[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 73 (Thursday, May 1, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1781-H1786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATING TO ``ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS; ENDANGERED SPECIES STATUS FOR THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT OF THE LONGFIN SMELT''
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of
the Longfin Smelt'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 78
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the
Longfin Smelt'' (89 Fed. Reg. 61029; published July 30,
2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 78.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 78 offered by
Representative LaMalfa of California, which would undo the listing of
the longfin smelt in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population
Segment under the Endangered Species Act.
The listing was based on flawed science in response to an ESA-related
lawsuit and adds yet another piece of regulatory red tape preventing
water from reaching California's Central Valley and communities further
south.
California's Central Valley is one of the most prolific agricultural
regions in the world, growing hundreds of crops that feed millions of
people. However, this region faces continual water uncertainty due to
drought and ESA-related regulations.
The Central Valley Project, or CVP, transports water from wetter
areas in northern California to drier areas further south, including
the Central Valley. It is subject to ESA biological opinions that
mandate water that would otherwise go to communities and farms be
diverted to the San Francisco Bay.
The effects of this can be seen at this very moment in California
where Federal reservoirs are almost full, yet many farmers are only
receiving half of their water allocations. This is in large part due to
restrictions imposed by the ESA, which will only be exacerbated by the
listing of the longfin smelt.
Unfortunately, the rush to judgment that ensued from the lawsuit
resulted in a listing based on flawed assumptions and bad science.
First, by solely focusing on the bay-delta rather than the longfin
smelt's entire range, the service ignores the fact that the species has
been found in dozens of locations, including in and around every
tributary of the San Francisco Bay. Meaning the longfin smelt is not at
risk of extinction and does not meet the statutory definition of an
endangered species.
Instead of being based on science, this listing comes from the common
radical environmental playbook of suing for a predetermined outcome.
Radical groups have litigated for years trying to get the longfin
smelt listed under the ESA, with a 2024 lawsuit compelling the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to make a listing decision being the latest
example.
Unfortunately, as with many ESA-related lawsuits, the species is
rarely the true motivation. The leader of the organization that filed
the lawsuit in question said the not-so-quiet part out loud when he
said that protecting the longfin smelt going forward would require
taking more water away from farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this CRA and roll back
this misguided listing, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This resolution, H.J. Res. 78, continues a very familiar pattern that
we are seeing from this Republican majority: distractions and
scapegoats instead of dealing with real crises, real
[[Page H1782]]
problems, and solutions to the challenges that are facing working
families, including American farmers and rural communities all over
this country.
Today, they are bringing us a resolution that tries to blame an
endangered fish, the bay-delta longfin smelt, for California's water
problems and shortages. They are doing that instead of addressing major
problems that are actually impacting farmers in rural communities.
Let's be clear. Removing protections for the longfin smelt will not
make it rain. It will not rebuild California's snowpack. It won't
refill our reservoirs, not even the reservoir that President Trump
recently drained in a public relations stunt that had nothing to do
with fighting fires or water supply.
California's water shortage is driven by climate change and also
prolonged drought, aging and outdated infrastructure, and
overallocation. It is not the fault of some tiny fish.
Meanwhile, farmers, including those in my district, are grappling
with worsening droughts, wildfires, floods, extreme weather, and now
the fallout from President Trump's disastrous trade policies for
agriculture.
All the while, Republicans won't talk about any of those things.
Instead, they bring us here to debate whether a small fish should be
allowed to go extinct or be protected under the Endangered Species Act.
All the while, the significant damage that their policies are causing
continue to pile up in rural America, including President Trump's
tariffs.
Trump is treating not just our adversaries, but some of our neighbors
and our best friends in the world, like they are enemies. He is turning
them into adversaries. Tariffs on key trading partners have already
cost farmers tens of billions of dollars in lost exports. Markets are
shrinking. Input costs are soaring, making it hard for farms to stay in
business.
