Habitats League
Endangered Species Coalition
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Protection Information Center
Food and Water Watch
Foothills Conservancy
Forests Forever
Forest Unlimited
Friends of Butte Creek
Friends of the Calaveres
Friends of Del Norte
Friends of the Eel River
Friends of the Gualala River
Friends of the Lower Calavera River
Friends of the North Fork American River
Friends of the River
Humboldt Baykeeper
Institute for Fisheries Resources
KS Wild
Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper
Madrone Audubon
Merced River Conservation Committee
Mid-Klamath Watershed Council
Mono Lake Committeee
Monterey Coastkeeper
National Parks Conservation Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature Abounds
The Nature Conservancy
Northcoast Environmental Center
North Coast Rivers Alliance
Northern California River Watch
Oceana
Oregon Waterwatch
Oregon Wild
The Otter Project
Palos Verdes Audubon Chapter
Planning and Conservation League
Protect our Water
The Public Trust Alliance
Redwood Regional Audubon Society
Restore Hetch Hetchy
Resource Renewal Institute
Restore the Delta
The River Project
Rocky Mountain Wild
Rose Foundation
Russian Riverkeeper
Russian River Watershed Protection Committee
Sacramento Audubon Society
Sacramento River Preservation Trust
Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment
San Francisco Bay Keeper
San Joaquin Audubon
Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition
Santa Clarita for Planning and the Environment
Santa Cruz Women's International League for Peace and
Freedom
Save the Bay
Save the Frogs!
Sierra Club California
Sierra Foothills Audubon
Sierra Nevada Alliance
Siskiyou Land Conservancy
South Fort Mountain Defense Committee
South Yuba River Citizens League
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance
Trust for Public Land
Tuolumne Conservancy
Tuolumne River Trust
Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth
United Outdoorsmen
Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Council
Waldo Holt Conservancy
Western Nebraska Resources Council
Whidbey Environmental Action Network
The Wilderness Society
Commercial and Recreational Fishing and Hunting Organizations and
Businesses
Ankeny Street Sportfishing
American Sportfishing Association
Auburn Flycasters
Back to Class Guide Service
Bob Sands Fishing
Bob Sparre's Guide Service
Bodega Bay Fishermen's Marketing Association
Bodega Bay Sportfishing
Boyce Image
California Inland Fisheries Foundation
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Striped Bass Association
California Striped Bass Association--Sacramento Chapter
California Striped Bass Association--West Delta Chapter
Checkmate Charters
Chris' Fishing Charters
Chubasco Charters
Coastside Fishing Club
Delta Fly Fishers
Diablo Valley Fly Fishermen
El Dorado III Charters
Emeryville Sportfishing
Fishery Foundation
Fish Sniffer
Flash Sportfishing Charters
Flying Fish Charters
Foothills Angler Coalition
Fred Hall Shows
Golden Gate Fishermen's Association
Golden Gate Salmon Association
Golden West Women Flyfishers
G. Pucci and Sons Manufacturing
Granite Bay Flycasters
Hi's Tackle Box
Hog Heaven Charters
Huck Finn Charters
Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers
Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association
Jim Cox Sport Fishing Charters
Johnson Hicks Marine
Kokanee Power
Leisure Sales
Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association
Lovely Linda Sportfishing
Lovely Martha Charters
Lower Sherman Island Duck Club
Mission Peak Fly Anglers
Monterey Fish Market
New Captain Pete Charters
New Easy Rider Charters
New Ray Ann Charters
New Salmon Queen Charters
Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers
Northern California Guides Association
Northwest Guides and Anglers Association
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
Outdoor Pro Shop
Outer Limits Charters
Outwest Marketing
P Line
Pacific Catch Fish Grill
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Pacific Fishery Management Council
Pasadena Casting Club
Pro-Troll Fishing Products
Queen of Hearts Charters
Que Sera Sera Charters
Rapala USA
Randy's Fishing Trips
Recreational Fishing Alliance
Reel Steel Sportfishing
Riptide Charters
Roy Gray & Associates
SalmonAid Foundation
Salmon King Lodge West
Salmon Water Now
Sandy Ann Charters
San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association
Santa Clarita Casting Club
Santa Cruz Fly Fishermen
Save our Wild Salmon Coalition
Sep's Outdoors Inc.
Sierra Pacific Flyfishers
Sir Randy Charters
Soleman Sportfishing Charters
Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association
Sonoma County Abalone Network
Southwest Council Federation of Fly Fishers
Sportfishing Association of California
[[Page H1055]]
Spring Creek Guide Service
Stagnaro's Charters
Star of Monterey Charters
StriperFest
Sunny's Electric Marine
Ted's Sports Center
Telstar Charters
Trek II
Tri-Valley Fly Fishers
Trout Underground
Trout Unlimited
USA Fishing
Vance's Tackle
Wacky Jacky Charters
Water for Fish
West Marine
Tribal Groups
Karuk Tribe
Mocdoc Nation
Winnemen Wintu Tribe
Wishtoyo Foundation
Agricultural Groups
Friant Water Authority \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Opposition limited to San Joaquin River Restoration
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Sacramento
Recreation Groups
Adventure Connection, Inc
American Whitewater
California Outdoors
Camp Lotus
Mokelumne River Outfitters
The O.A.R.S. Family of Companies
River and Rock Adventures
River Runners, Inc.
Rubicon Whitewater Adventures
Sport Sales
Whitewater Connection
Whitewater Voyages
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, am I correct to assume that
all their time has expired?
The Acting CHAIR. All time has expired for the gentlewoman from
California.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
There has been much discussion on the floor about preemption. In
fact, the previous speaker emphasized that in his close.
I am from a western State; I'm from Washington. If anybody should be
cautious about preemption, it is certainly me. And I say that because I
represent an area that has two over-half-a-million-acre, or half-a-
million-acre, irrigation districts. So I understand about preemption
and Western water law.
But in the context of today's debate, the California water system is
unique. Here we have a massive Federal system, the Central Valley
Project and a massive State water project called the State Water
Project, and it operates as one combined unit.
This is what is very important, Mr. Chairman. The coordinated
approach was requested by the State and codified by the Federal
Government in 1986. That's when water law was preempted. They asked for
it in 1986.
In 1992, it was further preempted by amendments to the law in the
Central Valley Project in 1992. So what we did in committee is we
offered an amendment that was adopted. Let me read the amendments by
Mr. Tipton and Mr. Gosar, and it says:
Congress finds and declares that (1) coordinated operations
between the Central Valley Project and the State Water
Project, previously requested and consented to by the State
of California and the Federal Government, require assertion
of Federal supremacy to protect existing water rights
throughout the system.
That's in California. It says:
(2) these circumstances are unique to California.
Therefore, nothing in this act shall serve as precedent in
any other State.
When we offered that amendment, everybody on our side of the aisle
voted for it. Only four on their side of the aisle, when they had an
opportunity to make sure preemption wouldn't happen, they voted ``no.''
You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.
So with that I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to legislation that
would trample the state's rights of California and overturn a carefully
crafted agreement about how our state's fresh water is allocated.
This Republican legislation is a threat to the ecology of the
Sacramento Delta and the San Francisco Bay, the safety of drinking
water for many Bay area communities, and the many California jobs that
depend on productive fisheries and a healthy Delta and Bay. The bill
has many losers and the only winners are the large agri-business
interests in the Central Valley, who already receive lavish taxpayer
handouts in the form of subsidized water and crop subsidies.
Three years ago, in a bipartisan fashion, Congress and the California
General Assembly approved the landmark San Joaquin Restoration
Agreement. This agreement was based on the latest science and settled
over 20 years of litigation regarding the use of water in the
Sacramento River Delta. The San Joaquin Restoration Agreement brought
together multiple water users, including fishermen, farmers, cities and
communities, and conservationists and provides a fair allocation of the
fresh water that flows through the Delta and into the San Francisco
Bay. It also created a roadmap for the further restoration of wild
salmon populations. Now, some of the very same interests who signed
onto the recent agreement have convinced their allies in Congress to
bring legislation to the floor to overturn it.
In addition to throwing out the San Joaquin Restoration Agreement and
overriding state law, the bill before us also pre-empts the Endangered
Species Act and proclaims that the science regarding the Delta and the
Bay that was used in 1994 is current and cannot be updated. Rather than
turning back the clock nearly 20 years, ignoring scientific advances,
and undermining one of our nation's most important environmental
protections, we should vote against the legislation and respect the
rights of the State of California.
Both the Governor and Attorney General of California oppose this
legislation, as do my colleagues in the Bay Area delegation. The
President has rightfully said he will veto this bill. I urge all of my
colleagues to support clean water, jobs, and the environment and vote
against this misguided bill.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-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.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 1837
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 ``Sacramento-San Joaquin
Valley Water Reliability Act''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY
Sec. 101. Amendment to purposes.
Sec. 102. Amendment to definition.
Sec. 103. Contracts.
Sec. 104. Water transfers, improved water management, and conservation.
Sec. 105. Fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration.
Sec. 106. Restoration fund.
Sec. 107. Additional authorities.
Sec. 108. Bay-Delta Accord.
Sec. 109. Natural and artificially spawned species.
Sec. 110. Authorized service area.
Sec. 111. Regulatory streamlining.
TITLE II--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION
Sec. 201. Repeal of the San Joaquin River settlement.
Sec. 202. Purpose.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Implementation of restoration.
Sec. 205. Disposal of property; title to facilities.
Sec. 206. Compliance with applicable law.
Sec. 207. Compliance with Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Sec. 208. No private right of action.
Sec. 209. Implementation.
Sec. 210. Repayment contracts and acceleration of repayment of
construction costs.
Sec. 211. Repeal.
Sec. 212. Water supply mitigation.
Sec. 213. Additional Authorities.
TITLE III--REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Sec. 301. Repayment contracts and acceleration of repayment of
construction costs.
TITLE IV--BAY-DELTA WATERSHED WATER RIGHTS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
Sec. 401. Water rights and area-of-origin protections.
[[Page H1056]]
Sec. 402. Sacramento River settlement contracts.
Sec. 403. Sacramento River Watershed Water Service Contractors.
Sec. 404. No redirected adverse impacts.
TITLE V--MISCELLANOUS
Sec. 501. Precedent.
TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO PURPOSES.
Section 3402 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4706) is amended--
(1) in subsection (f), by striking the period at the end;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) to ensure that water dedicated to fish and wildlife
purposes by this title is replaced and provided to Central
Valley Project water contractors by December 31, 2016, at the
lowest cost reasonably achievable; and
``(h) to facilitate and expedite water transfers in
accordance with this Act.''.
SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION.
Section 3403 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4707) is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) the term `anadromous fish' means those native stocks
of salmon (including steelhead) and sturgeon that, as of
October 30, 1992, were present in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and ascend those rivers
and their tributaries to reproduce after maturing in San
Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean;'';
(2) in subsection (l), by striking ``and,''
(3) in subsection (m), by striking the period and inserting
``; and'', and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(n) the term `reasonable flows' means water flows capable
of being maintained taking into account competing consumptive
uses of water and economic, environmental, and social
factors.''.
SEC. 103. CONTRACTS.
Section 3404 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4708) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``LIMITATION ON CONTRACTING
AND CONTRACTS REFORM'' and inserting ``CONTRACTS''; and
(2) by striking the language of the section and by adding:
``(a) Renewal of Existing Long-Term Contracts.--Upon
request of the contractor, the Secretary shall renew any
existing long-term repayment or water service contract that
provides for the delivery of water from the Central Valley
Project for a period of 40 years, and renew such contracts
for successive periods of 40 years each.
``(b) Delivery Charge.--Beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, a contract entered into or renewed
pursuant to this section shall include a provision that
requires the Secretary to charge the other party to such
contract only for water actually delivered by the
Secretary.''.
SEC. 104. WATER TRANSFERS, IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT, AND
CONSERVATION.
Section 3405 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4709) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting before ``Except as provided herein'' the
following: ``The Secretary shall take all necessary actions
to facilitate and expedite transfers of Central Valley
Project water in accordance with this Act or any other
provision of Federal reclamation law and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``to combination'' and
inserting ``or combination'';
(C) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``(E) The contracting district from which the water is
coming, the agency, or the Secretary shall determine if a
written transfer proposal is complete within 45 days after
the date of submission of such proposal. If such district or
agency or the Secretary determines that such proposal is
incomplete, such district or agency or the Secretary shall
state with specificity what must be added to or revised in
order for such proposal to be complete.
``(F) Except as provided in this section, the Secretary
shall not impose mitigation or other requirements on a
proposed transfer, but the contracting district from which
the water is coming or the agency shall retain all authority
under State law to approve or condition a proposed
transfer.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal
reclamation law--
``(A) the authority to make transfers or exchanges of, or
banking or recharge arrangements using, Central Valley
Project water that could have been conducted before October
30, 1992, is valid, and such transfers, exchanges, or
arrangements shall not be subject to, limited, or conditioned
by this title; and
``(B) this title shall not supersede or revoke the
authority to transfer, exchange, bank, or recharge Central
Valley Project water that existed prior to October 30,
1992.''.
(2) In subsection (b)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``METERING'' and inserting
``MEASUREMENT''; and
(B) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``The contracting district or agency, not including
contracting districts serving multiple agencies with separate
governing boards, shall ensure that all contractor-owned
water delivery systems within its boundaries measure surface
water at the district or agency's facilities up to the point
the surface water is commingled with other water supplies.''.
(3) By striking subsection (d).
(4) By redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively.
(5) By amending subsection (e)(as redesignated by paragraph
(4))--
(A) by striking ``as a result of the increased repayment''
and inserting ``that exceed the cost-of-service'';
(B) by inserting ``the delivery of'' after ``rates
applicable to''; and
(C) by striking ``, and all increased revenues received by
the Secretary as a result of the increased water prices
established under subsection 3405(d) of this section,''.
SEC. 105. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT RESTORATION.
