[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 5, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1602-H1611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2954, PUBLIC ACCESS AND LANDS
IMPROVEMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3964,
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY EMERGENCY WATER DELIVERY ACT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 472
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2954) to authorize Escambia County, Florida,
to convey certain property that was formerly part of Santa
Rosa Island National Monument and that was conveyed to
Escambia County subject to restrictions on use and
reconveyance. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-35. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3964) to address certain water-related concerns in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
[[Page H1603]]
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-34. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gardner). The gentleman from Utah is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides a structured
rule for the consideration of two separate bills: H.R. 2954, which is
the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, and H.R. 3964, which is
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.
It provides for an hour of general debate, each measure equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order five
amendments to H.R. 2954 and eight to H.R. 3964, and of those amendments
made in order, nine are Democrat amendments. So this is a fair and
generous rule. It will provide for a balanced and open debate on the
merits of both of these important pieces of legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have real problems facing our Nation. The measures
before us today are partisan and have no chance of becoming law. My
friends across the aisle would rather pick political battles than
propose real solutions. We worked together on the farm bill, on the
budget, and on the omnibus appropriations bill, and I hope that soon we
will pass a bipartisan Water Resources Development Act conference
report. Instead of continuing in a bipartisan manner, however, we are
here once again considering partisan bills that will not become law.
For example, H.R. 3964 is a far-reaching measure of drastic and
immediate consequences for its chosen winners, yet the bill was
introduced only a week ago and with only Republican cosponsors.
California is in the middle of a terrible drought. Some Californians
are already reporting that no water comes out when they turn on their
taps. They need a real solution. We have got our water issues in
Florida. There is not enough of it in places that need it and too much
of it where it is not needed. Yet my friends across the aisle have
decided to handpick when states' rights don't matter and to take the
opportunity to blast California's prerogative.
California has a plan--the Bay Delta Conservation Plan--that has been
worked on in a unanimously important way. Instead, this legislation has
turned a legitimate crisis into a justification for a power grab,
prioritizing junior water rights holders over those with senior rights.
I respect my colleagues from California, but the Governor is
responsible for the entire State, and he expressly rejects the measure
before us today.
Mr. Speaker, Californians already have, as I have said, a water use
plan in place. The plan is a result of long, detailed discussions and
carefully crafted policy. Yet this bill would substitute--indeed,
preempt--the will of the people with a reactionary Federal policy.
Specifically, the bill preempts California law, eliminates Endangered
Species Act protections for salmon and other fisheries, overturns
existing Federal law, as well as undermines existing agreements and
court orders related to water use in California.
Moreover, this bill will not fix the problem, which is simple--there
is not enough water. H.R. 3964 will not end the drought. It will not
create more water. Simply put, it will only decide who will go thirsty.
California's secretary for natural resources, John Laird, wrote to
the relevant committees:
The bill falsely holds the promise of water relief that
cannot be delivered because, in this drought, the water
simply does not exist.
How and when to direct water is very similar to problems we face in
the Everglades. Without an ongoing flush of water into the ocean,
seawater intrudes upon the delta. You then wind up with saltwater
inland, and then you might as well not have any water at all.
I didn't have to deliberate long to decide against this bill.
California, the State the bill supposedly helps, is strongly opposed to
it. Let me be very clear. That means the Governor and those who are
critical to it are opposed. I understand that there are members of the
California delegation who do support this matter, and I respect that. I
can't say it any better myself. The only way we are going to help
California is to realize that you can't play politics with a person's
drinking water.
Turning now to the other piece of legislation, H.R. 2954 is no better
either substantively or procedurally. My friends across the aisle
continue to play fast and loose with their pledge to address one issue
at a time. That is what they said. H.R. 2954 is 10 unrelated bills
stitched together. Some of the provisions we are looking at today are
not controversial, but rather than pass noncontroversial provisions
through less contentious means, my friends have packaged them together
with partisan measures for rank political purposes.
{time} 1245
It is Frankenstein's parliamentary monster.
The other day at the Rules Committee, my friends across the aisle
talked about how much they love national parks, and shared their
experiences hiking and visiting the parks with their families. Yet they
are still bringing H.R. 2954 to the floor, a bill that would greatly
hamstring the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the
United States Forest Service in their capabilities to protect public
land and endangered species.
These 10 bills are designed to influence or dictate management
decisions about the conveyance or disposal of Federal lands. They tie
the hands of public land managers and give away millions of dollars
worth of Federal land to local governments without ensuring the land is
used in the public's best interest.
They include drastic changes to regulations related to grazing policy
and waive or undermine existing environmental law. Some of these
provisions would be significantly less controversial were it not for
the unnecessary provisions waiving environmental protections. It is no
secret my friends across the aisle look to undermine, if not eliminate,
the National Environmental Policy Act at every chance they can.