We see the sweeping budget cuts and mass layoffs at critical agencies
like NOAA and the Bureau of Reclamation, threatening the services that
farmers depend on: water deliveries, weather forecasting, climate data,
and much more. Farmers need that stuff. They don't want to go back to
the ``Farmers' Almanac'' in order to make key business decisions.
We see hundreds of millions of dollars in water supply infrastructure
projects suddenly in limbo because of DOGE, while our colleagues across
the aisle say nothing.
We see the entire rural healthcare safety net, including nursing home
care, including services that anyone who has a person with disabilities
in their family, depend on. All of that is in limbo as we brace for
catastrophic cuts from Republicans as they try to fund their tax cuts
for billionaires.
If this Republican majority were serious about helping farmers and
rural communities, they would be working to reverse these harmful
policies. They would be standing up for rural America right now.
Instead, they are wasting our time. Just because we are debating a 3-
inch fish today doesn't mean we need to think like one.
Now, about the impacts of these policies that my friends don't want
to talk about. You don't have to take my word for it, you can listen to
farmers across America.
Here is Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association,
who says: ``Our grave concern is we could permanently lose another big
chunk of our export market that we are dependent on for our production.
. . . And the U.S. farm economy is in a tough spot, and we just don't
have any room for error right now.''
Here is Chris Harner, owner of Harner Farm in Centre County,
Pennsylvania: ``We did get a letter from our one supplier that once the
tariffs kick in, they will be passing on the costs.''
Paul Krueger, a corn and soybean farmer from Bladen, Nebraska, says:
``Any time our country gets involved with any sort of tariffs that
affect the agriculture industry, every farmer just kind of groans about
that. We're powerless to do anything except take what comes out in the
wash.''
Here is Travis Johnson, who farms cotton, sorghum, and corn in Texas'
Rio Grande Valley. He says: ``There's a lot of uncertainty around, and
I hate to be used as a bargaining chip. I am definitely worried.''
Moving to California, here is Ryan Talley, vice president of Talley
Farms in San Luis Obispo: ``We don't have months to wait something out.
We have to continue our operations at the intensity that we currently
farm. We're going to have to take those rising prices and deal with it
the best we can.''
This is what Republican agriculture policy is doing right now: losing
export markets, raising costs, telling farmers to just deal with it.
They are complicit in the dismantling of rural healthcare, in the
freezing of funding for rural infrastructure, in the threat to programs
like SNAP that many families across rural America depend on.
It gets worse. President Trump, Elon Musk, and their enablers are
gutting critical Federal services that include scientists. They are
hollowing out NOAA and weakening the Bureau of Reclamation. They should
listen to the people that these decisions are actually hurting.
I know I am quoting a lot right now, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make
sure my colleagues across the aisle are listening, since they are not
having any townhalls these days. They need to hear from farmers and the
folks in these rural communities that their policies are hurting.
In response to mass firings at NOAA and the National Weather Service,
Andrea Young of Hidden Creek Farm in Fauquier County, Virginia, said
this: ``I cannot bring the animals to safety. I cannot cover up those
tender plants. I cannot know that a rainstorm is coming and so I
shouldn't water. I cannot function as a farmer in an indoor
environment.''
The general manager of 14 California Central Valley Project
irrigation districts, in a recent letter to the President about layoffs
at the Bureau of Reclamation, said this: ``That elimination of
Reclamation staff will not further the goal of achieving significant
cost savings to the American people.''
In other words, they are harming the agency that these irrigators
depend on, and they are not even saving money for the budget.
Mr. Speaker, the damage from all of this is real. There are real
farmers, real communities, and this is real harm caused by failed
leadership. While all that is happening, we are here debating whether
to strip protections from an endangered fish. They are turning a small
fish into a very large scapegoat, pretending it will somehow provide
real support to farmers.
The truth is, the listing of the bay-delta longfin under the ESA is
both scientifically and legally sound. The longfin population has
declined over 99 percent since the 1980s. Think about that. In just a
few decades, only about 1 percent of the population is left. That is
like the number of environmentalists left in the Republican Party these
days.