Section 3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4714) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) by striking ``is authorized and directed to'' and
inserting ``may'';
(ii) by inserting ``reasonable water'' after ``to
provide'';
(iii) by striking ``anadromous fish, except that such'' and
inserting ``anadromous fish. Such'';
(iv) by striking ``Instream flow'' and inserting
``Reasonable instream flow'';
(v) by inserting ``and the National Marine Fisheries
Service'' after ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service'';
and
(vi) by striking ``California Department of Fish and Game''
and inserting ``United States Geological Survey'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``primary purpose'' and inserting
``purposes'';
(ii) by striking ``but not limited to'' before ``additional
obligations''; and
(iii) by adding after the period the following: ``All
Central Valley Project water used for the purposes specified
in this paragraph shall be credited to the quantity of
Central Valley Project yield dedicated and managed under this
paragraph by determining how the dedication and management of
such water would affect the delivery capability of the
Central Valley Project during the 1928 to 1934 drought period
after fishery, water quality, and other flow and operational
requirements imposed by terms and conditions existing in
licenses, permits, and other agreements pertaining to the
Central Valley Project under applicable State or Federal law
existing on October 30, 1992, have been met. To the fullest
extent possible and in accordance with section 3411, Central
Valley Project water dedicated and managed pursuant to this
paragraph shall be reused to fulfill the Secretary's
remaining contractual obligations to provide Central Valley
Project water for agricultural or municipal and industrial
purposes.'';
(C) by amending paragraph (2)(C) to read:
``(C) If by March 15th of any year the quantity of Central
Valley Project water forecasted to be made available to water
service or repayment contractors in the Delta Division of the
Central Valley Project is below 75 percent of the total
quantity of water to be made available under said contracts,
the quantity of Central Valley Project yield dedicated and
managed for that year under this paragraph shall be reduced
by 25 percent.''.
(2) By adding at the end the following:
``(i) Satisfaction of purposes.--By pursuing the activities
described in this section, the Secretary shall be deemed to
have met the mitigation, protection, restoration, and
enhancement purposes of this title.''.
SEC. 106. RESTORATION FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 3407(a) of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4726) is amended as
follows:
(1) By inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``There is
hereby''.
(2) By striking ``Not less than 67 percent'' and all that
follows through ``Monies'' and inserting ``Monies''.
(3) By adding at the end the following:
``(2) Prohibitions.--The Secretary may not directly or
indirectly require a donation or other payment to the
Restoration Fund--
``(A) or environmental restoration or mitigation fees not
otherwise provided by law, as a condition to--
``(i) providing for the storage or conveyance of non-
Central Valley Project water pursuant to Federal reclamation
laws; or
``(ii) the delivery of water pursuant to section 215 of the
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (Public Law 97 293; 96 Stat.
1270); or
``(B) for any water that is delivered with the sole intent
of groundwater recharge.''.
(b) Certain Payments.--Section 3407(c)(1) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``mitigation and restoration'';
(2) by striking ``provided for or''; and
(3) by striking ``of fish, wildlife'' and all that follows
through the period and inserting ``of carrying out all
activities described in this title.''.
(c) Adjustment and Assessment of Mitigation and Restoration
Payments.--Section 3407(d)(2) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act is amended by inserting ``, or after October
1, 2013, $4 per megawatt-hour for Central Valley Project
power sold to power contractors (October 2013 price levels)''
after ``$12.00 per acre-foot (October 1992 price levels) for
municipal and industrial water sold and delivered by the
Central Valley Project''.
(d) Completion of Actions.--Section 3407(d)(2)(A) of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act is amended by
inserting ``, no later than December 31, 2020,'' after ``That
upon the completion of the fish, wildlife, and habitat
mitigation and restoration actions mandated under section
3406 of this title,''.
(e) Report; Advisory Board.--Section 3407 of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g) Report on Expenditure of Funds.--At the end of each
fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Restoration Fund Advisory Board, shall submit to Congress a
plan for
[[Page H1057]]
the expenditure of all of the funds deposited into the
Restoration Fund during the preceding fiscal year. Such plan
shall contain a cost-effectiveness analysis of each
expenditure.
``(h) Advisory Board.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established the
Restoration Fund Advisory Board (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the `Advisory Board') composed of 12 members
selected by the Secretary, each for four-year terms, one of
whom shall be designated by the Secretary as Chairman. The
members shall be selected so as to represent the various
Central Valley Project stakeholders, four of whom shall be
from CVP agricultural users, three from CVP municipal and
industrial users, three from CVP power contractors, and two
at the discretion of the Secretary. The Secretary and the
Secretary of Commerce may each designate a representative to
act as an observer of the Advisory Board.
``(2) Duties.--The duties of the Advisory Board are as
follows:
``(A) To meet at least semiannually to develop and make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding priorities and
spending levels on projects and programs carried out pursuant
to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
``(B) To ensure that any advice or recommendation made by
the Advisory Board to the Secretary reflect the independent
judgment of the Advisory Board.
``(C) Not later than December 31, 2013, and annually
thereafter, to transmit to the Secretary and Congress
recommendations required under subparagraph (A).
``(D) Not later than December 31, 2013, and biennially
thereafter, to transmit to Congress a report that details the
progress made in achieving the actions mandated under section
3406 of this title.
``(3) Administration.--With the consent of the appropriate
agency head, the Advisory Board may use the facilities and
services of any Federal agency.''.
SEC. 107. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.
(a) Authority for Certain Activities.--Section 3408(c) of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4728)
is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Contracts for Additional Storage and Delivery of
Water.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to enter
into contracts pursuant to Federal reclamation law and this
title with any Federal agency, California water user or water
agency, State agency, or private organization for the
exchange, impoundment, storage, carriage, and delivery of
nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, fish
and wildlife, and any other beneficial purpose.
``(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
deemed to supersede the provisions of section 103 of Public
Law 99 546 (100 Stat. 3051).
``(3) Authority for certain activities.--The Secretary
shall use the authority granted by this subsection in
connection with requests to exchange, impound, store, carry,
or deliver nonproject water using Central Valley Project
facilities for any beneficial purpose.
``(4) Rates.--The Secretary shall develop rates not to
exceed the amount required to recover the reasonable costs
incurred by the Secretary in connection with a beneficial
purpose under this subsection. Such rates shall be charged to
a party using Central Valley Project facilities for such
purpose. Such costs shall not include any donation or other
payment to the Restoration Fund.
``(5) Construction.--This subsection shall be construed and
implemented to facilitate and encourage the use of Central
Valley Project facilities to exchange, impound, store, carry,
or deliver nonproject water for any beneficial purpose.''.
(b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 3408(f) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Interior and Insular Affairs and the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries'' and inserting
``Natural Resources'';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, including progress on the plan
required by subsection (j)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``The filing and
adequacy of such report shall be personally certified to the
Committees referenced above by the Regional Director of the
Mid-Pacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation.''.
(c) Project Yield Increase.--Section 3408(j) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4730) is amended as
follows:
(1) By redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as
subparagraphs (A) through (G), respectively.
(2) By striking ``In order to minimize adverse effects, if
any, upon'' and inserting ``(1) In general.--In order to
minimize adverse effects upon''.
(3) By striking ``needs, the Secretary,'' and all that
follows through ``submit to Congress, a'' and inserting
``needs, the Secretary, on a priority basis and not later
than September 30, 2013, shall submit to Congress a''.
(4) By striking ``increase,'' and all that follows through
``options--'' and inserting ``increase, as soon as possible
but not later than September 30, 2016 (except for the
construction of new facilities which shall not be limited by
that deadline), the water of the Central Valley Project by
the amount dedicated and managed for fish and wildlife
purposes under this title and otherwise required to meet the
purposes of the Central Valley Project including satisfying
contractual obligations. The plan required by this subsection
shall include recommendations on appropriate cost-sharing
arrangements and authorizing legislation or other measures
needed to implement the intent, purposes, and provisions of
this subsection and a description of how the Secretary
intends to use the following options--''.
(5) In subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and construction of
new water storage facilities'' before the semicolon.
(6) In subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end.
(7) In subparagraph (G), by striking the period and all
that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting
``; and''.
(8) By inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
``(H) Water banking and recharge.''.
(9) By adding at the end the following:
``(2) Implementation of plan.--The Secretary shall
implement the plan required by paragraph (1) commencing on
October 1, 2013. In order to carry out this subsection, the
Secretary shall coordinate with the State of California in
implementing measures for the long-term resolution of
problems in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Estuary.
``(3) Failure of the plan.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal reclamation law, if by September 30,
2016, the plan required by paragraph (1) fails to increase
the annual delivery capability of the Central Valley Project
by 800,000 acre-feet, implementation of any non-mandatory
action under section 3406(b)(2) shall be suspended until the
plan achieves an increase in the annual delivery capability
of the Central Valley Project by 800,000 acre-feet.''.
(d) Technical Correction.--Section 3408(h) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (h)(2)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (h)(i)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
(e) Water Storage Project Construction.--The Secretary,
acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation,
may partner on the water storage projects identified in
section 103(d)(1) of the Water Supply Reliability, and
Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108 361)(and Acts
supplemental and amendatory to the Act) with local joint
powers authorities formed pursuant to State law by irrigation
districts and other local water districts and local
governments within the applicable hydrologic region, to
advance these projects. No Federal funds are authorized for
this purpose and each water storage project is authorized for
construction if non-Federal funds are used for financing and
constructing the project.
SEC. 108. BAY-DELTA ACCORD.
(a) Congressional Direction Regarding Central Valley
Project and California State Water Project Operations.--The
Central Valley Project and the State Water Project shall be
operated pursuant to the water quality standards and
operational constraints described in the ``Principles for
Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of
California and the Federal Government'' dated December 15,
1994, and such operations shall proceed without regard to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or
any other law pertaining to the operation of the Central
Valley Project and the California State Water Project.
Implementation of this section shall be in strict conformance
with the ``Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta
Standards Between the State of California and the Federal
Government'' dated December 15, 1994.
(b) Application of Laws to Others.--Neither a Federal
department nor the State of California, including any agency
or board of the State of California, shall impose on any
valid water right obtained pursuant to State law, including a
pre-1914 appropriative right, any condition that restricts
the exercise of that water right in order to conserve,
enhance, recover or otherwise protect any species that is
affected by operations of the Central Valley Project or
California State Water Project. Nor shall the State of
California, including any agency or board of the State of
California, restrict the exercise of any valid water right
obtained pursuant to State law, including a pre-1914
appropriative right, in order to protect, enhance, or restore
under the Public Trust Doctrine any public trust value.
Implementation of the ``Principles for Agreement on the Bay-
Delta Standards Between the State of California and the
Federal Government'' dated December 15, 1994, shall be in
strict compliance with the water rights priority system and
statutory protections for areas of origin.
(c) Costs.--No cost associated with the implementation of
this section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any
Central Valley Project contractor, or any other person or
entity, unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary basis.
(d) Native Species Protection.--California law is preempted
with respect to any restriction on the quantity or size of
nonnative fish taken or harvested that preys upon one or more
native fish species that occupy the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries or the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Rivers Delta.
SEC. 109. NATURAL AND ARTIFICIALLY SPAWNED SPECIES.
After the date of the enactment of this title, and
regardless of the date of listing, the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce shall not distinguish between natural-
spawned and hatchery-spawned or otherwise artificially
propagated strains of a species in making any determination
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) that relates to any anadromous fish species present in
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries
and ascend those rivers and their tributaries to reproduce
after maturing in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean.
SEC. 110. AUTHORIZED SERVICE AREA.
The authorized service area of the Central Valley Project
shall include the area within the boundaries of the Kettleman
City Community Services District, California, as those
boundaries
[[Page H1058]]
exist on the date of the enactment of this title.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of October 30, 1992
(Public Law 102 575, 106 Stat. 4600 et seq.), upon enactment
of this title, the Secretary is authorized and directed to
enter into a long-term contract in accordance with the
reclamation laws with the Kettleman City Community Services
District, California, for the delivery of up to 900 acre-feet
of Central Valley Project water for municipal and industrial
use. The Secretary may temporarily reduce deliveries of the
quantity of water made available pursuant to up to 25 percent
of such total whenever reductions due to hydrologic
circumstances are imposed upon agricultural deliveries of
Central Valley Project water. If any additional
infrastructure or related-costs are needed to implement this
section, such costs shall be the responsibility of the non-
Federal entity.
SEC. 111. REGULATORY STREAMLINING.
(a) Applicability of Certain Laws.--Filing of a Notice of
Determination or a Notice of Exemption for any project,
including the issuance of a permit under State law, related
to any project of the CVP or the delivery of water therefrom
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
shall be deemed to meet the requirements of section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) for that project or permit.
(b) Continuation of Project.--The Bureau of Reclamation
shall not be required to cease or modify any major Federal
action or other activity related to any project of the CVP or
the delivery of water there from pending completion of
judicial review of any determination made under the National
Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
(c) Project Defined.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) CVP.--The term ``CVP'' means the Central Valley
Project.
(2) Project.--The term ``project''--
(A) means an activity that--
(i) is undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public
agency, or that requires an issuance of a permit by a public
agency;
(ii) has a potential to result in physical change to the
environment; and
(iii) may be subject to several discretionary approvals by
governmental agencies;
(B) may include construction activities, clearing or
grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and
activities or equipment involving the issuance of a permit;
or
(C) as defined under the California Environmental Quality
Act in section 21065 of the California Public Resource Code.
TITLE II--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION
SEC. 201. REPEAL OF THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.
As of the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary
shall cease any action to implement the Stipulation of
Settlement (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk
Rodgers, et al., Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S
88 1658 LKK/GGH).
SEC. 202. PURPOSE.
Section 10002 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended by striking
``implementation of the Settlement'' and inserting
``restoration of the San Joaquin River''.
SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.
Section 10003 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) The term `Restoration Flows' means the additional
water released or bypassed from Friant Dam to insure that the
target flow entering Mendota Pool, located approximately 62
river miles downstream from Friant Dam, does not fall below
50 cubic feet per second.'';
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) The term `Water Year' means March 1 through the last
day of February of the following Calendar Year, both dates
inclusive''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) The term `Critical Water Year' means when the total
unimpaired runoff at Friant Dam is less than 400,000 acre-
feet, as forecasted as of March 1 of that water year by the
California Department of Water Resources.''.
SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATION.