These are the kinds of policies that leave 300,000 West Virginians
without
[[Page H1604]]
water to drink or bathe. We don't know the effects of the chemicals
that spilled into the drinking water for 300,000 West Virginians. We
don't know yet how much or even specifically what was spilled. The
lasting damage to West Virginia's water supply can't be predicted. That
is why it should be an exemplar for why we need to have careful
environmental regulations everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, week after week, my Republican colleagues continue to
bring up partisan bills that offer no relief to hardworking Americans.
I believe that this institution is better than that and must change
course.
I am astounded that we haven't authorized unemployment insurance.
Let me repeat that. I am astounded that we have not reauthorized
unemployment insurance for now what is 1.6 million Americans. With each
passing day, more families face the threat of losing their homes. With
each passing day, our roads, bridges, schools, parks, ports, airports,
and railways continue to degrade due to lack of adequate investment.
With each passing day, Americans burdened by long-term unemployment see
little, if any, action in the House of Representatives to give them
hope.
With so many Americans and their families enduring difficult times,
we cannot afford to wait any longer. Americans deserve peace of mind
and a government that functions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. My good friend from Florida was correct in at
least one aspect. There are two bills that are involved in this
particular rule, one which involves 10 different sections dealing with
land issues that are critical to 10 States chagrined that they have to
come to Congress for redressing their grievances. The other one deals
with water issues.
To explain that water issue, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Valadao), the sponsor of that particular bill.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, as a farmer in the Central Valley, I grew
up there--born and raised--on my own personal farm with my family. We
have struggled with this water fight for years, even before I was born.
This isn't a new issue. It is something that has been talked about for
years. The problem is we have talked about it long enough. We have got
to do something. We have got to make a difference for these people.
When they talk about unemployment benefits, these people in my
district would rather have a job. You turn on that water and they will
be back to work. We have got farmers in my district that are literally
laying people off today, putting more people on the unemployment line,
because of environmental regulations.
Yes, there is a drought going on. That has been going on. It has
happened in the past. We have got at least 10 in our recorded history
in California.
When you look at what our forefathers have done, they created an
infrastructure to allow us to prepare for those droughts, and what
these regulations have done is allowed water to go out into the ocean
and not be in place to prevent us from this disastrous situation we
face today.
That is what we are fighting over today. We want to make sure that
that infrastructure is used and our taxpayer money is put in place so
that when those projects are there, we have water to supply our farms
and our communities.
Over the last year, as a Member of Congress, and the 2 years before
that as a member of the State house, and before that as a farmer, I
have always dealt with and talked with my locals--and especially my
local elected officials. My city councils, my city managers, my board
of supervisors all come to me with the same issue:
What are we going to do? We have got 40 percent of our water this
year for our city; we have got 50 percent of our water for our city; we
have got 20 percent of our water for our farmers. How are we going to
take care of our communities? How are we going to take care of these
people. How are we going to allow them to be successful?
This is one of the solutions.
When we talk about solutions, I am fine and happy to work with
Members on long-term solutions like the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, as
long as it delivers water. I am fine talking about the water bond, as
long as it delivers water infrastructure for our Valley.
We have to make sure that the crisis that we are facing today is
addressed. Because it is a crisis; it is affecting people today. We are
seeing people being laid off. Yes, that is putting a huge dent in our
resources because we have to pay these people because they are not
working because of a program, because of regulations that were put into
place that allowed that water to go out into the ocean for absolutely
no good reason.
So this has had an impact on my district. We are going to continue to
fight, and yes, this is a solution. If the other side has a solution to
bring to the table and be part of the conversation, I am happy to hear
it and happy to negotiate. Until then, we are going to continue to
fight on our side and push this forward.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui), a former member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. I wish to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3964.
California is currently experiencing a record drought. Up until just
last Thursday, it had been 54 days without rain in my district of
Sacramento. That is almost 2 months. To put this in context, Sacramento
is experiencing a 130-year record for low rainfall, a record that dates
back to 1884.
With 2013 being the driest year on record since the Gold Rush, and
2014 being the third year of a drought cycle, we are being pushed to
make do with less water than ever before.
A statewide drought emergency has been declared, and my district of
Sacramento is doing its part by instituting a mandatory reduction in
water use. My constituents are required by law now to reduce their
water use 20 to 30 percent. Fines for multiple offenders will reach
$1,000.
Moreover, in the Sacramento region, the Folsom Reservoir is at
dangerously low levels and is currently only at 17 percent of capacity.