{time} 0930
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service followed the law, the data, and
the science, just as a bipartisan Congress intended when they passed
the ESA back in the 1970s, just as Republican President Richard Nixon
intended when he signed it into law. The system is supposed to work
that way.
Protecting species like the longfin is not just about a single fish,
but it is about protecting the ecological health of the entire bay-
delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. This
delta is the heart of California's water system. Its health underpins
clean drinking water for millions, healthy soil for agriculture, and
waterfowl populations that hunters depend on.
It is so important, and it requires a broad ecological balance to
sustain the farms, fisheries, entire ecosystems, and so many
communities and millions of people that depend on it. You can't destroy
an ecosystem and expect farms, cities, and wildlife to just thrive.
These things rise or fall together.
This resolution takes us in the wrong direction. Let's actually do
something real for farmers instead of deflecting and debating
distractions. Let's repeal the mindless tariffs on our allies and top
trading partners. Let's protect the Bureau of Reclamation and NOAA from
these disastrous sabotage cuts. Let's protect rural families and
communities by opposing cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.
[[Page H1783]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution that
merely distracts and deflects and scapegoats instead of solving the
pressing challenges facing farmers and the rest of rural America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa), the sponsor of the CRA.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I appreciate the opportunity to present and to carry this Congressional
Review Act that is, indeed, trying to keep some reality involved in the
listing of species, as well as the overall operations of government and
forming of regulations.
Mr. Speaker, in support of H.J. Res. 78, we want to block the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's misguided decision to list the San
Francisco Bay-Delta population of the longfin smelt as being
endangered.
What we have is actual evidence. Former director of Stanford's Center
of Conservation Biology wrote a piece on this listing, including these
highlights:
The Fish and Wildlife Service abandoned its allegiance to
using the best available scientific information.
The proposed listing ignores salient information gaps and
shrugs off technical peer-reviewed criticisms that go to the
heart of the argument for listing the species.
To list this species, the Fish and Wildlife Service
employed unreliable data, presented results from analyses
that cannot be justified, and made troubling predictions for
the fate of the fish that are built on flawed assumptions
akin to a house of cards.
The Fish and Wildlife Service used piecemeal data to try
and establish population trends and size of this using
detection methods not even designed for longfin smelt to
justify its action.
Basically, there is no science, and this has long been sought by
environmental groups since they have run out of the regular smelt after
tens of millions of acre-feet of water have flowed out to the delta.
Indeed, they need to be looking more at the issues going on with the
effluent coming out of bay area cities from underpowered sewer systems
that affected the delta so negatively and not some idea that farmers
are getting too much water.
At a point where farmers have now just gotten bumped up to a 50
percent allocation here the other day by State and Federal water
managers, we are seeing that it is going to negatively affect the food
supply not only for California and its production but for the whole
country.
Mr. Speaker, we have statistics that show that the amount of water
flowing into the delta is hardly being tapped. Indeed, 80 percent of it
goes right on out of the delta into the Pacific Ocean.
It is interesting to hear my colleague from the north coast talking
about rebuilding infrastructure as part of a solution that we should be
talking about here.
Mr. Speaker, we talk about it a lot, and hopefully we can move the
ball on it. We have an opportunity to build Sites Reservoir, which
would provide 1\1/2\ million acre-feet of new storage; and raise Shasta
Dam by 18 feet, which would provide 600,000 acre-feet of new storage.
If we would operate the pumps in the delta, we would fill the San
Luis Reservoir that would be available to the Central Valley. It came
up 200,000 acre-feet short this year, which is about the same amount as
what they are predicting this listing will cause to short the Central
Valley farmers down there if this listing is allowed to happen.
Instead, we get more and more water being demanded for environmental
purposes, which really doesn't fulfill an environmental purpose.
Instead, the blame gets shifted to something else: talk about tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, we are tariffed so heavily, almost 300 percent, on our
dairy products that are going into Canada. Something needs to be done
for a reset. Rice into Japan will be up to 700 percent at some point.
Tariffs need to be looked at, but that is not this conversation.
