[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.

                          ____________________