Section 10004 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``authorized and directed'' and all that follows through ``in
the Settlement'' and inserting ``authorized to carry out the
following:'';
(B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5);
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``(3)'' and inserting ``(1)''; and
(ii) by striking ``paragraph 13 of the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part''
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) In each Water Year, commencing in the Water Year
starting on March 1, 2013--
``(A) shall modify Friant Dam operations so as to release
the Restoration Flows for that Water Year, except in any
Critical Water Year;
``(B) shall ensure that the release of Restoration Flows
are maintained at the level prescribed by this part, but that
Restoration Flows do not reach downstream of Mendota Pool;
``(C) shall release the Restoration Flows in a manner that
improves the fishery in the San Joaquin River below Friant
Dam, but upstream of Gravelly Ford in existence as of the
date of the enactment of this part, and the associated
riparian habitat; and
``(D) may, without limiting the actions required under
paragraphs (A) and (C) and subject to subsections 10004(a)(3)
and 10004(l), use the Restoration Flows to enhance or restore
a warm water fishery downstream of Gravelly Ford to and
including Mendota Pool, if the Secretary determines that it
is reasonable, prudent, and feasible to do so; and
``(3) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this section, the Secretary shall develop and implement,
in cooperation with the State of California, a reasonable
plan, to fully recirculate, recapture, reuse, exchange, or
transfer all Restoration Flows and provide such recirculated,
recaptured, reused, exchanged, or transferred flows to those
contractors within the Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and
Buchanan Unit of the Central Valley Project that relinquished
the Restoration Flows so recirculated, recaptured, reused,
exchanged, or transferred. Such a plan shall address any
impact on ground water resources within the service area of
the Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit of the
Central Valley Project and mitigation may include ground
water banking and recharge projects. Such a plan shall not
impact the water supply or water rights of any entity outside
the Friant Division, Hidden unit, and Buchanan Unit of the
Central Valley Project. Such a plan shall be subject to
applicable provisions of California water law and the
Secretary's use of Central Valley Project facilities to make
Project water (other than water released from Friant Dam
pursuant to this part) and water acquired through transfers
available to existing south-of-Delta Central Valley Project
contractors.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Mitigation of Impacts.--Prior to October 1, 2013, the
Secretary shall identify--
``(1) the impacts associated with the release of
Restoration Flows prescribed in this part;
``(2) the measures which shall be implemented to mitigate
impacts on adjacent and downstream water users, landowners
and agencies as a result of Restoration Flows prescribed in
this part; and
``(3) prior to the implementation of decisions or
agreements to construct, improve, operate, or maintain
facilities that the Secretary determines are needed to
implement this part, the Secretary shall implement all
mitigations measures identified in subsection (d)(2) before
Restoration Flows are commenced.'';
(5) in subsection (e), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(6) in subsection (f), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
all that follows through ``section 10011'' and insert ``this
part'';
(7) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``the Settlement and'' before this part;
and
(B) by striking ``or exchange contract'' and inserting
``exchange contract, or water rights settlement or holding
contracts'';
(8) in subsection (h)--
(A) by striking ``Interim'' in the header;
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``Interim Flows under the Settlement'' and inserting
``Restoration Flows under this part'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C)--
(I) in clause (i), by striking ``Interim'' and inserting
``Restoration''; and
(II) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(iv) by striking subparagraph (E);
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``Interim'' and inserting ``Restoration'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (A); and
(iii) by striking ``(B) exceed'' and inserting ``exceed'';
(D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Interim'' and inserting
``Restoration''; and
(E) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Claims.--Within 60 days of enactment of this Act the
Secretary shall promulgate a rule establishing a claims
process to address current and future claims including, but
not limited to, ground water seepage, flooding, or levee
instability damages caused as a result of, arising out of, or
related to implementation of subtitle A of title X of Public
Law 111 11.'';
(9) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``the Settlement and parts I and III'' and inserting ``this
part'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(iii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``additional amounts authorized to be
appropriated, including the'';
(II) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
(iv) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(B) by striking paragraph (3); and
(10) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(k) No Impacts on Other Interests.--No Central Valley
Project or other water other than San Joaquin River water
impounded by or bypassed from Friant Dam shall be used to
implement subsection (a)(2) unless such use is on a voluntary
basis. No cost associated with the implementation of this
section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any
Central Valley
[[Page H1059]]
Project contractor, or any other person or entity, outside
the Friant Division, the Hidden Unit, or the Buchanan Unit,
unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary basis. The
implementation of this part shall not result directly or
indirectly in any reduction in water supplies or water
reliability on any Central Valley Project contractor, any
State Water Project contractor, or any other person or
entity, outside the Friant Division, the Hidden Unit, or the
Buchanan Unit, unless such reductions or costs are incurred
on a voluntary basis.
``(l) Priority.--All actions taken under this part shall be
subordinate to the Secretary's use of Central Valley Project
facilities to make Project water available to Project
contractors, other than water released from the Friant Dam
pursuant to this part.
``(m) In General.--Notwithstanding section 8 of the
Reclamation Act of 1902, except as provided in this part,
including Title IV of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys
Water Reliability Act, this part preempts and supersedes any
State law, regulation, or requirement that imposes more
restrictive requirements or regulations on the activities
authorized under this part. Nothing in this part shall alter
or modify the obligations, if any, of the Friant Division,
Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit of the Central Valley Project,
or other water users on the San Joaquin River or its
tributaries, under orders issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act (California Water Code sections 13000 et seq.).
Any such order shall be consistent with the congressional
authorization for any affected Federal facility as it
pertains to the Central Valley Project.
``(n) Project Implementation.--Projects to implement this
title shall be phased such that each project shall follow the
sequencing identified below and include at least the--
``(1) project purpose and need;
``(2) identification of mitigation measures;
``(3) appropriate environmental review; and
``(4) prior to releasing Restoration Flows under this part,
the Secretary shall--
``(A) complete the implementation of mitigation measures
required; and
``(B) complete implementation of the project.''.
SEC. 205. DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY; TITLE TO FACILITIES.
Section 10005 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the Settlement
authorized by this part'' and inserting ``this part'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'' and
inserting ``The Secretary''; and
(ii) by striking ``the Settlement authorized by this part''
and inserting ``this part''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``through the exercise of its eminent
domain authority''; and
(ii) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this
part''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 10009(c)'' and
inserting ``section 10009''.
SEC. 206. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW.
Section 10006 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``unless otherwise
provided by this part'' before the period at the end; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, unless otherwise
provided by this part'' before the period at the end;
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 10004'' and
inserting ``this part''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part''; and
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) by inserting ``, including without limitation to
sections 10004(d) and 10004(h)(4) of this part,'' after
``implementing this part''; and
(B) by striking ``for implementation of the Settlement''.
SEC. 207. COMPLIANCE WITH CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT
ACT.
Section 10007 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
(A) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting
``enactment of this part''; and
(B) by inserting: ``and the obligations of the Secretary
and all other parties to protect and keep in good condition
any fish that may be planted or exist below Friant Dam
including any obligations under section 5937 of the
California Fish and Game Code and the public trust doctrine,
and those of the Secretary and all other parties under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).''
before ``, provided''; and
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, as provided in the
Settlement''.
SEC. 208. NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
Section 10008(a) of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) by striking ``not a party to the Settlement'' after
``person or entity'' ; and
(2) by striking ``or the Settlement'' before the period and
inserting ``unless otherwise provided by this part. Any
Central Valley Project long-term water service or repayment
contractor within the Friant Division, Hidden unit, or
Buchanan Unit adversely affected by the Secretary's failure
to comply with section 10004(a)(3) of this part may bring an
action against the Secretary for injunctive relief or
damages, or both.''.
SEC. 209. IMPLEMENTATION.
Section 10009 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) in the header by striking ``; SETTLEMENT FUND'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this
part'';
(ii) by striking ``, estimated to total'' and all that
follows through ``subsection (b)(1),''; and
(iii) by striking ``, provided; however,'' and all that
follows through ``$110,000,000 of State funds'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A) In general.--The
Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``Except as provided in the Settlement,
to'' and inserting ``To''; and
(ii) by striking ``this Settlement'' and inserting ``this
part'';
(3) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking ``In addition'' through ``however, that
the'' and inserting ``The'';
(B) by striking ``such additional appropriations only in
amounts equal to''; and
(C) by striking ``or the Settlement'' before the period;
(4) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this part'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``from the sale of
water pursuant to the Settlement, or''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``the Settlement''
and inserting ``this part'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement and''
before ``this part''; and
(5) by striking subsections (d) through (f).
SEC. 210. REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT
OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
Section 10010 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (3)(D), by striking ``the Settlement and''
after ``this part''; and
(B) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``the Settlement and''
after ``this part'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3);
(3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``the Settlement'' in
both places it appears and inserting ``this part'';
(4) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``Interim Flows or Restoration Flows,
pursuant to paragraphs 13 or 15 of the Settlement'' and
inserting ``Restoration Flows, pursuant to this part'';
(ii) by striking ``Interim Flows or'' before ``Restoration
Flows''; and
(iii) by striking ``the Interim Flows or Restoration Flows
or is intended to otherwise facilitate the Water Management
Goal, as described in the Settlement'' and inserting
``Restoration Flows''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``except as provided in paragraph 16(b) of
the Settlement'' after ``Friant Division long-term
contractor''; and
(ii) by striking ``the Interim Flows or Restoration Flows
or to facilitate the Water Management Goal'' and inserting
``Restoration Flows''.
SEC. 211. REPEAL.
Section 10011 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is repealed.
SEC. 212. WATER SUPPLY MITIGATION.
Section 10202(b) of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Interim or
Restoration Flows authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and
inserting ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Interim or
Restoration Flows authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and
inserting ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part''; and
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``meet the Restoration
Goal as described in part I of this subtitle'' and inserting
``recover Restoration Flows as described in this part'';
(B) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by striking ``the Interim or Restoration Flows
authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and inserting
``Restoration Flows authorized in this part''; and
(ii) by striking ``, and for ensuring appropriate
adjustment in the recovered water account pursuant to section
10004(a)(5)''.
SEC. 213. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.
Section 10203 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``section 10004(a)(4)'' and inserting
``section 10004(a)(3)''; and
(B) by striking ``, provided'' and all that follows through
``section 10009(f)(2)''; and
(2) by striking subsection (c).
TITLE III--REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
SEC. 301. REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT
OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
(a) Conversion of Contracts.--
[[Page H1060]]
(1) Not later than 1 year after enactment, the Secretary of
the Interior, upon request of the contractor, shall convert
all existing long-term Central Valley Project contracts
entered under subsection (e) of section 9 of the Act of
August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1196), to a contract under
subsection (d) of section 9 of said Act (53 Stat. 1195),
under mutually agreeable terms and conditions.
(2) Upon request of the contractor, the Secretary is
further authorized to convert, not later than 1 year after
enactment, any Central Valley Project long-term contract
entered under subsection (c)(2) of section 9 of the Act of
August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1194), to a contract under
subsection (c)(1) of section 9 of said Act, under mutually
agreeable terms and conditions.
(3) All contracts entered into pursuant to paragraph (1)
shall--
(A) require the repayment, either in lump sum or by
accelerated prepayment, of the remaining amount of
construction costs identified in the most current version of
the Central Valley Project Schedule of Irrigation Capital
Allocations by Contractor, as adjusted to reflect payments
not reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for
ultimate return by the contractor, no later than January 31,
2013, or if made in approximately equal annual installments,
no later than January 31, 2016; such amount to be discounted
by the Treasury Rate. An estimate of the remaining amount of
construction costs as of January 31, 2013, as adjusted, shall
be provided by the Secretary of the Interior to each
contractor no later than 180 days after enactment;
(B) require that, notwithstanding subsection (c)(2),
construction costs or other capitalized costs incurred after
the effective date of the converted contract or not reflected
in the schedule referenced in subparagraph (A), and properly
assignable to such contractor, shall be repaid in not more
than 5 years after notification of the allocation if such
amount is a result of a collective annual allocation of
capital costs to the contractors exercising contract
conversions under this subsection of less than $5,000,000. If
such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be
repaid as provided by applicable reclamation law, provided
that the reference to the amount of $5,000,000 shall not be a
precedent in any other context; and
(C) provide that power revenues will not be available to
aid in repayment of construction costs allocated to
irrigation under the contract.
(4) All contracts entered into pursuant to paragraph (2)
shall--
(A) require the repayment in lump sum of the remaining
amount of construction costs identified in the most current
version of the Central Valley Project Schedule of Municipal
and Industrial Water Rates, as adjusted to reflect payments
not reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for
ultimate return by the contractor, no later than January 31,
2016. An estimate of the remaining amount of construction
costs as of January 31, 2016, as adjusted, shall be provided
by the Secretary of the Interior to each contractor no later
than 180 days after enactment; and
(B) require that, notwithstanding subsection (c)(2),
construction costs or other capitalized costs incurred after
the effective date of the contract or not reflected in the
schedule referenced in subparagraph (A), and properly
assignable to such contractor, shall be repaid in not more
than 5 years after notification of the allocation if such
amount is a result of a collective annual allocation of
capital costs to the contractors exercising contract
conversions under this subsection of less than $5,000,000. If
such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be
repaid as provided by applicable reclamation law, provided
that the reference to the amount of $5,000,000 shall not be a
precedent in any other context.
(b) Final Adjustment.--The amounts paid pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be subject to adjustment following a
final cost allocation by the Secretary of the Interior upon
completion of the construction of the Central Valley Project.
In the event that the final cost allocation indicates that
the costs properly assignable to the contractor are greater
than what has been paid by the contractor, the contractor
shall be obligated to pay the remaining allocated costs. The
term of such additional repayment contract shall be no less
than 1 year and no more than 10 years, however, mutually
agreeable provisions regarding the rate of repayment of such
amount may be developed by the parties. In the event that the
final cost allocation indicates that the costs properly
assignable to the contractor are less than what the
contractor has paid, the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized and directed to credit such overpayment as an
offset against any outstanding or future obligation of the
contractor.
(c) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
(1) Notwithstanding any repayment obligation under
subsection (a)(3)(B) or subsection (b), upon a contractor's
compliance with and discharge of the obligation of repayment
of the construction costs as provided in subsection
(a)(3)(A), the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations of
any provision of Federal reclamation law shall not apply to
lands in such district.