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to solving California's
water issues. The issue of water in California has been debated for so
many decades because it is such a critical issue for the State. As a
daughter of a Central Valley farmer who grew up on a farm, I deeply
understand the value of and the controversy over water.
In northern California, we have done our best to balance our
watershed to provide water for our farms, cities, and habitat.
To say this bill will help the drought is grossly misleading and,
frankly, irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, even if we pumped as much water south as possible, it
still wouldn't be enough. The problem is a lack of rain. There is
simply no more water to pump from the Delta.
Mr. Speaker, instead of working together, this bill only further
divides our State. My district, the city of Sacramento, the Sacramento
region, and northern California as a whole, strongly oppose this bill.
Some of the concerns include the loss of the State's right to manage
its own water, the decimation of environmental protections for our
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the ability to manage Folsom Reservoir
for the benefit of the Sacramento metropolitan area and, most
importantly, the overall instability that this bill would create in
California.
We cannot afford to give up California's right to control its own
water future. The stakes are much too high. I urge my colleagues to
strongly oppose this legislation.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
McNerney), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by stating that I am strongly opposed to
H.R. 3964, for a variety of reasons, but primarily because it does
nothing to address California's drought. However, I would like to raise
two points about the bill's process and debate.
I offered an amendment that would sunset provisions of this bill in
the 2015
[[Page H1605]]
water year. I did this because the bill's authors stated that the bill
is intended to be a short-term measure. Yet my amendment to limit the
duration of the bill was prevented from coming to the floor for a
debate.
I offered another amendment, which was actually proposed by the
bill's authors. A few weeks ago, the Speaker, the majority whip, and
the bill's authors held a press conference in California, where they
bemoaned the fact that the Senate would not come to the negotiating
table to address long-term water shortage issues.
I agree with them that a bipartisan discussion in both Houses of
Congress is appropriate. That is why I offered an amendment, using
their own suggestions, to establish a joint select committee to address
drought issues in the West. It would be comprised of 10 Members, just
as the bill's author recommended, and would work out a comprehensive
solution.
That proposal, too, was rejected, as was a similar amendment by my
California Valley colleague, Mr. Costa. We wanted to bring the House
and the Senate to the table but are being denied the tools we need to
do just that. How can the bill's authors claim they want a bicameral
discussion, yet deny a vote on this issue--one which they just
advocated for?
I am trying to establish a set of guidelines with what the bill's
authors say they want, but they won't even allow it.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman's frustration. Those
very proposals were offered by Chairman Lucas in the farm bill and
rejected by the Senate.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo),
with whom I served previously on the Intelligence Committee and who is
as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in fierce opposition to the bill that is being
considered because it throws decades of State and Federal water law out
the window, and, in the process, it would kill thousands of jobs in the
Bay area and elsewhere on the west coast, while pitting water users
against one another.
Salmon fishing is one of California's oldest industries. Today, the
Bay-Delta salmon fishery is not nearly as healthy as it once was, but
it still supports thousands of jobs up and down the entire west coast.
This bill would dry up what is left of the once legendary salmon
fishery industry.
Here are some of the laws that this bill would gut or override. I
think everyone should fasten their seatbelts:
The California Constitution;
The Reclamation Act of 1902;
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act;
The State and Federal Endangered Species Act;
The National Environmental Policy Act;
The San Joaquin River Settlement Act;
The Wild & Scenic River Act protections for the Merced River.
If that is not enough for everyone in the House to know, then there
isn't anything else to know.
Vote against this bill. It is horrible.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), a member of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, the last time California had a severe
multiyear drought, something very different happened. Democrats and
Republicans, people from the northern part of the State, the southern
part, and inland came together around a historic bipartisan set of
water reforms.
I was fortunate to help author some of that. I chaired the Water
Committee in the State legislature. National newspapers like The New
York Times called it the most important thing California had done for
water in 60 years.
This bill repeals it. Full stop.
{time} 1300
To offer this as a solution would be laughable if it weren't such a
serious offense to real solutions in California water.
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan which my friend referenced is over if
this bill passes because the premise of that plan is coequal goals for
the environment and water supply reliability; and when you preempt that
and repeal it, there is no basis for that plan to move forward at all.
You had better include, in fact, some funding for the Federal courts
if this bill passes because, instead of a solution, you are going to be
unleashing a wave of litigation unlike anything the State of California
has ever seen.
It is going to hurt the San Joaquin Valley, and it is going to hurt
every other part of the State that needs constructive solutions, not a
new water war.
We have over 100 years, Mr. Speaker, of deference by the Federal
Government to the State of California and to all other Western States
in administering our water rights system. That was made very clear by
Chief Justice Rehnquist in California v. The United States in the
1970s.