The longfin smelt is being used as the latest weapon to take water
away from farmers and take water away from people. We grow some of the
richest crops in the great Central Valley of California--tomatoes,
pistachios, and almonds--and they will be denied to the whole country.
They will not come from somewhere else unless we import them with lower
quality standards, et cetera.
We have, indeed, a lot going on here that is not really truthful. It
is sad to hear my colleague from the north coast. Although we are in
parallel districts, the First District and the Second District, it
seems like we are in parallel universes when I hear him starting to
talk about defending agriculture because it is these policies:
introduction of wolves; not rebuilding water infrastructure but tearing
down dams on the Klamath that now causes people to be subject to
flooding; the water allocation of the Scott and Shasta Valleys being
taken away by some emergency drought declaration at the same time as
they are being flooded; and one thing after another being taken away
from farmers and given to wolves instead.
My Democratic colleagues want to introduce 1,700 new grizzly bears
into California as one of their ideas, which would devastate livestock.
The ideas that are coming out of this building and the regulatory
buildings here are the ones that are choking off agriculture, making
food more expensive, and taking away options for people to buy great
California-grown products instead of having to import them.
It is coming from here. It is certainly not the fault of what the
Trump administration is trying to do in addition to building more water
reservoirs and having more water available for people.
Why was it that delta pumps were able to fill San Luis Reservoir 2
years ago to the brim, to the full mark, and they can't for the last 2
years?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the additional
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is because of additional water flows that are
demanded by the environmental left and certain Representatives in this
building. A lot of times, they get them. It seems that the courts are
stacked against farmers against this, but we have to fight back.
One tool that we have is H.J. Res. 78, to review what government does
and hold it accountable for when it does last-minute, unscientific
pronouncements. In this case, it is yet another species that my
Democratic colleagues use as a weapon against agriculture and against
people's needs.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time on this.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for
all of his efforts on this. He is a farmer. He knows about agriculture.
He knows about the water issues in California.
This is an issue that is important to our whole country. It is not
just important to California because most of the fruits, nuts, and
vegetables grown in this country are in the Central Valley of
California. Without water, you can't grow any of them.
If we are taking water away from the Central Valley for unnecessary
reasons, that means that the rest of the country is going to suffer
when we go to the grocery market.
Mr. Speaker, I think, if truth be known, there is one reason why the
longfin smelt got listed. It is because it would divert water away from
the Central Valley, and I don't understand that. I don't understand why
groups would be so adamant to be taking water away from the breadbasket
of our country and shifting it to a purpose that is not accomplishing
anything.
There are a lot of myths about the longfin smelt. There is a myth
that, if they are listed, it will have no effect on the farmers in the
Central Valley. I will read a quote from the science director who was
involved from the San Francisco Baykeepers when the listing was
finalized:
``Preventing further decline and extinction of longfin smelt will
require reducing California's diversion of fresh water from the Bay's
watershed to supply unsustainable industrial agriculture. . . .''
If water is taken away from agriculture in the Central Valley, it is
unsustainable. You can't grow anything without water.
We need to get back to the science, as Mr. LaMalfa stated, and it is
unfortunate that we have to do a CRA on an
[[Page H1784]]
endangered species listing, but that is what happens when
administrations make bad decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the question has been posed about whether this ESA
listing of the longfin smelt is supported by science. I guess this
Congress, in all of its infinite mastery of science, has decided to
superimpose itself over the scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service
who went through a very public and deliberative process to reach this
determination. We are going to now get, I guess, a different scientific
interpretation from the great minds across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, the first Trump administration, back when there was
still at least a few people around who followed the law and told the
truth, agreed that the longfin smelt was a candidate species for
listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans slow walked that listing because of
politics. That is why the administration was sued. That is why the
Biden administration had to comply with the law and follow through with
that science-based process. That is how we got a listing.
Let's not pretend that there is no scientific foundation for this
listing. Even my friends across the aisle know better than that.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from the Sacramento Valley has suggested that
we live in parallel universes. If that is the case, I will choose the
universe where Members of Congress face their constituents and answer
hard questions instead of running off to Mar-a-Lago or other people's
districts or having distractions about fish in the delta and
scapegoating them as the cause for all of our problems.