(2) Notwithstanding any repayment obligation under
paragraph (3)(B) or paragraph (4)(B) of subsection (a), or
subsection (b), upon a contractor's compliance with and
discharge of the obligation of repayment of the construction
costs as provided in paragraphs (3)(A) and (4)(A) of
subsection (a), such contractor shall continue to pay
applicable operation and maintenance costs and other charges
applicable to such repayment contracts pursuant to the then-
current rate-setting policy and applicable law.
(d) Certain Repayment Obligations Not Altered.--
Implementation of the provisions of this section shall not
alter the repayment obligation of any other long-term water
service or repayment contractor receiving water from the
Central Valley Project, or shift any costs that would
otherwise have been properly assignable to any contractors
absent this section, including operations and maintenance
costs, construction costs, or other capitalized costs
incurred after the date of enactment of this Act, to other
such contractors.
(e) Statutory Interpretation.--Nothing in this part shall
be construed to affect the right of any long-term contractor
to use a particular type of financing to make the payments
required in paragraph (3)(A) or paragraph (4)(A) of
subsection (a).
(f) Definition of Treasury Rate.--For purposes of this
section, ``Treasury Rate'' shall be defined as the 20-year
Constant Maturity Treasury rate published by the United
States Department of the Treasury as of October 1, 2012.
TITLE IV--BAY-DELTA WATERSHED WATER RIGHTS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
SEC. 401. WATER RIGHTS AND AREA-OF-ORIGIN PROTECTIONS.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, Federal
reclamation law, or the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') is
directed, in the operation of the Central Valley Project, to
strictly adhere to State water rights law governing water
rights priorities by honoring water rights senior to those
belonging to the Central Valley Project, regardless of the
source of priority;
(2) the Secretary is directed, in the operation of the
Central Valley Project, to strictly adhere to and honor water
rights and other priorities that are obtained or exist
pursuant to the provisions of California Water Code sections
10505, 10505:5, 11128, 11460, and 11463; and sections 12200
to 12220, inclusive; and
(3) any action that affects the diversion of water or
involves the release of water from any water storage facility
taken by the Secretary or the Secretary of the Department of
Commerce to conserve, enhance, recover, or otherwise protect
any species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall be applied in a manner that is
consistent with water right priorities established by State
law.
SEC. 402. SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS.
In the implementation of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), in the Bay-Delta and on the
Sacramento River, the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce
are directed to apply any limitations on the operation of the
Central Valley Project or to formulate any ``reasonable
prudent alternative'' associated with the operation of the
Central Valley Project in a manner that strictly adheres to
and applies the water rights priorities for ``Project Water''
and ``Base Supply'' provided for in the Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts. Article 3(i) of the Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts shall not be utilized by the United
States as means to provide shortages to the Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts that are different than those provided
for in Article 5(a) of those contracts.
SEC. 403. SACRAMENTO RIVER WATERSHED WATER SERVICE
CONTRACTORS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b) and the absolute
priority of the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors to
Sacramento River supplies over Central Valley Project
diversions and deliveries to other contractors, the Secretary
is directed, in the operation of the Central Valley Project,
to allocate water provided for irrigation purposes to
existing Central Valley Project agricultural water service
contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed in
compliance with the following:
(1) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in a
``Wet'' year.
(2) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in an
``Above Normal'' year.
(3) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in a
``Below Normal'' year.
(4) Not less than 75% of their contract quantities in a
``Dry'' year.
(5) Not less than 50% of their contract quantities in a
``Critically Dry'' year.
(b) Protection of Municipal and Industrial Supplies.--
Nothing in subsection (a) shall be deemed to (i) modify any
provision of a water service contract that addresses
municipal and industrial water shortage policies of the
Secretary, (ii) affect or limit the authority of the
Secretary to adopt or modify municipal and industrial water
shortage policies, (iii) affect or limit the authority of the
Secretary to implement municipal and industrial water
shortage policies, or (iv) affect allocations to Central
Valley Project municipal and industrial contractors pursuant
to such policies. Neither subsection (a) nor the Secretary's
implementation of subsection (a) shall constrain, govern or
affect, directly or indirectly, the operations of the Central
Valley Project's American River Division or any deliveries
from that Division, its units or its facilities.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``existing Central Valley Project agricultural
water service contractors within the Sacramento River
Watershed'' means water service contractors within the
Shasta, Trinity, and Sacramento River Divisions of the
Central Valley Project, that have a water service contract in
effect, on the date of the enactment of this section, that
provides water for irrigation.
(2) The year type terms used in subsection (a) have the
meaning given those year types in the Sacramento Valley Water
Year Type (40 30 30) Index.
SEC. 404. NO REDIRECTED ADVERSE IMPACTS.
The Secretary shall insure that there are no redirected
adverse water supply or fiscal impacts to those within the
Sacramento River watershed or to the State Water Project
arising from the Secretary's operation of the Central Valley
[[Page H1061]]
Project to meet legal obligations imposed by or through any
State or Federal agency, including, but not limited to those
legal obligations emanating from the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or this Act, or actions or
activities implemented to meet the twin goals of improving
water supply or addressing environmental needs of the Bay
Delta.
TITLE V--MISCELLANOUS
SEC. 501. PRECEDENT.
Congress finds and declares that--
(1) coordinated operations between the Central Valley
Project and the State Water Project, previously requested and
consented to by the State of California and the Federal
Government, require assertion of Federal supremacy to protect
existing water rights throughout the system; and
(2) these circumstances are unique to California.
Therefore, nothing in this Act shall serve as precedent in
any other State.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112
405. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 112 405.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under
the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 24, strike ``CONTRACTS'' and insert
``CONTRACT''.
Page 4, starting on line 7, strike ``, and renew such
contracts for successive periods of 40 years each''.
Page 4, after line 9, insert the following new subsection:
(b) Administration of Contracts.--Except as expressly
provided by this Act, any existing long-term repayment or
water service contract for the delivery of water from the
Central Valley Project shall be administered pursuant to the
Act of July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483).
Page 4, line 10, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 11, line 21, strike ``.00''.
Page 12, line 3, strike ``, no'' and insert ``no''.
Page 16, line 18, strike ``submit to'' and insert ``submit
to the''.
Page 16, line 23, strike ``options--'' and insert
``options:''.
Page 19, line 3, after ``may partner'' insert ``or enter
into an agreement''.
Page 19, line 11, after ``No'' and before ``Federal funds''
insert ``additional''.
Page 19, lines 11, strike ``this purpose and'' and insert
``the activities authorized in sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i),
103(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108-
361.''.
Page 19, lines 11 and 12, before ``each water storage
project'' insert ``However,''.
Page 19, line 12, after ``water storage project'' insert
``under sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i), 103(d)(1)(A)(ii) and
103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108 361''.
Page 20, line 10, strike ``valid''.
Page 20, line 17, strike ``valid''.
Page 25, line 16, insert a period after ``inclusive''.
Page 26, line 4, insert a colon after ``Settlement''.
Page 37, line 22, insert ``the first place it appears''
before ``and''.
Page 38, line 1, strike ``, provided;'' and insert
``provided''.
Page 39, line 19, strike ``after'' and insert ``before''.
Page 39, line 21, strike ``after'' and insert ``before''.
Page 49, line 12, insert ``Central Valley Project'' before
``water''.
Page 52, line 12, after ``Sacramento River'' insert ``or
San Joaquin River''.
Page 52, line 21, strike ``MISCELLANOUS'' and insert
``MISCELLANEOUS''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses two concerns
that have been raised by opponents of the bill during the committee
markup and here on the floor today.
A great deal of time during that markup and more today was spent
addressing concerns that the bill provides for 40-year contracts that
can be renewed each year. The minority charged that this amounts to de
facto privatization of a public resource.
Well, we have tried over and over to explain to them that 40-year
successive renewal contracts are the rule in Western water law, and the
25-year provision for the Central Valley Project was actually the
exception. Indeed, the CVP used to operate with a 40-year provision
until that was changed in 1992.
This amendment makes it absolutely crystal clear, I certainly hope,
that the contract provisions for the Central Valley Project must be in
conformity with the act of July 2, 1956, that amended the Reclamation
Projects Act of 1939. These provisions govern all reclamation projects
throughout the western United States and treats the CVP contracts no
differently. I hope that this provision settles this issue.
The second substantive provision, also included in deference to
opponents of the measures, arises from an amendment that intends to
expedite four CALFED surface water projects. It was charged that the
wording would have interfered with authorization of the project.
This amendment makes it crystal clear that these four projects are
authorized as long as non-Federal financing is used. This clears the
way for local, State, and private funds to be applied immediately to
the construction of these facilities.
The rest of the amendments are technical. They remove superfluous
language, correct misspellings, and correct inadvertent omission.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Who seeks recognition in opposition to the
amendment?
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on this
issue.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague has said, his
amendment makes technical changes to the legislation, but it leaves in
question and very much in doubt--although it says the 40-year rule in
Western water is standard--but is this in perpetuity?
I would like a response on that, if I may involve myself in a
colloquy with my colleague, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman may proceed.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is this a renewal every 40 years, or is it in
perpetuity?
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Let me read directly from the act of July 2, 1956,
governing all reclamation contracts, including those under this
legislation:
The Secretary of the Interior shall include in any long-term
contracts--
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to
know of '56. I wish to know what your amendment does.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. This amendment applies the act that I was just
reading to the Central Valley Project. I was specifically answering the
gentlelady's question by quoting directly from the text of the act that
this proposes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would ask again, is it in perpetuity?
Mr. McCLINTOCK. No. It has to be negotiated. In fact, just read the
text. I think this will answer the question.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. Reclaiming my time, the
technical memo also makes some standard corrections to the language
passed out in committee. While we were not consulted in the drafting of
this amendment, we don't oppose the amendment, as it does nothing
substantial.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, if I could now answer the question of
the gentlewoman that she didn't seem to want to hear, it is this:
This act applies--the act of July 2, 1956--to all contracts in the
CVP under this legislation. That legislation states:
The Secretary of the Interior shall include in any long-
term contract hereafter entered into, if the other
contracting party so requests, for renewal thereof under
stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the
parties.
And I repeat: under stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to
the parties.
This is not automatic renewal. This is negotiated anew between the
government and the contractor. The only exception to that act under
this bill is to accommodate the early repayment of Federal loans, which
would be a boon to the cash-strapped Federal Treasury.
Mr. Chairman, as we have repeatedly tried to explain to the minority,
this measure simply applies the same
[[Page H1062]]
standards to the CVP as are applied to all other water contracts
throughout the western United States.
It was a punitive act by this Congress in 1992 that reduced the
amount of time in these contracts from 40 years to 25 years exclusively
for the CVP. This legislation sets that right and returns the CVP to
equal treatment with any other water project in the western United
States.
I reserve the balance of my time, unless the gentlelady has closed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair wishes to clarify, the gentlewoman from
California is not in opposition to the amendment but has yielded back
the remainder of her time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I wish to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized.
{time} 1540
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I just want to thank my colleague on the other side
for clarifying that, and I would like to yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. There is always the rest of the story. And while this
amendment deals with one of the pernicious parts of the legislation
that would have been a perpetual contract, it does not deal with the
remaining pieces of the Central Valley Improvement Act, which dealt
with the issue of how those contracts were to be renegotiated at the
end of 40 years. In fact, those parts of the Central Valley Improvement
Act said that, in the renegotiation process, the Federal Government
needed to take into account the issues of water availability. You know,
maybe there's not that much water available and we need to downgrade,
or maybe we need to increase the amount of water, take into account the
environmental issues. So those very, very important qualifications on
how the contracts would be renegotiated disappeared in the underlying
bill.
You did deal with one of the problems, and that is the perpetuity
issue, and we understand that. But, nonetheless, there is a very, very
serious problem that remains in the negotiation or the renegotiation of
the contracts; and, therefore, the amendment, while dealing with one
problem, allows the remaining problems to exist. And those remaining
problems are how and under what circumstances is the Federal Government
to carry out the negotiations; that is, do we take into account
environmental issues, fish in the river or not, and availability of
water or not.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, to answer the gentleman very
specifically, the contract negotiations are conducted in precisely the
same manner as every other contract in the Western United States.
I would remind the gentleman and the gentlelady who carried the
legislation, this Congress approved a 50-year contract for Hoover power
users. And I would remind my friend, the gentleman from California,
that during the markup, he specifically said that he could probably
live with 40 years. I hope that is still the case. I hope that these
amendments assuage his concerns, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Thompson of California
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 112 405.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 2, insert the following:
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE CONDITIONS.
Notwithstanding sections 104, 105, 110, and 111 and title
III, nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall take effect until the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary
of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, certifies that the
provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act
will not result in the loss of agriculture, agriculture-
related, fishery, or fishery-related jobs or revenue in
California counties north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The Thompson-Eshoo amendment states that nothing in this bill can go
into effect if the Secretary of the Interior determines that any
agricultural, fishery, or related jobs will be lost in northern
California counties as a result of this bill. I represent a community
with varied economic interests: agriculture, fisheries, and tourism.
Our amendment would protect these jobs from this politically driven
legislation that would divert water to south-of-delta private
agricultural interests.
Proponents of this bill claim that the bill protects jobs. The bill
does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. It's a job-killer
bill. It creates economic winners and losers based on south-of-delta
interests. The livelihoods and concerns of individuals outside of this
limited area are ignored in order to support well-heeled agricultural
interests south of the delta.
In my home district, over 2 million acres of farmland support a
greater than $1 billion market value of products. Over 10 percent of
these farms depend on irrigation. I do not believe that these farmers
are less important than the south-of-delta farmers. Their jobs, their
income, their families should not be sacrificed.
However, this is not simply a northern farmer versus southern farmer
issue. Fishermen on the north coast of California saw the result of
politically driven water resources decisions in '08 and '09, and they
paid the price in almost 5,000 jobs and the economic loss of over $534
million.
The Thompson-Eshoo amendment would prevent any provisions of this
bill from going into effect that would result in the loss of jobs in
northern California. Join me in protecting jobs from this politically
driven bill that prioritizes the agricultural economies south of the
delta over all others.