The principle of State administration of water rights under the
public trust doctrine is part of the California Constitution, and the
California Supreme Court has made it clear that that is a bedrock of
California water law.
The California Legislature, in that historic 2009 package, called
that the fundamental principle of California water, and it is repealed
by this vastly overreaching expansion of Federal authority offered
cynically today as a solution.
I know some people across the aisle like to talk about the 10th
Amendment. They like to rail against expansion of Federal authority and
Federal overreach. Well, we are living in a very glass house here
today, Mr. Speaker, because this is the most overreaching expansion of
Federal authority that I could ever imagine on something as basic as
water rights in the Western United States.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), who is a member of the Education and Workforce Committee and a
former chair of the relevant committee having to do with the
environment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding. I thank my colleagues who have spoken out against this
legislation.
This legislation is in no way a solution to the problems that we have
in California with the continuing drought. This legislation is simply a
legislative temper tantrum.
They don't want to nuance what has to be nuanced. They don't want to
have each area of origin be taken into consideration. They don't want
to balance urban/rural. They don't want to balance agriculture/
technology.
This is what the Governor is having to do. This is what the resource
agency is having to do. This is what the entire State legislature is
focusing on, trying to figure out how all of California survives the
drought.
This one just says what we will do is we will kick over the barn
upstate there. We will take their water and we will be okay.
Well, why doesn't San Diego look up north and say, you know what? We
will kick over the barn. We will take their water, and we will be okay.
This is the greatest intrusion into State water rights that we have
seen in this legislature, and that is why Governors of other Western
States understand the principles that are engaged here are an absolute
attack on their States also. That is why Representatives from those
States opposed this legislation last time it was presented, and they
will oppose it again this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
So you have a bipartisan coalition in the States trying to work this
out, from every economic sector, from every environmental sector, for
the benefit of the State of California.
This drought doesn't have to end in this rainy season. It can go on
another year and another year.
[[Page H1606]]
This legislation is destructive, destructive of our trying to make
sure that every facet of the California society and its economy
survive, and that is why this bill should be rejected. It is an assault
on fundamental states' rights that every other Western Governor
recognized the moment this bill was introduced, and that is why they
oppose it. They join the Governor of California, the resource agency of
California, in opposition to this bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we gave the House an
opportunity to consider flood insurance reform which the Senate has
already adopted, but unfortunately it was denied. As incongruous as it
might be, we consider it such an important issue, while we are here
talking about an equally important issue, drought, to bring up this
measure having to do with flood insurance. It is an important issue for
families across the Nation, so today we will provide that opportunity
again.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment
to this rule to bring up a bill that will delay flood insurance premium
hikes and provide financial relief to thousands of American families
and, specifically, families in Florida.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Horsford), my good friend.
Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and allow us to vote on legislation to address the Nation's
concerns about flood insurance and to come up with a comprehensive
water plan to address our drought.
Last month, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve the Homeowner
Flood Insurance Affordability Act. And the headline of the American
Banker article says it all: ``House GOP Blocks Vote on Senate-Passed
Flood Insurance Bill.''
``Florida Governor Scott Urges Speaker Boehner to Take Up Flood
Insurance Fix,'' by the Palm Beach Post.
This bipartisan legislation provides a 4-year timeout on rate
increases triggered by a property's sale or a flood map update for a
property with previously grandfathered rates. The bill also creates a
flood insurance advocate to investigate homeowner complaints of rate
quotes.
During a recent trip back to my home State in Nevada, my constituents
told me that these increases can be excessive and unfair. It is a
problem that they want addressed now.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to allow us to bring up this
previous question and offer an alternative.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, before I go into complete pivot to
nongermane issues, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Nunes) to talk about how the first bill deals with water
diversions, not water consumption.
Mr. NUNES. I want to thank the chairman for allowing me to speak on
this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, today we are going to hear, Mr. Speaker, a lot of
falsehoods. But we need to get to the bottom of why are we hearing
those falsehoods, because, for 40 years in this body, people have made
a career of using water as a weapon.
Why? Because they never liked the fact that farmers and farm workers
were making what was once a dry area of the State the Garden of Eden of
this world. They never liked that.
Why? Because they don't want to have to admit to themselves, when
they live in their beautiful cities of Hollywood and San Francisco and
all these great cities that are on the coast of California, beautiful
areas, it is a desert. They don't have any water either.
So they wanted to keep our area, where I grew up, they wanted to keep
it as a desert because they feel bad about the destruction that they
have done on the coast of California. So if they can keep inland
California in its original state, they would be happy with that.
But for the farmers and the farmworkers that are losing their farms,
farmworkers are out of jobs. We are going to lose 30,000 jobs probably
this year. It is an inconvenient truth that for 40 years this body has
been preempting State law and taking water away from one region and
dumping it and wasting it out to the ocean.
