[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24989-24997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2442, BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER 
                RECYCLING PROGRAM EXPANSION ACT OF 2009

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 830 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 830

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2442) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
     Study and Facilities Act to expand the Bay Area Regional 
     Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 830.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 830 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act 
of 2009.

                              {time}  1330

  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, controlled by the 
Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes two small changes 
clarifying the funding in the bill is subject to appropriations and 
making a purely technical correction to the section numbering in the 
bill. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Miller and Chairman 
Stark, as well as Representatives Eshoo, Honda, Woolsey, McNerney, 
Lofgren, Napolitano, and Speier, for their work on this bill and 
efforts to address the Bay Area waters' needs.
  I also commend Senators Feinstein and Boxer for introducing identical 
legislation in the Senate and their leadership on this issue.
  As the elected Representative from Sacramento, and as a farmer's 
daughter from the Central Valley, I understand that water is critical 
to our State's economy and our way of life. After 3 years of drought, 
pumping restrictions and lost jobs from the valley to the coast, there 
is no doubt that improving the capability of water recycling will help 
address these problems and lessen the burden on the bay-delta 
ecosystem.
  While recycling is not the only way to meet the Bay Area and 
California's water requirements, it must be part of our comprehensive 
solution. Effective water use will help keep California's agricultural 
water economy strong and the delta healthy, and ensure that the needs 
of northern California businesses, farmers and residents are not 
ignored.
  Under the Title 16 water recycling program, H.R. 2442, would 
authorize six additional water recycling projects for the Bay Area that 
would provide 7.2 million gallons of water daily and serve more than 
24,000 households. Collectively, these projects will save 2.6 billion 
gallons of water per year in the region, offering a new water supply of 
treated wastewater for industrial and irrigation use.
  Specifically, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion 
Act would authorize $38 million in Federal assistance under the 
Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation for the design, planning, 
and construction of these new water projects. It would also expand the 
authorization for two existing projects.
  H.R. 2442 would stipulate that the Federal share of the cost of the 
projects not exceed 25 percent of the total cost and bars the 
Department from funding operation or maintenance of the projects. It is 
important to note that this legislation has been endorsed by the 
Association of California Water Agencies, commonly called ACWA, which 
includes every major agricultural and urban water agency in the State 
and represents the largest coalition of public water agencies 
nationwide.
  Additionally, the WaterReuse Foundation, which serves more than 180 
public water agencies, cities and major engineering and technology 
firms, has urged that we move expeditiously on the bill. These groups 
understand that no one wins when these kinds of local projects are held 
hostage because of disputes over the operation of Federal water 
projects.
  We all know that there are some serious concerns about the water 
crisis in California. I was back home in my district over the weekend, 
Madam Speaker, and everyone at home was talking about a water deal 
trying to be negotiated by the legislature and the Governor.
  From local and State levels all the way here to Washington, there are 
a number of different ideas about how to address our water issues in 
California. Some of them I prefer more than others, and some of them 
are preferred more than others by my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle.
  But one thing is for sure: limiting our State's water supply by 
holding up recycling projects like those in this bill will not solve 
anything. In fact, it will only prolong our collective efforts to seek 
solutions to California's water problems.
  For these reasons, I strongly support the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Miller and the committee 
for their work on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the House considered, under suspension of the rules, 
H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act 
of 2009. But the bill failed to get the necessary two-thirds to pass.
  The reason that bill failed was not because Members objected to the 
substance of the legislation, but because the majority leadership 
brought forth the underlying legislation that provides water projects 
for the San Francisco area for consideration by the House while 
blocking the House from debating the desperate need for water in 
another part of California, the San Joaquin Valley.
  On numerous occasions, my colleague from California, Mr. Devin Nunes, 
has submitted amendments to the Rules Committee so that those 
amendments could be debated and voted on by the full House. His 
amendments would restrict the implementation of the December 15, 2008, 
biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
June 4, 2009, biological opinion issued by the National Marine 
Fisheries Service. However, the majority on the Rules Committee 
routinely

[[Page 24990]]