And I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Eshoo), my friend and colleague.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support
of the amendment. Why? Because it states that if any fishery-related or
agricultural job is lost as a result of this act, the bill will not be
enacted. And I think that really sets down where we are.
We need jobs in this country and not job-killing legislation. Now
this legislation would undo years of negotiations reached by the State
of California, local ranchers, farmers, and other users of water from
the San Joaquin River. It would set up a new round of water wars, which
means more employment for lawyers but not much for anyone else.
My congressional district, which includes Silicon Valley and the
fishing community of Half Moon Bay, is not in the delta, but my
constituents oppose this legislation because their communities, their
livelihoods, their resources will also be negatively affected by this
bill.
Now listen to what the Silicon Valley Leadership Group says, over 350
major companies in Silicon Valley:
We believe that H.R. 1837 would be counterproductive to the
development of a comprehensive solution to the Golden State's
water programs as it overrides many existing regulations and
laws concerning the delta ecosystem and undermines years of
collaboration and goodwill developed by a broad coalition of
actors and experts.
And this mention of broad coalition, it's why this bill stinks, in
plain English, because there's not a coalition. You have to build from
the ground up with the stakeholders. That's why there's such a problem
with it.
Listen to what the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations says, and they're the largest commercial fishermen
association along the Pacific coast:
Make no mistake, this bill will only preempt State law; it
will destroy jobs. One of the west coast's oldest industries,
our salmon fishery, along with the fishing communities and
the economy and heritage it represents, is threatened with
extinction by this audacious bill.
[[Page H1063]]
We need to protect our citizens from further economic hardships by
defending American jobs and enacting legislation that will help, not
harm.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for Representative
Thompson's amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing the inconsistencies in the
amendment itself. Here the gentlelady is talking about San Jose, yet
San Jose is south of the area we're talking about, and yet Silicon
Valley receives water exports from the delta.
But let's take a different inconsistency. I represent Stanislaus
County, which is north of Stockton. Maybe we need to look at a map. We
actually have Stanislaus County that reaches up past Stockton, San
Joaquin County, the Sacramento area, and yet we're going to be
excluded.
So it's one thing to pick winners and losers in this, but what we try
to do is not pit north versus south. We're trying to use natural
resources in the best option available.
I find interesting another inconsistency: This amendment, does it
include forestry, which resides under the jurisdiction of USDA? Are the
authors not concerned about the devastating effects of the timber
industry and how it's suffered due to the ESA issues associated with
the spotted owl?
There are many inconsistencies here. Pick your battle.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of the
legislation.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham)
just made a very important point. Silicon Valley gets their water from
Hetch Hetchy. San Francisco gets their water from Hetch Hetchy. What's
Hetch Hetchy? Hetch Hetchy was dammed up. It's in Yosemite, and they
pipe their water. So if they care about the fish and the fishermen,
tear down the dam, send their water out to the delta. But they don't
want to do that.
Now I have a lot of my respect for my friend from northern California
(Mr. Thompson). We've worked together on many issues. But I have to
remind the gentleman that the salmon fishermen were bailed out. They
were given $230 million in payments.
{time} 1550
I think there needs to be a GAO study on where this money went to
because we don't know where this money went. There's never been any
report to show where this money went--$230 million. But it was the
Federal Government that told the fishermen not to fish. And I would
hope that the gentleman would actually support this legislation because
what we have here is the fish that are killing the salmon are the
bass--the bass fish do that. So let's let the fishermen go fish. And
here's the gruesome picture again. I know you don't like to see it.
Let's go get the bass that are eating the smelt so that then the salmon
don't have anything to eat. The bass is a nonnative species. So this
bill allows fishermen to go back to work.
I would hope that the gentleman would support this bill because we
need to get the fishermen back to work. I agree. We don't want to spend
$230 million after the Federal Government tells the fishermen, no, you
can't fish, and then pays them not to fish. That is insanity.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of comments on
some of the previous speaker's remarks. I'm glad to add forestry in one
of the areas if there's any jobs lost that the bill won't go into
effect if that would garner my friend's support of this amendment. And
as he mentioned, he said it himself: it creates winners and losers.
That's not what we're about. We're about creating jobs, not moving jobs
from one area to another.
My friend from California mentioned that there was no salmon fishing
and it caused these problems. Well, there's no salmon fishing because
the last politically motivated water policy killed 80,000 spawning
salmon. It shut down the season--it shut it down. It cost people their
boats, and it cost people their jobs. Motels, gas stations, bait shops,
grocery stores--everybody was hurt tremendously by that matter, and now
we're back at it again trying, once again, to politically move water
from one portion of the State to another.
It's a job killer and it preempts State law. It's a bad bill, it
ought to be killed, and this amendment ought to be added to it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the
balance of the time to a member of the committee and somebody who has
worked on this legislation, Mr. McClintock.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the Interior Secretary to
suspend this bill if he finds that one job is lost north of the delta.
Well, this is the same Interior Secretary who appeared before the
Natural Resources Committee in 2009. At the time, thousands of
farmworkers were thrown into unemployment by the water diversions.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of productive farmland were turned into
a dust bowl.
And in the midst of the crisis, he admitted that as Interior
Secretary, he had the authority to stop the diversions and end the
agony of the Central Valley, but he chose not to do so because, in his
words, ``It would be like admitting defeat.'' And this is the man that
the gentleman from California would give the power--upon finding a
single lost job in northern California--to plunge our State into
another government-created dust bowl? I don't think so.
The Northern California Water Association represents the farms and
communities of northern California and they write of this bill:
The bill, if enacted, would provide an unprecedented
Federal statutory express recognition of and commitment to
California's State water rights priority system and area of
origin protections. This is important for the region to
provide sustainable water supply for productive farmlands,
wildlife refuges and managed wetlands, cities and rural
communities, recreation and meandering rivers that support
important fisheries.
So speaks northern California.
Mr. Chairman, fewer Americans are working today than on the day that
this administration took office. We will not put in the hands of that
administration the power to destroy still more jobs, which this
amendment cynically seeks to do.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 112 405.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 2, insert the following:
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE CONDITIONS.
Notwithstanding sections 104, 105, 110, and 111, and title
III, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not
take effect until the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with other Federal agencies with relevant
expertise, determines that this Act and the amendments made
by this Act shall not have a harmful effect on the quality or
safety of drinking water supplies for residents of the five
Delta Counties (Contra Costa County, Sacramento County, San
Joaquin County, Solano County, and Yolo County, California).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
[[Page H1064]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I'm honored to represent much of the San Joaquin Delta,
and the delta is a precious, precious resource that provides water for
urban, industrial, and agricultural uses throughout the State of
California. The delta flows through five northern California counties
that are home to 4 million people. The delta region is home to big
cities, small towns, and lush farmlands. Just like other Californians,
the people of the delta deserve access to clean, safe drinking water.
I'm deeply concerned that, as currently written, H.R. 1837 will
severely erode the quality of our local water resources.
This issue is important to public health and to local governments
throughout northern California. This bill takes more of our freshwater,
and what's left will be saltier and lower quality. Deterioration of
delta water increases treatment costs by tens of millions of dollars
and requires hundreds of millions of dollars in new capital
investments. This bill will hurt the people.
Unfortunately, many communities in the delta region are struggling
with budget and public health challenges as it is. The last thing we
need is for the Congress to pass a bill that threatens our well-being
and forces us to spend millions more to just treat our water. It's bad
enough to steal somebody's water; it's even worse to steal their water
and then charge them millions of dollars for the privilege.
This legislation we are considering today should not pass. It will
harm the safety of drinking water supplies for delta communities. My
amendment makes sure that, before this bill comes into effect, it won't
burden the delta with heavy costs and new public health threats. I ask
all of my colleagues to support my amendment, which will secure the
safety and security of our drinking water.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). The gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, once again, I don't believe the other side
has read the bill. This bill provides for the ultimate protections for
delta communities--ultimate protections that guarantee their God-given
right to their property and to their water. That's what this bill does.
So if you vote against this bill, you're voting to continue the attack
on farmers all over the State and communities all over the State. So,
if delta farmers want to continue to take water out of the delta like
they've been doing for 100 years--they have always had their
allocation--this bill guarantees that.
Now, I've been to the delta numerous times, and I've spoken to the
communities there. Their number one concern is that they do not want
the peripheral canal to be built. Well, if you vote against this bill,
you are voting to ensure that Jerry Brown, the Governor of California
who opposes this bill, gets his wish to build the peripheral canal that
the delta farmers don't want. So if the gentleman wants the peripheral
canal built, vote against the bill. If the gentleman wants to make sure
that his farmers are not guaranteed their right for water, vote against
the bill.
But I find it ironic that the minority is arguing for the delta
farmers and the delta communities, but at the very basic level the
people who are behind this, the Governor of California, was just here
the other day advocating to build the peripheral canal that the
gentleman says his constituents don't want. Well, my constituents don't
want it either. Neither do the people in the north. None of us wants to
build a multibillion dollar project like this. And we don't have to
because passage of this bill allows valuable water to be moved across
the delta in a more equitable fashion to guarantee waterfowl and fish
populations would increase, and guarantees rights to farmers and
farmworkers and communities.
{time} 1600
That's what this bill does. I would hope that folks in this body and
the gentleman himself would maybe withdraw his amendment so that we
don't have to take a vote on this because I would hate for the
gentleman to vote on an amendment that would basically ensure that he
would be supporting Jerry Brown and the Democratic administration that
want to take his water away from him that he so cherishes.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we need to slow down. I would
hope that the other side would take a look at this bill and read the
bill. Once they do, they will figure out that all the stakeholders were
together in 1994 when everyone sat down to make this agreement. That's
what this goes back to.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the passion of my
colleague from California; but if this bill is beneficial to the delta,
then why does every delta county oppose the bill? They made it very
clear to me their concern: to protect the drinking water. The quality
of the drinking water is something that everyone can understand.
It seems to me what is happening is that the other side is saying we
have the money, we have the votes, let's go get the water. Might makes
right. We know in this country that might doesn't make right. We have
laws that have been observed. We're working through processes now. To
shortcut that process right now and start shipping all this water will
devastate our community, and we're going to do everything we can to
prevent it.
I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Sometimes on this floor you just shake your head and
wonder if you may have fallen down the rabbit hole and ``Alice in
Wonderland'' is really real, where up is down and down is up, and left
is right and right is left, and this confusion abounding.
I just heard the most amazing argument I could possibly have
imagined, that somehow this bill will stop the peripheral canal. I
think not. Perhaps it will because it will totally destroy any
opportunity that there may be for California to come together around a
comprehensive solution to its water situation.
It just makes me wonder what in the world is going on here,
particularly my colleague from California who wants to represent this
county of Tuolumne who may want to read his own bill where he wipes out
all of the contracting provisions in the Central Valley Improvement Act
in which the Tuolumne County Regional Water Agency is given the right
to water out of the New Melones Reservoir. That is gone.
By the way, if you happen to care about veterans who might somehow be
placed in the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery, their 850 acre-feet
of water is also wiped out.
This bill has far-reaching effects. It has far, far-reaching effects
in wiping out the Central Valley Improvement Act. It also wipes out the
environmental laws, wipes out the water for the Central Valley National
Cemetery, it wipes out the water for Tuolumne County. What effect it
has on the peripheral canal, I just can't understand other than it will
destroy whatever comity and working together there is in California to
solve the overarching problems.
By the way, you are stealing 800,000 acre-feet from the delta in this
bill. That's water that the delta community needs. That's water that
the delta community needs for its citizens, for water quality, and for
agriculture.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on
both sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California's time has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, this debate is really incredible.
There is nothing about veteran cemeteries in this bill. I can
understand why the minority would want to talk about veterans, because
we love our veterans in this country and we do everything to support
them. But it is a stretch to say that a bill dealing with property
rights somehow involves veteran cemeteries. Since we're talking about
veterans, I will say when we send our veterans overseas, our men and
women in the
[[Page H1065]]
military to protect this country, we have a right to protect people's
private property. That's what this bill does.
I know my other friends on the other side of the aisle who have
continued to make this argument, they suddenly care about State
preemption. They didn't care about State preemption in 1986, 1992, when
they sat down in 1994, when they did their boondoggle in 2009. They
didn't care about State preemption then. Boy, today, when we talk about
guaranteeing people their right to their private property, they
suddenly are the defenders of the Constitution. This is really
stretching it.
I know that the gentleman who was the under secretary at the time who
made the deal in 1994, that was bragged about by not only the former
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee at the time, bragged about
the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994, not only the Under Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of the Interior himself and President Bill
Clinton. They all supported the '94 agreement. All this talk about
comprehensive reform and getting people to the table, we've done that
before. What that results in is the illegal taking of people's personal
property.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 112 405.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 2, insert the following:
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE CONDITIONS.
Notwithstanding sections 104, 105, 110, and 111, and title
III, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not
take effect until the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, determines
that carrying out this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall not have a harmful effect on water quality or water
availability for agricultural producers in the five Delta
Counties (Contra Costa County, Sacramento County, San Joaquin
County, Solano County, and Yolo County, California).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Someone needs to speak up for the delta communities.
I rise to offer a second amendment to H.R. 1837, and I urge my
colleagues to consider this amendment.
As my colleagues now know, I'm very honored to represent the people
of the San Joaquin Delta. The delta is a precious resource that
provides tremendous economic benefits to my entire State. Preserving
the delta should be a priority to all Californians.
Agriculture is the backbone of the delta region, generating nearly
$800 million in 2009 and sustaining thousands of jobs. Supporting delta
farming is essential to the economic sustainability of the delta
region. I'm deeply upset that as currently written, H.R. 1837 will ship
vastly more water out of the delta, even though the current shipments
are already threatening the water quality for local farmers.
Simply put, this bill will steal water from northern California and
devastate water quality for our delta farmers. Farmers need fresh
water. They don't need salt water for their harvest. That is why I'm
offering a simple amendment to make sure that the most harmful
provisions of this bill do not come into effect until the Secretary of
the Interior certifies that they will not harm the water quality or
water availability for delta farmers.