You started with the Endangered Species Act, State preemption. In
1992, a lot of talk about how we are gutting the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act. That bill was a State preemption. We have no way to
fix the problems in California because of all the State preemptions
that have been done by the left in this body over four decades.
So I found it fascinating the Members of Congress that were getting
up to speak about how we are going to kill the fish, and this water is
so important for these fish; and the little Delta smelt, we have got to
keep them and keep the habitat.
Well, there is a little more truth to that, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell
you what they are really hiding.
And I apologize to the viewers at home. This is what they are hiding:
sewer discharge into the delta, killing their precious little fish.
Every one of the cities in the San Francisco Bay, Sacramento, the
delta, sewage runs right into the waterway, kills the little fish.
It is pretty startling, isn't it?
They don't talk about that, do they?
The other little thing that they don't talk about is, where does
their water come from? Because they live in a desert, too. People don't
realize that. You go visit San Francisco, visit Silicon Valley, people
think, oh, that is a beautiful area. Green lawns, people water their
lawns. They don't have any water, Mr. Speaker, either, because,
conveniently, this body preempted State law, took water from our area
in the Sierra Nevadas, which is about 200 miles away. But worse than
that, they went into a national park to take the water.
What national park? Yosemite National Park. They went to Yosemite,
one of the treasures of our national park system, and they took this
valley, and they put a dam so that they could create this lake.
Now, look, I want the people of San Francisco and the bay area to
have water. I don't want them to be like our communities and not have
any water. But we have to tell the truth, Mr. Speaker. They dammed up
this valley to create this water, but then it doesn't go to the delta
to protect their little fish that they care so much about. No, Mr.
Speaker. It gets piped over to San Francisco. Here is the pipe. This is
the Sierra Nevadas. They catch the water. They pipe it all over the bay
area, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, discharge their sewer into the
bay, take pristine water from our area to feed their families, grow
their grass.
I don't see any of them up here saying that they are going to tear
down this system, dump this water into the bay to protect their stupid
little fish, their little delta smelt that they care about. We don't
see that, Mr. Speaker, because they don't want to tell the truth. This
isn't about truth telling. This is about money and power, millions of
dollars.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. NUNES. So all of the radical environmental groups that were
created in this country started where? In that little epicenter of
Hollywood and San Francisco on the west coast of California.
Lawsuits, lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, millions of dollars
went to trial lawyers. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? Those millions
of dollars that came from my community to pay off these rich lawyers,
we don't know how many millions it was because it is hidden from the
taxpayer. It is hidden from the American people, sealed by court order.
Why don't they come out and tell us how much money they made?
Millionaires off of government, used the government to make millions.
Used the government to dump sewage into the water to kill the fish; dam
up Yosemite to bring the water from Yosemite for fresh water while our
people, farmers and farmworkers, lose their jobs.
It is an inconvenient truth, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Courtney), my good friend.
[[Page H1607]]
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, anyone watching this debate, I think,
understands why the American public is so turned off by this Congress.
This is a bill which was brought to the floor in a hyperpartisan
process, bypassing the committee, hyperdivisive, and it is going
absolutely nowhere. In the meantime, we have an economy which needs
this Congress to act.
A few days ago, the Senate did act on a bipartisan basis to pass the
Menendez-Isakson Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which
will help coastal properties that are now locking up because of
skyrocketing flood insurance premiums which the Senate bill will fix.
Again, 182 cosponsors in the House, bipartisan. We have the support
of the Bankers Association, Realtors, housing advocates, a broad
consensus, broad bipartisan support. It will help the real estate
market, which will drive this recovery in a positive direction.
Let's act on that, amend the rule. Let's bring up the flood insurance
relief program and put this underlying bill back to committee where it
belongs, where many of these thorny issues can be worked out by Members
on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the State of California.
Pass the flood insurance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. COURTNEY. Let's pass this flood insurance measure. In
southeastern Connecticut, coastal properties, again, if you talk to the
Realtors, you talk to the bankers, these properties are locking up
because of the increase in flood insurance premiums.
We can change that today, right now. Get this bill to the President
for signature. Let's get this recovery moving. Let's listen to the
American people who want to see bipartisan action that is focused on
the number one issue facing this country, which is getting a strong
economic recovery.
{time} 1315
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If the Speaker would forgive me for trying to get
us back on the subject matter of the bill in front of us, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) to talk about
the water bill.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition has erupted into a veritable Mount
Vesuvius of misinformation on the California water bill, and I would
like to address a couple of the major points that they have raised.