Answer some hard questions from constituents. Talk about facts and
reality of California water instead of all of this scapegoating.
With California water, it is always a challenge not to break the
fact-check machine across the aisle. It has been suggested that all of
this water is wasted out to the ocean for fish, and you have to explain
again how the delta system works. That water that flows out to the
ocean, almost all of it, the vast majority of it, is for one reason: to
make sure that the saltwater in the Pacific Ocean does not intrude far
enough into the estuary that the whole system that tens of millions of
Californians depend on and that all the farmers in my friend's district
depend on doesn't salt up and cease to function.
The Speaker doesn't have to believe me about it or choose between two
parallel universes. Ask any California water manager how this works.
This is basic stuff, but we have to explain it over and over again
because of the fog of political theater that we always hear across the
aisle.
It is a little bit like the President of the United States right now
who says that there is a magic spigot in the northwest and in Canada
that, if we could get past all of the radical environmentalists and
just open up this spigot, unlimited water would flow to southern
California, and they would always be able to fight fires.
It is absolute nonsense. Then he pretended to open a magic spigot,
and he dumped and wasted a bunch of water a couple of months ago into a
dry lakebed.
Our friends across the aisle retweeted all of these totally fake
narratives, and now half the world, the world in that other parallel
universe, believes this stuff.
It is a constant challenge just to bring the subject back to facts
and reality. Talk to water managers. Do a little bit of basic research.
This is how the California water system, especially the delta estuary,
actually works. Politics is a poor substitute for understanding basic
hydrology and facts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a colleague who actually represents
the amazing delta region of our country.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Huffman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, welcome to California water wars. A famous quote
attributed to Mark Twain is:
In California, whiskey is for drinking, and water is for
fighting.
Welcome to the debate. This is much more than just the delta smelt.
It is interesting to see my two colleagues and friends from parallel
universes--I am from a southern parallel universe--debate this because,
sometime ago when Mr. LaMalfa and I were in the California Legislature,
we thought we had put a lot of this past us when we negotiated in good
faith the building of those two reservoirs.
Part of it was to finally require the ag industry to get permits
because they were depleting the aquifer so much that the water
contractors were complaining. They were water contractors who
historically have made a lot of money without providing much value.
I say that in the context of this is an important discussion for the
environment appropriately for this committee, the chairman and the
ranking member, but it is a bigger issue.
{time} 0945
It is an issue about fairness, about subsidies. Yes, the agriculture
industry is important, as the chairman pointed out, in California, but
we have given them a lot of support over the decades, including
subsidies from the Federal Government. When we are looking at fiscal
management, we should look at this resource in a larger sense, in my
view, as somebody who has represented the delta for decades.
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, which I am proud to represent a
significant part of, provides economic benefits to the entire State of
California and, as the chairman said, to larger areas of the West Coast
and the country in many ways. It provides clean water, recreation, and
all of these benefits to a very large area.
The longfin smelt, one of the several native fish populations within
the delta, is an important indicator species for the health of this
vital body of water and our economy. It serves as kind of a red herring
to help alert to habitat degradation across the delta from poor water
quality or diversion of too much water.
Unfortunately, the species population, as the ranking member has
pointed out, has declined more than 99 percent from 1980s levels,
putting us at risk of losing an important way we analyze the delta in a
drought-prone region.
The San Francisco Bay-Delta population of the longfin smelt was
listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act after
thorough scientific review, as has been mentioned, and a public comment
process. This Congressional Review Act resolution casts aside the data
for no apparent reason. Decisions on whether to list a species as
endangered should be based on science as Congress intended under the
Endangered Species Act, not on politics.
While I agree with my good friend from California that ensuring
reliable water supply and storage is essential to northern California,
for both of my friends from northern California, disregarding experts
is the wrong way to go about the analysis, obviously.