Proponents of H.R. 1837 claim their bill is pro-farmer, but the truth
is far different. The bill steals water from one part of California to
give it to another. If the authors of H.R. 1837 support farmers
throughout the entire State of California, then they should support my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
{time} 1610
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, you know, the last couple of amendments
we've talked about the inconsistencies on how they affect other
counties in the community. Certainly my county and Stanislaus County
has been excluded, even though it certainly has impact in this area.
But even San Joaquin County, this amendment contradicts itself,
because West Side ag districts in San Joaquin County, West Side
Irrigation District, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Del Puerto
Irrigation District, their water is going to be shut off in prior
years. Their water will be shut off this year with a 30 percent water
allocation.
The City of Tracy is important. They should have their water. Thirty
percent water allocation is unacceptable. So the inconsistencies around
the valley are certainly interesting as these different amendments come
up.
But why even divide a community that relies on the water that comes
out of this allocation?
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his remarks.
Drought affects everyone.
My big concern here is protecting the water quality of the delta.
Right now we see saltwater coming into the delta. We see farmers
pumping water and having salt in it, not able to use it, needing
additional treatments.
All I'm asking is that the Secretary look at the bill and prevent
parts of the bill that will deteriorate water quality from going into
effect until we're sure that it's safe. We're not asking for anything
other than that.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of
this legislation.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, once again, I will say that delta
communities are protected in this bill.
They're concerned about water quality. This bill allows water to move
through the delta.
They're concerned about maintaining their ability to divert water.
This bill allows them to do that. It ensures their private property
rights and their rights to their water.
The delta farmers want to make sure that they get conveyance through
the delta so they can get their water. This bill does that.
And, as Mr. Denham pointed out, the communities on the west side of
San Joaquin County, I guess, perhaps they don't matter to the minority
because, evidently, by supporting this and opposing this bill, you're
basically guaranteeing that the City of Tracy and those districts,
those water districts where those jobs are created, are going to be cut
off of their water this year. This bill fixes that.
And, once again, I will say that if the delta communities are worried
about this peripheral canal, this is why the delta communities should
be supporting this bill. But we don't hear anything about that. We hear
about Jerry Brown, the Governor of California, opposing the bill and
the attorney general of California opposing the bill.
Why are they opposing the bill? Well, because they were just back in
Washington 2 days ago lobbying for the construction of the peripheral
canal.
Now, perhaps the delta communities want the peripheral canal. Maybe
that's a change. I don't know. I haven't been up there in the last few
months. But last I heard, the delta communities do not want the
peripheral canal to be built.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to drop his amendment
and to vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, right now the delta is in a serious
decline. We're shipping more water south
[[Page H1066]]
than is good for the health of the delta. What this bill does is
increases water shipments. So I don't see how we can put protection for
the delta in a bill, in a provision, that increases shipments when
we're already seeing decline in the delta.
Again, as I said before, the other side sees they have the votes and
they want to go take this water, and that's what this is about. It's
about taking water. And our communities, the delta communities have
rights to the water. We've been there for a long time. We've been
farming this lush farmland. Our farms are very productive.
What this will do is turn it into a salt, stagnant pool, and that
will destroy a lot of agriculture, more agriculture than would be
created in other areas. It'll destroy a lot of jobs. I don't see how
people could support this sort of a provision.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McNERNEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, we only have one other
speaker, and we have the right to close, so I'll reserve my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Well, as we've heard both sides, this is a complicated
issue. We don't want farmers in any part of the valley to be hurt, but
the delta has a long history of providing excellent farm products, $800
million a year of agricultural output. This is at risk. This is what's
at risk.
My community is crying out to me. San Joaquin County is solidly
behind my amendment. They're opposed to this bill. And I ask my
colleagues to stand up and consider what this bill means for the rest
of the country. If we adopt this, it sets a nasty precedent.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the
balance of the time again to the author of this legislation, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, once again I want to talk about the water
exports.
You saw this earlier. Here are the water exports, Mr. Chairman, right
here at the bottom. The green line represents the inflows to the delta.
You can see that most of the water, in fact, 76 percent of the water
that enters the delta ends up out in the ocean. Seventy-six percent of
the water ends up out in the ocean.
What this bill does, this allows the folks in the delta their rights
to their water. So if you vote against this bill, you're voting to take
those people's water away and their right to their water away.
So if the gentleman's concerned about water quality, then he should
support the bill, because this bill allows the water to move more
freely throughout the delta because it gets rid of the problems that we
have throughout the delta and the rigidness that was created when this
Congress, in 1992, basically attempted to put farmers out of business
and farmworkers in food lines. That's what this debate's about.
And I would suggest, if the gentleman--we could have a unanimous
consent agreement right now for an amendment, if the chairman of the
committee would allow me.
The City of San Francisco and Santa Clara and all over the bay area,
many of the folks from the other side of the aisle who oppose this
bill, why do they oppose it other than they want to construct the
peripheral canal? They want to ensure construction of the peripheral
canal like their Governor, Jerry Brown, wants to do.
But also they don't like the dirty little secret--Yosemite. This was
dammed up. Hetch Hetchy was dammed up. Here's the water that sits in
Hetch Hetchy today. It was one of John Muir's favorite places on Earth,
and this Congress dammed it up.
But you don't see--in all this water that's here, this water would go
out to the delta. So perhaps we could have a unanimous consent
agreement to tear this down today. Let's dump all this water that goes
to San Francisco and Silicon Valley, let's take all this water that
would go to the delta, let's dump it down there. Let's save the fish.
Let's go. Unanimous consent agreement. Will anybody agree to it?
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
{time} 1620
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 112 405.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 103.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I've heard some of the most amazing
things in the last 20 minutes that I'm absolutely sometimes unable to
even respond to them.
First of all, let's get a couple of things straight before I go to
the amendment.
The water that is delivered by the Central Valley Project either
under the CVPIA or under the original law is water that is under
contract. It is not a property right. It is water that is granted by
reason of a contract between the Federal Government and the individual
water districts that take that water. It is not a property right.
Now, certainly the farmers own their property, and that is a property
right. But the water is not. And by the way, that water--on every one
of those contracts, there is a shortage on most of those contracts,
particularly the ones that are not replacing riparian water rights.
Those contracts all have shortage provisions, so that when we have a
drought--and we certainly have been in that situation in California
today, and we were back in 2008 and 2007--there are specific
requirements in the contracts to reduce the amount of water.
So all of this poppycock that we've been hearing around here today
about 100 percent, it's just not the way it has ever been and never
will be unless the contract provisions remain, or if this bill become
law, and that's where my amendment comes in. It simply removes from
this bill the contract provisions in the bill and goes back to the
original law.
Now, the original law, which is the CVPIA, which amended the earlier
law, has many, many provisions, and in fact it does provide up to 850
acre-feet of water for the national cemetery in the San Joaquin Valley.
That, by the way, is wiped out, and also wiped out by the proposed bill
before us is the water for the Tuolumne County regional water agencies.
So if I represented those counties, I might be concerned about what was
happening here.
Understand that many other provisions of this law are important. We
did not know back in 1990 1992 what was going to happen with water. The
State was in the process of adjudicating the water rights, the Water
Resources Control Board, and so the law took into account their
decision.
Now, what's happening here in this bill is the removal of the power
of the State to allocate its water, to look at the water resources and
to make some sense out of what is happening with water. Apparently,
we're not going to care about that anymore, and we're simply going to
bring to the Federal Government the power to appropriate water in
California. That's precisely what happens here.
Now, there was an improvement. I'll grant the chairman of the
subcommittee credit for eliminating the perpetual nature of the
contracts that were in the original bill that was brought to the floor.
Good as far as it goes. But all of the other requirements that are in
the CVPI that are wise requirements about how the water is to be
allocated from north to south, from the environment to the farmers, and
among the farmers, are all removed. And the power of the State to
allocate that water using the Water Resources
[[Page H1067]]
Control Board, which has been the traditional method, is also removed.
Giving rise to this point that this bill overrides State law. And if
you are any other State that has a reclamation project in it, beware.
Beware what is happening here in the House of Representatives this day.
You, too, could be at risk of some interest group in or out of your
State seizing your water.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Perhaps my friend from California was not listening
when I presented the manager's amendment which addresses this very
subject.
As I pointed out to him--apparently he has a short memory--he had
objected to the successive renewal provision that he claimed was in the
bill but very specifically said he felt he could probably live with 40
years on the amount of time for these contracts. As I've tried to point
out to him repeatedly, the measure, and explicitly as amended, does
restore the contracting provisions used throughout the Western United
States for contracts involving CVP water.
The gentleman says that his amendment puts the contract provisions
back to the original law. No, his amendment does not do that. This bill
puts the contract provisions back to the original law. That's the
reclamation law of 1939 as amended July 2, 1956, the very provisions
that are restored in this bill.
What his measure does is to continue to single out the Central Valley
Project uniquely among all the reclamation projects across America as
the one project that can only get 25-year financing. The problem, of
course, with that is that these contracts require a degree of certainty
over the long-term costs. That's why the 40-year contracts are in place
with every other project of the Bureau of Reclamation in the United
States, just as was the fact for the Central Valley Project until it
was amended by Congress in 1992.
The gentleman says this overrides State law. The CVPIA overrode State
law, and the gentleman was very supportive of that at the time. He
obviously has concerns over long-term memory loss as well.
I would simply point out that this measure simply says that the CVP
contracts will be treated on the same basis as every other contract in
America.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. You have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, first of all, if the gentleman would listen
carefully, I was always referring not to the 1956 law but rather to the
CVPIA, the 1992 law. Indeed, the 1992 law did change for the better,
recognizing the unique situation in California where we had both a
State and a Federal water project operating and many other
appropriators operating on the rivers in California.
Taking that into account, and taking into account the rapidly growing
population and need in California and allowing the State to determine
what might be done for the need of that water--I would refer the
gentleman, if he cares to take a look, at section 3404, limitation on
contracts and contracting reforms. This is what you've wiped out in
your bill. It specifically provides that the California State Water
Resources Control Board, in concluding their review of the California
Court of Appeals--in other words, you have wiped out in your bill the
ability of the State of California through the Water Resources Control
Board to allocate the water, to take into account court decisions. The
bill overturns 150 years of California water law and wipes it out.
In fact, the CVPI took very specific account of California law and
wrote it into the Federal law.
What's wrong with that? Nothing that I could think about, because
California is unique in so many, many ways, and the CVPIA allowed that
to happen.
Now, if I might just take a few seconds and clarify a few things.
Yes, indeed, you were talking about the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Interior. That's me. I did conduct those negotiations.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
author of the legislation, Mr. Nunes of California.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman admitting that he
was the Under Secretary at the time, and he failed to implement the
agreement that everyone came together and agreed upon.
Now, earlier, we had the gentleman from California, who was the
author of the 1992 act, who came down to the floor, berated farmers,
berated production agriculture, and admitted that it was his goal to
get rid of production agriculture.
So why did they, at the time, change from 40-year contracts to 25-
year contracts? Folks, I think this is something that the American
people will understand. The American people right now from other States
may not understand a whole lot about what we're talking about, but they
will understand this, and farmers across America will understand this:
that when farmers borrow money on their land, many times they have to
do it under 30-year agreements with the bank.
So I have to ask myself, why in 1992 did they move this from 20 to 25
years?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. NUNES. Why did they move in 1992 to 25 years? Conveniently that
made it very hard for farmers to get loans on their land, especially
when they were not sure if they were going to have a water supply.
That's what this bill tries to fix. That's why we should vote ``no'' on
this amendment because I believe our Founding Fathers and previous
Members of Congress who came before us knew at the time that a 40-year
agreement would be enough for farmers and people trying to borrow money
to go and borrow that money so they could put their families to work
and provide for their families.
So that's why we should vote ``no'' against this agreement, when we
had the author down here berating production agriculture.
{time} 1630
We know what the intent was of 1992, and we've seen the chaos that
has been created since 1992, and that's what we fix in this bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) has
30 seconds remaining.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. First, I want to correct one thing. I said that 40
years is common throughout the western United States. I do need to
point out again that the Hoover Dam was actually given a 50-year
contract.
The amendment fully addresses the concerns that were expressed by the
gentleman over the successive renewal provisions in the contracts. I
think we've made it very clear that the conditions of the contracts
have to be agreed to by both parties. The gentleman, himself, in markup
said he could live with 40 years. He has obviously reconsidered. This
measure simply sets right a wrong that was done in 1992, and it treats
the CVP as every other reclamation project.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 112 405.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 15, after the period insert the following:
``Charges for all delivered water shall include interest, as
determined by the
[[Page H1068]]
Secretary of the Treasury, on the basis of average market
yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United
States with the remaining periods of maturity comparable to
the applicable reimbursement period of the project, adjusted
to the nearest \1/8\ of 1 percent on the underpaid balance of
the allocable project cost.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This is a simple amendment. It creates a revenue stream through the
elimination of debt without interest, in other words, ending free
subsidy on $400 million. It requires that any new water contracts or
renewed contracts must reflect the price of water with interest and
repay the debt of the project, with interest, to the Treasury. It is a
small, but very important, assist to continue to try to balance our
Federal budget. We are always looking for ways to find these little--I
call them ``pockets of money'' to be able to help out.
Reclamation established in 1902 was meant to deliver water to farms
with a maximum of 160 acres, and it was provided interest free on the
cost of that project. That was in 1902. Times have changed. Subsequent
reclamation reform acts have changed the acreage limitation along with
the repayment contracts for these projects. Congressional action has
also made the repayment of project debt interest free--I repeat, debt
interest free--on $400 million for irrigators while municipalities,
like my constituency and power users, pay all of the required
appropriate interest. I wish our water users in southern California
were as lucky.
H.R. 1837 removes the role of the Federal Government in protecting
the environment and public good. If we are removing the role of the
Federal Government in protecting the environment and public good, as we
plan to do, we should also remove the Federal subsidy associated with
renewed or new water contracts. My constituency and anybody else's must
be treated fairly and must be required to pay equally any additional
interest on any future water contract and project.
Southern California foresaw the need for infrastructure, so local
entities stepped up to the plate. They paid for and constructed new
storage facilities, like a dam, the Diamond Valley Reservoir. It was
entirely paid for by our local folks without one cent of Federal
moneys--no tax cuts, no free interest at taxpayer expense.