This does not preempt State water rights. It specifically invokes and
protects the water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy--
local, State, or Federal. This is a legitimate constitutional function
of the Federal Government that dates back to the 14th Amendment, and it
is made essential by the unique relationship between the Federal and
State governments with respect to California water policy, the mixture
of both the Central Valley project and the State water project.
To the ridiculous comment that this is a theft of northern California
water and that northern California is united in its opposition, nothing
could be further from the truth. On the contrary, this bill protects
the north from any attempt to override established California water
rights law in reallocating water from the north.
Just to illustrate this, I would point out that it was these
provisions in the last session of Congress that the California
Association of Water Agencies specifically pointed to in support. They
said this: The bill, if enacted, now contains provisions that would not
only protect the interests of senior water rights holders in the
Sacramento Valley but would also provide significant material water
policy improvements to current Federal law. 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.
Finally, to the argument that we cannot make it rain, there is not
enough water to go around. Well, that is true. One of the reasons is
because in this third year of drought, we have dumped a total of 1.6
million acre-feet of water into the Pacific Ocean that was desperately
needed to support the threatened human population of California.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Langevin), my good friend.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so
that we may immediately consider H.R. 3370, the Homeowner Flood
Insurance Affordability Act.
Mr. Speaker, communities in my home State say, We cannot wait for
relief from steep flood insurance rate increases. Rhode Island families
have told me that they are facing flood insurance rates upwards of
$35,000, and they are scared of losing their homes. If these rates
fully go into effect, in many cases, families are going to be paying
more for flood insurance than they are for their mortgage. Unless we
act, we could potentially see whole middle class neighborhoods wiped
out because they will drown not because of a flood but because they
will drown under the weight of the cost of flood insurance. This is
simply unconscionable.
Implementing a delay in rate increases, Mr. Speaker, will give FEMA
time to complete an affordability study and develop recommendations to
help homeowners afford their premiums. Without it, thousands of middle
class homeowners will continue to suffer from the uncertainty of not
knowing whether the cost of flood insurance will make homeownership
unaffordable.
This legislation passed the Senate Thursday with a strong bipartisan
vote. The House companion has 182 bipartisan cosponsors. I urge my
colleagues to support consideration of the Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act to provide immediate relief for our families and our
communities.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Financial
Services.
I wish to make clear to my friend on the other side who continues to
say that he wants to bring us back to the subject matter of this
underlying bill that the minority has been granted a motion to
recommit, and that motion to recommit is just as relevant as the
underlying bill.
To speak to this issue, then, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for allowing me to
take some time to be on this floor to plead with my colleagues on the
opposite side of the aisle to join with us in support of our middle
class citizens who now have their homes at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I plead with the opposite side of the aisle to join with
what is a bipartisan piece of legislation, a bicameral piece of
legislation, legislation that was passed out by the Senate that would
correct the unintended consequences of the Biggert-Waters Act.
Why am I so passionate about this? First of all, I was a coauthor of
the Biggert-Waters Act. It was a bill that we got together on where we
tried to reduce the debt that we are confronted with, providing
assistance and subsidies to our homeowners.
Many of our homeowners, as you know, across this country are put at
risk. Their homes are destroyed through natural disasters. We have to
be available to them through this kind of insurance program, the
National Flood Insurance Program.
So we have the Senate, we have Republicans, we have Democrats who
have all joined in with us to do something very simple: delay this for
a time period. Delay this for 4 years so we can get on FEMA, and FEMA
can get it right.
FEMA messed up the Biggert-Waters bill. We said, You have to do an
affordability study. They did not do that. We said, You have to get
your mapping and your remapping right. They have not done that. We
said, Get a credible database. They have not done that.
We have got to correct FEMA. There is no reason why people should be
having their premiums increased by 500
[[Page H1608]]
percent. This is wrong. We can do something about it. Don't stand in
the way of coming to the assistance of American citizens who depend on
us in their time of trouble.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia) who is a dear
personal friend of mine. He and I share concerns about issues related
to Florida as well as this Nation, as it pertains to flood insurance.
Mr. GARCIA. I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the words of the previous speaker. Like
the gentleman, though, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so that we can take up a more important vote, so we
can take up the strongly bipartisan Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act.
During this Congress, we have spent far, far too much time on issues
that divide us rather than on bipartisan issues that unite us. The
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act is just that kind of
bipartisan legislation that should be at the top of the House's agenda.
It would relieve homeowners of crushing premium rate increases,
strengthen our housing market, and support economic recovery. That is
why this legislation has such strong bipartisan support.
The Senate passed this bill by a 67-32 margin. The House companion
bill has 182 cosponsors, including 56 Republican cosponsors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in voting
to take up the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act today. It
just can't wait. It is time to make a difference. For this reason, I
urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can take up
this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, because of rising flood insurance rates, people are
literally walking away from their homes. I recently heard from Robin
and Derek, a South Florida couple whose landlord had increased their
rent to cover the property's rising flood insurance rates. The rent
increase made staying in their home too expensive for Robin and Derek.