This debate on the whole water supply and storage, as articulated by
the ranking member, is essential to the West Coast. Disregarding these
experts and scientists and the proper process for endangered species
listing is not the way to do it. Protecting endangered species and
providing a stable water supply are not mutually exclusive. They can be
done in a way where both delta communities and delta species, and,
indeed, the entire West Coast and the country, prosper from protecting
this endangered species.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE continue
dismantling Federal agencies, shredding constitutional norms.
Meanwhile, House Republicans refuse to lift a finger to rein in rogue
actors or defend the rule of law.
In the face of all of this, American farmers and rural America are
paying the price for all of this chaos.
Right now, the real threats to rural America and to water security
and the livelihoods of America's farmers are trade wars that are
hammering agricultural exports. It is not this endangered fish.
They face a shrinking Federal workforce hollowed out. The very
agencies responsible for permitting and delivering water to farmers and
communities are being dismantled.
[[Page H1785]]
Congressional Republicans are threatening to rescind critical
Inflation Reduction Act investments in drought resilience and water
delivery.
We also are facing this administration's efforts to block and cancel
key funding that Congress has already approved to support drought
resilience and repair vital water infrastructure, support that rural
America needs right now in the face of extreme heat and weather from
the climate crisis and the burning of fossil fuels.
These are the urgent challenges that farmers and communities are
actually facing. Instead of confronting them, House Republican
leadership devoted this entire week to voting on performative
Congressional Review Act resolutions that are meant to deflect and
distract from the real problems created by this administration and the
complicity of this Congress.
Passing a rule to actually abdicate Congress' own oversight powers
when it comes to our Article I trade authority all the way through the
rest of this fiscal year is shameful.
Let's be honest. The longfin smelt didn't cause California's water
challenges. This resolution won't solve them. It won't improve drought
conditions. It won't help farmers one bit.
Yet, here we are, debating a symbolic resolution that is designed to
distract, deflect, and scapegoat rather than talking about and trying
to solve real problems affecting farmers and rural communities.
This isn't legislating. It is grievance politics.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first, I acknowledge and agree with my friends from
across the aisle. Mark Twain was correct. The more I learn about water,
the further west you go, the more it is for fighting. We can agree on
that.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to try to help them solve the issue about
parallel universes from an outsider's perspective. I would say that
most people who live in States that are east of California, maybe some
that are north and west of California, if you go to California, you
realize it is a very beautiful State, a very blessed State, wonderful
resources, beautiful beaches, beautiful forests, the most productive
farmland in the country, some of the most unique trees in the world,
wonderful weather, good fishing. Everything nice, it seems like
California has it.
I think we all love California, but we all realize somehow it is kind
of a different universe than the rest of the country that we live in.
Maybe they embrace that and like that, the good people of California.
When we look at this legislation, H.J. Res. 78, it is a serious
thing. The ESA listing in question was based on incomplete and bad
science and will further complicate the delivery of water in California
communities. It is already complicating the delivery of water.
Passing this resolution will further the priorities of President
Trump, who has signed two executive orders aimed at removing
unnecessary regulations that prevent water from being delivered to
southern California.
The current paradigm of having full reservoirs in California while
many farmers are only receiving half of the water they are supposed to
be getting is unacceptable, and it is unsustainable. It takes away the
myth that this is all due to drought conditions. It is not drought
conditions in California right now, yet farmers are still only getting
half the amount of water they were promised to get.
This resolution is cosponsored by the entire California Republican
delegation. I thank each Member for standing up for their constituents
and tirelessly fighting for additional water resources in the face of
Federal and State government overreach and radical decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.J. Res. 78 will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on:
Passage of H.J. Res. 88.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 195, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 113]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Costa
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Graves
Gray
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--195
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Correa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
[[Page H1786]]
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Boebert
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly
Crenshaw
DeGette
Frankel, Lois
Garcia (IL)
Gosar
Gottheimer
Hoyer
Mace
McGovern
Moore (WI)
Moulton
Norcross
Ruiz
Rutherford
Salazar
Simon
Swalwell
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1020
Messrs. HORSFORD, THOMPSON of California, FIGURES, and Ms. PEREZ
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________