Eliminating this unfair subsidy will help to cut our deficit. So I
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to bring up this issue
that the minority continues to ignore. They don't want to talk about
this, and I don't understand why. They care about this freshwater. They
also care about the environment, but they dammed up Yosemite. They have
the water here, and they pipe it to their communities. They completely
go around the delta so that none of this water ever makes it to the
precious fish that they care about.
We have this beautiful environment here, Mr. Chairman, that was
destroyed by the Congress; but we don't see any amendments to fix this
travesty, do we? It's interesting that the gentlelady from California
wants to raise water rates. Do you know who pays the cheapest water
rates in California or electricity rates and fees on that? Hetch
Hetchy, the power generation at Hetch Hetchy.
So perhaps we should have an amendment that would be offered that
would make Hetch Hetchy pay today's fees, fees that all of the other
folks in California are having to pay. If we want to do that, then
everyone would be on a level playing field. But no. Instead, this is an
attack, once again, as usual, on farm workers and farmers.
I want to remind my colleagues that this bill saves $300 million,
$300 million, this bill saves. So if the ratepayers in San Francisco,
in Santa Clara, in Silicon Valley, and all over the Bay Area want to
have their precious water, well, they ought to pay the same fees, too.
I would suggest, and I would hope, that we come back at some other
time and deal with the issue and with the unfairness of people who
don't have any water in San Francisco who are so hell-bent on taking
people's water away.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is my understanding, then, that my colleagues on
the other side are arguing to keep a subsidy. That's news to us.
Just as an aside, according to the California Department of Food and
Agriculture, California agriculture experienced a 9 percent drop in the
sales value of its products in 2009, which was at the height of the
drought. The State's 81,500 farms and ranches received $34.8 billion
for their output, down from an all-time high of $38.4 billion, which
was reached in 2008.
Despite the water supply shortages and regulatory restrictions, the
State's agricultural sales for 2009 were the third highest recorded;
2007, 2008 and 2009 were the years of the drought, and the three
highest years of agricultural sales coincided with the three
consecutive years of drought.
With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. We are going around and around here. At the end of the
day, I think we need to step back from the heat of the debate and
realize exactly what's happening here.
In this particular amendment is an effort to try to make sure that
the taxpayers of the United States are adequately compensated for the
money that they have loaned for the development of the Central Valley
Project and for the money that they have loaned for the specific
elements within the Central Valley Project. These are the specific
authorized sub-portions of the Central Valley Project. For example,
with the San Luis Unit, the taxpayers loaned a vast amount of money.
When you look at the details in this bill, you will find that there
is a very artful way of avoiding the full cost of repayment through
early repayments. The way in which the bill is written, the water
districts are able to pay off their loans without having to pay off the
interest, and then going forward, they're not having to share in the
ongoing cost of maintenance of the major reservoirs and water
facilities.
{time} 1640
In other words, they are simply charged with the cost of the water,
not for the ongoing operational repair and other costs. It's very
interesting, very artfully done and, once again, provides an enormous
subsidy to those who have had a very good subsidy for many years. It's
not right. It ought not occur.
The amendment before us simply says that, if you're going to get a
loan, you are going to have to pay interest.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield that time to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. You will hear this from the other side as they close,
Oh, but you are going to be able to get some $300 million. Yes, that
money will flow more quickly into the treasury to be sure because it
allows the water districts, as a result of the way in which this bill
is written, to achieve an enormous advantage. They will be able to get
water into the future without having to pay the full cost of that
water.
So when you look at it from the total accounting procedures, you wind
up with an additional subsidy going to these water districts. It's not
right, and it's not fair to the taxpayers.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend
from California (Mr. Nunes).
[[Page H1069]]
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I will be very quick.
The gentlelady from California is the biggest offender of the
ultimate subsidy of all. Those are those mystery little Title XVI
grants from the Bureau of Reclamation. They don't even charge interest.
They just give those away. That's an outrageous subsidy that goes to
communities in southern California and in the bay area of $1,500 an
acre-foot.
So, I guess we could offer an amendment to strip out all Title XVI
money. I'd be willing to do that, too. Let's strip out all the Title
XVI money, all the subsidies that go to Los Angeles, Hollywood, and San
Francisco. Let's strip out the Title XVI money.
Is the gentlelady willing to strip out Title XVI money?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the time of the gentlewoman from California has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was rejected on a
bipartisan vote when the gentlelady introduced it in markup, and it
deserves a similar fate on the House floor. I mean, let's be clear
about what this does. It singles out Central Valley Project
participants to pay a punitive surtax that is imposed on no other
Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States. This surtax would
be passed on to consumers through higher prices.
The Central Valley Project was already singled out for one punitive
tax, about $50 million annually, by Congress in 1992 to fund an array
of environmental slush funds. Now, I believe that beneficiaries should
pay the cost of the water projects, but they should pay only the cost
of those projects and no more. These are not cash cows for the Federal
Government to milk until they're dry.
When the left speaks of corporate farms, you know, they often leave
out the fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated, and
that's who we would be singling out for what amounts to a special tax.
That tax can be paid in one of two ways: by employees through lower
wages or by consumers through higher prices.
I have a modest suggestion for the gentlelady. Perhaps we should
start putting people back to work rather than running them out of
business.
I have often criticized her colleagues for policies that have created
the conditions that indirectly send water prices through the roof, but
this proposal is quite bold. This proposal does so directly and
dramatically. That's why several of her colleagues on the Democratic
side abandoned her in committee and why they would be well advised to
do so again on the floor.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 112 405.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 105.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, once again we need to step back and
really understand the full impact of this particular piece of
legislation that is before us. It has profound impact on California. We
heard earlier discussion about the delta, two amendments put forth by
my colleague, Mr. McNerney, and as he spoke to the issues of the delta
and the sensitivity of it.
The delta is the largest estuary on the west coast of the Western
Hemisphere, and it includes the San Francisco Bay. It's a very
sensitive estuary. It's dependent upon a flow of freshwater at certain
times of the year, and this legislation very artfully, in a very
complex series of languages and changes in law and word, takes 800,000
acre-feet away from the environment of the delta, that would be the
aquatic environment, and delivers it to the water contractors, the
south-of-delta water contractors. It's done in a way that it is hard to
recognize; but when I asked the chairman of the committee what the
purpose was, he stated unequivocably that it was to take the 800,000
acre-feet of water.
The impact of that will be profound. So whatever you may say about
the species in the delta, the salmon, the striped bass, the smelt or
any other species, this theft of 800,000 acre-feet of water will have a
profound and negative effect.
It's water that is there to be used certain times of the year to
carry out the necessary protection of species, water that would flow
down the river when the salmon want to migrate up the river, water that
would be there for the smelt when they are breeding or when they are
moving into their breeding habitat.
It is one of the biggest water grabs, at least in the last half
century, and it will have profound negative effects. When taken with
the other provisions of the bill that wipe out entirely, entirely wipe
out the Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
EPA Clean Water Act, all of those are gone in this bill, and now you
are taking the water.
California protections for the environment, the California laws that
replicate the Federal laws, they too are pushed aside by this bill.
Then you wind up taking the water on top of it.
What is left for the delta? What is left for the species in the
delta, the fish, the aquatic? What is left for San Francisco Bay? Not
much. Not much. That's why this bill is the worst environmental bill in
many, many decades. Call it any other way you like, but that's exactly
what it is.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, more than any other,
focuses on the central issues surrounding the bill. What comes first,
people or fish?
In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act carved out
800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes
temporarily. In fact, during a Senate debate, the floor manager of the
conference report, Senator Malcolm Wallop, pointed out that that
800,000 acre-feet of CVP yield is up-front water designed to deal with
the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and delta requirements
while the various mitigation actions are undertaken. The various
mitigation actions were to build more supply so that that 800,000 acres
taken from the farmers would then be returned to them.
That 800,000 acre-feet came out of allocations of the Central Valley
Project, were agreed to by all sides that were incorporated in the Bay-
Delta Accord, which this bill restores. But somewhere along the line,
the Federal Government began treating this allotment as a floor rather
than as a ceiling.
Back in the mid-1990s, a zealous official in the Interior Department,
under Bill Clinton, ordered that more than 1 million acre-feet of water
appropriated by the Central Valley Project be used for purposes not
authorized under water rights permits issued by the State of
California.
{time} 1650
That preempted State water rights laws, I might add, and I believe
the gentleman from California knows him. In fact, I believe the
gentleman from California is him.
This bill reestablishes the 800,000 acre foot allotment agreed to by
all sides when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt promised ``a deal is a
deal.'' This provision redeems the promise that was broken by Mr.
Babbitt's deputy, and this
[[Page H1070]]
is the provision that the gentleman would have us delete.
I might also add that under this bill, the 800,000 acre feet of water
can be recycled by communities once it has met its environmental
purpose rather than being lost to the ocean. That's 800,000 acre feet
of additional water for communities like his. Of that, a little more
than one-tenth of 1 percent would have gone to the little town of
Cattlemen City. That's irrelevant because this provision, too, the
gentleman was proposing to strike.
The contract holders that paid for this project gave up 800,000 acre
feet of water with the promise it would be a temporary ceiling. One
broken promise after another changed this to a permanent floor,
claiming more and more water be expropriated from the people who paid
for it and dumped into the Pacific Ocean. This measure sets that
injustice right.
With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr.
Chairman, and I heard the author of the amendment state something, and
I will paraphrase, that he spoke to the chairman of the committee on
the allocation of the water, and supposedly the chairman of the
committee responded back ``take the water away.''
Number one, I do not recall ever having that dialogue with the maker
of the amendment. But had he asked me, my answer would have been an
equitable distribution of the water. So I just wanted to set the record
straight, Mr. Chairman, because that's what I heard in the debate just
previously.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GARAMENDI. The chairman of the committee, if I did say the
chairman of the committee, I believe I said the chairman of the
subcommittee. In which case if I did, Mr. Hastings, you are quite
correct; you were not there. The chairman of the subcommittee was to
whom I was referring.
With regard to the effect, you can try to spin this any way you like,
but the reality is that in the Central Valley Improvement Act, 800,000
acre feet of water was dedicated to the environment, and it was not
temporary; it was part of what was to be done into the future. And the
negotiations that ensued following the accord in 1994, those
negotiations were specifically designed to reach an accommodation on
how to meet all of the requirements of the Central Valley Improvement
Act, including what to do with the 800,000 acre feet.
I would point out to the opponents of this amendment that the accord,
the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, was never intended to be permanent. It had
in fact a 3-year limitation, which led to my involvement when I became
deputy secretary to try to work out a solution. And in fact we did.
Unfortunately, the Westlands Water District, one of the proposed
signatories to the bill, walked away from the table when everybody else
was ready to sign. And we have been involved in this imbroglio ever
since.
Now, the 800,000 acre feet is indeed taken away from the environment.
No matter how you spin this, it's gone. It is the biggest theft of
water perhaps in modern California water history--800,000 acre feet. It
may be recycled, but the control of it for the environment is lost. The
environmental protections that go along with that water are gone. Both
the State and the Federal protections, the Clean Water Act, the
National Environmental Protection Act, California CEQA, all of those
are gone as a result of this bill. This is the most amazing override of
environmental law that I have ever seen in the 37 years that I've been
involved in water policy throughout this Nation. It is remarkable what
is being attempted here, and we've got to stop this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's memory problems seem to
have struck again. I do not recall making such a statement either, or
intending to make such a statement. What I have said is that that
800,000 acre feet, which now will become a ceiling rather than a floor,
can provide the opportunity for recycling under this bill so that that
800,000 acre feet, once it has served its environmental purposes, may
then be used by communities throughout the bay area.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 112 405.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment along with Ms.
Matsui and Mr. Thompson.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amend subsection (a) of section 108 to read as follows:
(a) Operation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project
shall be operated in a manner that meets all obligations
under State and Federal law, with operational constraints
that are based on the best available science.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Our amendment is simple. It would ensure that State law is upheld and
that the best available science is used when making decisions about the
complex California water system.
Instead of using cutting-edge science, the Republican bill would take
us back to 1994.
So let me ask you: Are you willing to give up your 2012 iPhone for a
1994 brick of a cellular phone? How about giving up your Prius for a
Yugo? Or using a phonebook instead of Facebook? Would you rather fold a
map or use Google maps? The answer to those questions is easy.
And so is this one: Would you trade the science of California water
in 2012 for 1994 science? If your answer is no, if your answer is you
want to use the best science, today's science, in order to ensure that
we protect the water users and the environment, then vote ``yes'' on
our amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Long ago my
parents told me a truism that has been reconfirmed over and over again
in my life. My parents both were raised on dirt-poor farms in North
Dakota in abject poverty. And my father, who made a decent life for
himself and for his family with hard work and struggle, told me as a
child when we visited those farms, he said: Son, ordinary people are
not going to live well in this country or any country unless there is
an abundance of water and energy. And that's what all through my life
I've seen; that those people who have had their water or energy
restricted, it has hurt the ordinary people, the standard of living of
the people of that country.
What we have faced in this country is a good example of that. What we
have got is a coalition of radical environmentalists who have over the
years prevented America from having the energy we need to have a high
and a good standard of living for our people. Ordinary people have
suffered. The same is true when we are talking about water.
Now, this radical coalition has never thought anything about
constitutional rights and about whether it is States'
[[Page H1071]]
rights to this or that. That has made no difference to them at all. The
central issue is there is a vision that the radical environmentalists
have in which people are less important than fish or little insects or
reptiles.
The bottom line is ordinary people, ordinary Americans, should be our
highest priority. What is it doing to their standard of living? And we
have seen an attack on the standard of living of the people of
California by depleting water resources that should go to them that
instead are being committed to a tiny little fish that isn't even good
enough for bait.
Today, we are going to reaffirm in a very bipartisan fashion that no,
the people of this body are elected to represent the well-being of
ordinary Americans, to make sure that we have the energy and the water
we need to fulfill the American Dream where everyone has a chance at a
decent life.
{time} 1700
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson) so he can explain why the radical coalition that we have also
includes the Governors of seven States that don't like this bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The Governors of seven States, fishermen, hunters and farmers, a
whole list of people, oppose this bill. Our amendment states that the
Central Valley Project and State Water Project shall be operated in a
manner that meets all obligation under State and Federal law with
operational constraints that are based on the best available science.