Despite searching, they were unable to find another affordable house in
the area. After nine years of calling South Florida home, they were
forced to leave Florida and move north to Pennsylvania. The couple had
to find new jobs in a new town. Their young daughter had to be pulled
from her childhood home, her school, and all of her friends.
Mr. Speaker, this is not right. I ask that my colleagues join me in
recognizing that by voting to take up the Homeowners Flood Insurance
Affordability Act today. This can't wait. We have to act to protect
hardworking Americans from these exorbitant rate increases before
anyone else is forced to walk away from their home.
For this reason, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question
so we can pass this bipartisan, commonsense solution and provide much-
needed relief for homeowners in South Florida and across America.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 30
seconds to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. There is great concern in the real
estate community. It is very difficult to acquire flood insurance at
some of the prices that are being quoted.
I think it is exceedingly important that we adhere to the words of
Ranking Member Waters: What is the rush? Why not get the study? Why not
do that which we intended to do before we arrived at this position in
our history?
My hope is that we will heed her words.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my friends across the aisle have
failed to recognize the irony in bringing these bills together to the
floor at the same time.
The California water bill is an acknowledgement of how important
clean water is, while the public lands bill undermines our ability keep
that water clean. It would be funny if it weren't the absolute truth of
the matter.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, meteorologists are calling the high-pressure
zone at the root of the drought in California ``the ridiculously
resilient ridge.'' In that spirit, one could say that the Republicans'
resistance to extending unemployment insurance, fixing our aging
infrastructure, raising the debt ceiling, fixing flood insurance, and
passing comprehensive immigration reform is also a resilience worthy of
the same adverb.
I believe that it is time for Congress to get serious about moving
our country forward. The motion to recommit is particularly relevant to
all of us in this Nation as it pertains to flood insurance, and this
underlying bill, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) said
earlier, is horrible.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have appreciated the tone and the tenor of today's discussion and
all the words that have been said on all the bills that are before us.
We have the opportunity of making the desert bloom if we do things in
the appropriate way. We have done it in the past. We can do it in the
future.
I recognize that most of the debate has been on the one bill in this
particular issue which deals with the issue of water in California.
Totally ignored was the other issue that is equally significant,
especially to the 10 States that have an interest in that, dealing with
land policy.
You see, there is a role for government if government is efficient
and effective and compassionate and uses common sense. As I have worked
with individuals, both on the ground from the Forest Service and the
BLM, who live in the communities and know those people, they are
usually fair, efficient, and effective people. They get it. But the
further they ascend or are removed from the people and go up into the
hierarchy of the administration, as they tend towards Washington, D.C.,
they tend to forget people and the importance of helping people, and
they become hamstrung, as agencies, with a blind obedience to policy
and to regulation so that the agencies become inefficient and
ineffective. They lack compassion, and they are certainly devoid of
common sense.
For example, we have one of the titles here that deals with islands
off the coast of Florida, in 1946, given to those counties. They were
told, as they had done that, that they could not sell the land, they
could only lease it, which means that homeowners and businesses on this
island that had been Federal property can now pay no property tax that
helps the entire community to defend not only those areas but also keep
the public lands open. It is an unfair situation.
Now think of this: This is property the Federal Government does not
own, they do not need, they do not use, and yet they still control, by
policy, what they are doing on that land which, I am sorry, is a silly
policy that simply hurts the people.
{time} 1330
We have the same thing across the country in Alaska. In Anchorage,
there are 3 acres--3 measly acres--in the middle of the city, a city
surrounded by Federal land, and you have to come to Congress because
the rules and policy of the administration--the agencies--hurt people
and lack common sense by denying Anchorage the ability to use that land
efficiently, as they wish. Once again, this is land the Federal
Government does not own, they don't need, and they don't use, but they
still control what the local government can do with that particular
piece of property.
In Nevada, Fernley, Nevada, they are willing to pay the government
just to leave them alone. All the land they
[[Page H1609]]
want is within the city boundaries of Fernley. Once again, in this
case, the Federal Government does not need this property, and they
don't use this property. They simply insist on controlling it. What we
need to do is simply get them out of the way so we can help the
community to move forward.
It seems amazing that at many of our land agencies we simply have a
gridlock as we have a highly centralized bureaucracy that values power
over the principle of actually helping people. If Congress has to be
involved in moving 3 acres in the middle of one community, that is a
preposterous situation which we find.
I recently read a book that dealt with my church members living in
Communist East Germany who had a very difficult time finding places in
which they could build chapels so they could worship. If they found an
area, simply a vacant space, they had to find equivalent private
property to give to the state because the state government in East
Germany insisted there was no net loss of property by the state. What I
find amazing is we in America, with these land agencies, have that
exact same philosophy: there can be no net loss of property to the
government. That means either we are wrong today or Communist East
Germany was correct back then, and I really don't think it is the
latter.
We have another piece of property in North Carolina. In 2007, the
government came up with a management plan. It was agreed to by the
community, not happily, but they agreed to it. They did a biological
survey and they found out that this plan does nothing to impede or harm
any of the species available at Cape Hatteras. Yet the next year there
was a lawsuit, and the land agencies, instead of fighting for what they
knew was right and they had agreed to, caved, in a sue-and-settle
settlement, which harmed the people living in that area. It hurt those
people who were making their livelihood after the tourism going to Cape
Hatteras.
Yes, in this case, the Federal Government owns the property and uses
the property, but their control of the property is a total lack of
common sense and a total lack of compassion and hurts the people who
live there.
During the Clinton administration, the Clinton administration
identified land in the Federal Government control that was not needed
and that was useless. However, trying to find what those lands are
requires you to go to 150 different sites to look in 150 different
books. Why would they not put that on a computerized system so that
anyone can have access to it and there is transparency in what we do
and do not have? Yet the agency simply says that, even though that is a
good idea, they are simply quite too busy to actually accomplish that
task. In a response that makes the rollout of ObamaCare look well-
managed, why do we need to understand where these lands are?
I will take a simple example. The Forest Service had land in one of
my communities that they had owned for 40 years and did not know they
actually had; and when the community wanted to expand their cemetery
and did the title search, we finally found out this actually was Forest
Service land. Needless to say, even though the locals wanted this land
transferred and they didn't need it and they hadn't used it in decades,
it still took 4 years to try and get this Congress to actually
authorize it to take place, and then the Forest Service still charged
the community $6,000 to do the paperwork to transfer the land over.
We have, in the middle of one of our National Guard units, BLM land
that they don't need and they don't use, and yet we are still trying to
get them to transfer the land over to the State of Utah so they can
build needed infrastructure on a National Guard base that is still
owned technically by the BLM.
That is why we need to understand what this is. We have a simple
system, but we have bureaucratic lethargy in this country.
We have a mountain lookout, a historical site in Washington that was
historic before wilderness was created in that particular area, and to
try to shore up that lookout so it doesn't collapse, they were then
sued by an agency. And some judge back on the west coast decided you
have to send helicopters in there to tear it down because you couldn't
actually make those kinds of improvements in a wilderness area on a
piece of property that is revered by that community and they want to
keep it there. Even the environmental community uses that as a staging
point for their hikes and trails in that area. But this is a decision
that is silly, and we have to make that decision by this summer to save
that historic site.
In Yosemite National Park in California, a horrific fire destroyed
both public and private lands. We now look at the fact that most of the
private lands are now 60 percent recovered. They have gone through to
take out the dead wood and the dead timber. They are starting the
reforestation process. But on the public side of that land, we are
still going through an evaluation process that even under an expedited
system simply means that it will be until late summer before they can
actually finish that, and then the lawsuits get to start.
Now, look, if you don't remove that dead timber, that burned timber
within a year, it is totally useless, and all it does is become
infested and becomes a source and a fuel for a future fire in a State
that we have already heard is in their third year of drought and
desperately needs the water for other things rather than fighting a
fire.
These bills in this section of land try and solve these problems so
we finally force the agencies to do that which helps people instead of
hindering people's process. We find a situation where the agencies,
today, of our government are inefficient, they are ineffective, and
they lack compassion, which actually hurts constituents, hurts people,
and they do not have common sense. That is why this package is so
important, and it is important to do it now to help people.
It is simply sad that we are in a situation where Congress has to
push the agencies to do the right thing. We should be better than that.
We can do better than that, and that is what these bills attempt to do.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate that this rule is fair,
it is appropriate, as appropriate and as fair as are the underlying
measures that are being presented to Congress in this rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 472 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
See. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3370) to delay the implementation of certain provisions of
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3370.
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's
[[Page H1610]]
ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal
of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question
passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in
order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of
the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House
defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition
rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were 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 adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 196, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 36]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--196
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Amodei
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Fincher
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Rush
Schwartz
{time} 1405
Messrs. FARR and DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan and Mr. BLUMENAUER changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 190, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 37]
AYES--229
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
[[Page H1611]]
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--190
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Amodei
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Cohen
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
Meng
Miller, Gary
Nugent
Pingree (ME)
Rush
Schwartz
{time} 1413
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________