More than 750 plant and animal species depend upon the delta for their
survival. Many of these then support important industries, such as the
fishermen, hunters, recreational industries, and farmers that promote
local and State economies.
We've seen what happens when science is ignored and environmental
protections are gutted for the sake of politics. In 2008 and 2009,
salmon fisheries were forced to close because of low-water flows in the
rivers. This resulted in the loss of over a half a billion dollars and
nearly 5,000 jobs--the same number that the proponents of the bill
claim that their bill would create.
This bill would prevent the use of the best available science and
adaptive management in the bay and delta by permanently limiting
agencies from acting on new scientific information developed since
1994. This alone ignores the last 15 years of the best available
science.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and a ``no'' vote on this
terrible piece of legislation.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from
California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to remind my colleagues of Dr. Peter Gleick--we haven't
heard from him today--Dr. Peter Gleick, the man who comes to testify in
Congress before the committee to tell us why it's so important that we
take water away from farmers and families. Why have we not heard about
Dr. Peter Gleick today? Because 2 weeks ago, Dr. Peter Gleick admitted
to impersonating someone else on the Internet, stole information and
then falsified the information and sent it out all over the planet. But
Dr. Peter Gleick got caught. Dr. Peter Gleick got caught. The main man
that they support got caught.
Mr. MARKEY. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on
either side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms.
Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I have
always said that solutions to our country's resource problems must be
based on sound science. To do otherwise is simply foolish and severely
shortsighted.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1837 ignores years of scientific research on the
health of California's watersheds. This bill pretends that science does
not exist. We don't believe the Earth is flat, and we don't believe
that thunder is made by bowling balls. We know better. Science has
given us the answers to so many questions about the world in which we
live.
We have used science and discovered the truth. H.R. 1837 will prevent
the use of the best available science and adaptive management in the
bay delta by permanently limiting agencies from acting on new
scientific information developed since 1994.
The amendment before us would require us to use the scientific
research that we have on California's natural resources. It would allow
us to acknowledge what the research has shown us to be true. This
amendment is critically important, not only to California, but to every
State in this Union.
Mr. Chairman, lastly, I keep hearing that the Sacramento area
supports this bill. I represent the Sacramento area, and I can tell you
that both the city and county of Sacramento strongly oppose this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to reject the
bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Would you be able to tell us, Mr. Chairman, who has the
right to conclude debate?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to
close.
Mr. MARKEY. And could you again tell me how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself that 1 minute in order to just say this.
If we don't do anything else here, at least we should say that we're
going to use science, we're going to use the best available knowledge
about science to ensure that this legislation does not invoke the law
of unintended consequences, that we understand what we're doing. And I
don't know why the Republicans have this aversion to using modern
science; but I will tell you this, that this is going to be a defining
vote here on the House floor. Do the Republicans actually believe in
science? Do they want modern science to be used, or do they want some
science from two decades ago to be used?
The importance of using science is that it doesn't depend on one man.
It relies on hundreds and thousands of scientists testing each other's
works. The Republican bill would ignore 18 years of work by hundreds
and thousands of scientists to reach today's consensus because they
want that old science in order to take care of the special interests
that cannot live within the advances made and the knowledge about the
implications of what would happen under their bill.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the devastation of the Central Valley
of California occurred because of the breaking of a Federal promise--a
Federal agreement. The gentleman from California says, oh, it wasn't an
agreement at all; it was just a suggestion. Well, that's not what the
Interior Secretary said at the time. He said, a deal is a deal, and if
it turns out there's a need for additional water, it will come at the
expense of the Federal Government. The Senator who carried the
conference report on the Senate floor said it was a deal, a temporary
measure until additional water was brought online. This bill redeems
that promise. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts
would have us break that promise forever.
As I stated earlier, we keep hearing, well, that was then and this is
now. Science has changed and so should our policy. If that's the case,
then the Federal Government's promises are worthless, and they mean
nothing. That was a promise agreed to by all parties. It was broken by
the Federal Government.
What they're referring to is not science. It is ideology masquerading
as science, so has said the Federal court. Now we have news from the
Klamath that one of the scientists involved in the reports is now
charging that the Department subverted science for political ends.
It is time that the ideological zealotry that threw thousands of
families into unemployment be replaced with practical and fact-based
solutions that keep our promises. It's time that we placed a higher
value on human lives than on the bureaucratic dictates of the
environmental left. That's what this bill does, and that's what the
gentleman's amendment would prevent.
Finally, the gentleman would insert a requirement that the act
require the
[[Page H1072]]
best available science to move forward. Well, the gentleman knows that
what is termed ``best available science'' was literally thrown out of
court with the court saying not only was it not the best available
science; it wasn't science at all. The only practical effect of the
provision is to provide employment for the only growth sector left in
California's economy--environmental lawsuits intended not to win,
because ultimately they do lose, but rather to delay projects
indefinitely and make them cost prohibitive to pursue. But I compliment
the gentleman on his creativity.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 9 will not be offered.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112 405 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Thompson of California.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. McNerney of California.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. McNerney of California.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
Amendment No. 6 by Mrs. Napolitano of California.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Thompson of California
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thompson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 239, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 83]
AYES--178
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
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
Crowley
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
Kissell
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)
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
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
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--239
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
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
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
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)
Goodlatte
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)
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)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
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
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--16
Bass (CA)
Boustany
Cantor
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart
Gohmert
Lee (CA)
Nadler
Palazzo
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rush
Schakowsky
Schmidt
{time} 1737
Mr. GRIMM, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Messrs. FARENTHOLD, ROONEY, and HALL
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. WATERS, Messrs. LIPINSKI and POLIS changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 242, not voting 13, as follows:
[[Page H1073]]
[Roll No. 84]
AYES--178
Ackerman
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
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
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
Kissell
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
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--242
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
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
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)
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)
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
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
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)
NOT VOTING--13
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Davis (CA)
Gohmert
Lee (CA)
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Rogers (KY)
Rush
Schakowsky
Tierney
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1741
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 84, had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 243, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 85]
AYES--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
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
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
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
Gibson
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
Kissell
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
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
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)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--243
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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
Cooper
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
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
[[Page H1074]]
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)
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)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
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 (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)
NOT VOTING--13
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Fortenberry
Gohmert
Lee (CA)
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Pitts
Rangel
Rush
Schakowsky
Smith (NJ)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1744
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 83--Thompson/Eshoo
Amendment, 84--McNerney Amendment No. 3, and 85--McNerney Amendment No.
4, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 243, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 86]
AYES--181
Ackerman
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
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
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
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
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
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
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)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--243
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
Cooper
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)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
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)
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
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
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)
NOT VOTING--9
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Gohmert
Lee (CA)
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Rush
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1748
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 250, not voting 9, as follows:
[[Page H1075]]
[Roll No. 87]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
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
Crowley
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
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
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
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
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
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--250
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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)
Goodlatte
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
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
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
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
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)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Gohmert
Lee (CA)
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Rush
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1752
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 247, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 88]
AYES--178
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
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
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
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
Kissell
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
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
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)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--247
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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
Cooper
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
Goodlatte
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)
[[Page H1076]]
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
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)
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
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
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)
NOT VOTING--8
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Lee (CA)
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Rush
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1755
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 244, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 89]
AYES--180
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
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
Crowley
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 (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
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
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
Sherman
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)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--244
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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
Goodlatte
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 (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
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)
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
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
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)
NOT VOTING--9
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Lee (CA)
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Ribble
Rigell
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1800
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gardner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Acting Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1837) to address certain water-related concerns on the San Joaquin
River, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 566,
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
[[Page H1077]]
Motion to Recommit
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1837 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
After section 2, insert the following:
SEC. 3. PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION AND STATES' RIGHTS.
Consistent with the tenth amendment to the United States
Constitution, nothing in this Act shall preempt or supersede
State law, including State water law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to
present this amendment. This amendment will not kill the bill nor send
it back to committee, but it is an amendment that is important to every
Representative in this House if you care about the 10th Amendment and
you care about the ability of your State to set its own policies.
Mr. Speaker, every Member in this House should be paying attention to
this bill. We read the Constitution the first day of this Congress. The
10th Amendment guarantees that the States have the ability to take care
of their own water systems and many other issues that pertain to the
States. This bill, this bill overrides State law in California. This
bill sets aside numerous State laws in California. This bill overrides
150 years of California water law set in place by the legislature, the
governors, by the courts of California, and the Federal courts. This
bill destroys the ability of California to conduct and to manage its
own water.
I put this map up of California so that you might contemplate for a
few moments the impact and exactly what we're talking about. California
is a big State, 38 million people, diverse, extraordinary water fights.
There's a fellow who lived in California years ago, Mark Twain, and he
said, ``In California, whiskey's for drinking and water's for
fighting.'' And it's been true ever since.
This is the Central Valley of California, the largest estuary on the
West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It's where the Sacramento River
and the San Joaquin River join together in an inland estuary, one of
the few in the world. And also, San Francisco Bay. This bill will lead
to the destruction of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the
Western Hemisphere, and it does so by overriding California law and the
California Constitution.
The California Constitution holds the water of the State of
California in trust. In trust. The State of California, the government,
is responsible for the care of that water so that it can be
appropriately distributed, not only for the beneficial use of
consumptive users, cities and farmers, but also, also for the
environment.
This bill takes away the laws of the State of California that would
provide for the protection of the environment. The California CEQA,
Environmental Quality Act, the Air Quality Act, the Endangered Species
Act of the State of California, are overridden by this bill. And by the
way, the Federal laws also. It takes us back to 1994, to a period of
time when we didn't know the science. We didn't understand what the
full impact of water diversions and other contaminants and other
species would be in the delta.
Since 1994, we have seen the collapse of the delta fisheries. We have
seen thousands upon thousands of fishermen, both commercial and
recreational, unable to fish. The loss of much. There is a much talk in
this House about a manmade drought. That's baloney. It was a real
drought. And yes, there were environmental considerations that further
reduced water. That water was reduced under contracts that called for
shortages in the case of drought.
So what are we talking about here with this bill? We're talking about
the usurpation of power by the Federal Government, taking the basic
ability of the State of California to regulate its water, to deal with
its environmental issues, and causing this House, this Federal
Government, to have that power.
Think closely all of you who have a reclamation project in your
district, and there are some 18 States, ranging from the Pacific to the
Mississippi. You have reclamation projects. Think deeply. Think about
what happens when the Federal Government goes to California, the
biggest State, and says: We don't care what your laws are; we're going
to tell you what to do. Think what that might mean to you in the future
when somebody in your State has the power to put before this House a
law that runs over the top of your State laws.
If you care about the 10th Amendment, if you care about States'
rights, you'd better be voting ``no'' because this is a precedent you
don't want to ever see in your State, and we don't want to see it in
California. Think deeply, Members of this House, think deeply about
what's at stake here. I ask for this motion to pass.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, it is odd, very odd to hear the argument
again in this Hall that a State's right to deny basic freedoms to its
citizens trumps the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. The last time
we heard this argument in this Hall, it involved citizens' civil
rights. Now it is the citizens' water rights. But make no mistake: it
is the same old saw.
The reason we have a 14th Amendment to our Constitution is because
its Framers recognized that States could become abusive of the rights
of their citizens, including their property rights, including their
water rights, and the Federal Government had a responsibility and a
duty to protect them. A responsibility and a duty specifically vested
in this Congress, a responsibility and a duty that we exercise in the
bill that the gentleman from California would have us gut.
Well, what does the Constitution actually say on the subject? It
says:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
And it grants Congress the power to enforce by appropriate
legislation the provisions of this article.
Let us turn to the provisions of the bill that the gentleman objects
to. It is Title IV. It directs the Interior Secretary, in the operation
of the Central Valley Project, a Federal project, I might add, to
strictly adhere to State water rights laws and priorities. It doesn't
trample State water rights; it invokes and enforces them.
Title IV goes on further to direct the Secretary to strictly adhere
to and honor water rights and priorities that were obtained or existed
pursuant to various sections of California water code.
{time} 1810
I repeat, it doesn't trample States' rights. It invokes them and
enforces them. This sets no precedent for other States. California is
the only State in the country with a coordinated operations agreement
that combines a Federal project, the Central Valley Project, with a
State project, the State Water Project, and does so, by the way, at
California's request and with California's consent.
In fact, Congress has a long history of citing that Coordinated
Operations Agreement to invoke preemptive authority over this
coordinated Federal and State project. The Central Valley Project
Improvement Act in 1992 is replete with such preemptions.
Mr. Speaker, fewer Americans are working today than were working the
day that this administration was sworn into office. This
administration's actions caused thousands and thousands of hardworking
farm working families to lose their jobs. This measure solves that
travesty. The same administration that is blocking the thousands of
jobs that the Keystone pipeline would produce has also vowed to veto
this measure. I think the American people are going to have a great
deal to say about that in coming days.
[[Page H1078]]
Ironically, the provision that the gentleman would have us remove was
specifically placed in the bill because he and his colleagues objected
that its original provision might cause the State government to
actively undermine the rights of its senior water rights holders. Now
that was a legitimate concern. Senior water rights holders in northern
California were scared to death that they might have the State undercut
their water rights, and this bill specifically addresses that concern.
To address that concern, this provision was placed in the bill, and now
the gentleman objects to it.
The gentleman first attacked the bill because the bill lacked this
protection, and now he attacks the bill because it has that protection.
The gentleman knows what I'm talking about. The gentleman knows that I
have great affection for him, but I must say he is becoming exceedingly
hard to please.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the well
while another Member is under recognition.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 248, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 90]
AYES--178
Ackerman
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
Crowley
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
McIntyre
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
Ruppersberger
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)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--248
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
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
Goodlatte
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
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
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
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)
NOT VOTING--7
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Lee (CA)
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1830
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. 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 246,
noes 175, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 91]
AYES--246
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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
Goodlatte
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
[[Page H1079]]
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
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
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
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
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--175
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
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
Crowley
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
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
Ruppersberger
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)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Shuler
NOT VOTING--11
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Lee (CA)
McIntyre
Meeks
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Whitfield
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1836
Ms. BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 91, I was
unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________