blocked consideration of the amendments, twice on the Interior 
appropriations bill and three times on the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill.
  The reason Mr. Nunes has so steadfastly sought to have the House 
debate the restriction on those two opinions is that they have diverted 
water from the San Joaquin Valley, practically turning that area into a 
dust bowl.
  Madam Speaker, why should Congress be concerned with what may look 
like a simple water issue? The valley is home to a $20 billion crop 
industry, and the region produces more in agricultural sales than any 
other State in the country. It can be argued that no agricultural area 
in the country is more productive and is, therefore, more important to 
our Nation's food security. If we continue to allow the diversion of 
water from the valley, food prices are going to increase; and we are 
also going to put our food security, national security in jeopardy.
  According to a recent University of California Davis study, the water 
reductions have led to revenue losses of over $2 billion, and this year 
will lead to 80,000 jobs lost. The area now has an unemployment rate of 
about 20 percent. Some of its communities have an unemployment rate of 
nearly 40 percent.
  Today, the majority comes to the floor with a rule that the House 
will once again consider the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program 
Expansion Act without giving the House the opportunity to consider 
amendments, including those proposed by Mr. Nunes. That is most 
unfortunate.
  It is time that the House be given the opportunity to debate the San 
Joaquin Valley water issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, a member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mrs. 
Napolitano.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Ms. Matsui.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2442, the Bay 
Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009. The bill 
has received extensive review and bipartisan approval from the 
Subcommittee of Water and Power and was reported on a bipartisan basis 
favorably from the Natural Resources Committee.
  I listened to my colleague, as I am also a Californian, I listened to 
my colleague on the other side, Mr. Diaz-Balart, talk about the 
billions of dollars. Yes, there is a great need of assistance to the 
Central Valley, but it's not all the San Joaquin.
  The fact that the dam is wanting to be pushed forth, I agree. We need 
additional storage, but right now you need immediate results and water 
recycling is one of the tools that you need.
  H.R. 2442 provides new water to the Bay Area in California. The 
recycling projects authorized will provide, as Ms. Matsui pointed out, 
2.6 billion gallons of water annually, enough to meet the needs of 
24,000 families. Why do we stand against water for other areas? All of 
us need additional water in California.
  Water is life. As we all are very well aware, the drought in 
California has taken a terrible toll on jobs all over the State, the 
economy and the environment of the Central Valley in California in 
particular. At a time when our Nation needs leadership and options to 
meet our water requirements, H.R. 2442 provides a tool to create more 
water for the Bay Area and, in the process, reduce the amount of water 
imported from the Sacramento and delta area.
  This bill, and the projects it authorizes, will immediately address 
California's water crisis through local action and provide economic 
relief through job creation. It will not solve California's water 
crisis, as Ms. Matsui pointed out. However, it does provide a valuable 
and important tool.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It does provide a valuable and important tool to 
stretch the existing water supply and address the critical water issues 
of our State. I urge strongly a ``yes'' vote and encourage all Members 
to support this legislation. Water for our Nation is critical for all 
of our citizens and we, as legislative leaders, have to provide for 
solutions.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. I thank my good friend from Florida.
  Madam Speaker, this water crisis has been created by the government. 
This bill that's on the floor today provides water for San Francisco. I 
would love for San Francisco to have water.
  But in the grand scheme of things, this is a 2-billion gallon 
project. We are losing 200 billion gallons out to the ocean because we 
simply won't let the pumps run at historical levels.
  This is a closed rule. It never should have been a closed rule, and 
we need to find out why is it that the majority keeps closing down 
these rules.

                              {time}  1345

  I think we may be getting close to the answer if we look back at a 
few things that were said a couple weeks ago at a public event at the 
Department of Interior. The distinguished chairman, who is the sponsor 
of the bill, the distinguished chairman of the Education Committee, 
took credit for the lawsuits that turned the pumps off. I was not quite 
sure which lawsuits he had brought forward, but he said, I don't think 
I have lost many lawsuits in court over the last 10 or 15 years.
  Now, I did some research. I wasn't sure what lawsuits the 
distinguished chairman had brought forward. So it made me believe, 
well, maybe there is some coordination going on between the left-wing 
radicals and the fringe environmental movement, and how is that being 
coordinated from this body. These are questions that we need to know 
about.
  So the shocking admission of coordination between the Democrats in 
the House and radical environmentalists deserves our attention, and I 
want to ask a few questions that I hope can be answered at some point 
by some committee in this Congress.
  The first is, how much money is going to fund these organizations? 
Several billion dollars have been paid out to these fringe 
environmental groups that continue to bring these lawsuits forward, 
taxpayer dollars funding shutting off water to people.
  Another question that needs to be answered: the bureaucrats at the 
government agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service, are 
they involved? Have these radical groups been coordinating with the 
scientists and biologists over at the National Marine Fisheries 
Service? Because nobody in their right mind would say that these pumps 
are resulting in the death of killer whales. It is not believable.
  Another question we need to figure out is the water czar that the 
Department of Interior has appointed, that President Obama has 
appointed, has been active with these special interests in the past at 
the highest levels. He has served on their boards, and he has given 
them money. Are there more people at Interior that are involved with 
these biologists that are coming up with these plans and helping these 
environmental groups bring these lawsuits that the taxpayers are paying 
for?
  This is a closed rule. It is a California water issue here, to 
provide water for San Francisco; yet we can't even debate or have an 
amendment to provide water to the bulk of California.
  So we need to get to the bottom of this. Hopefully we will turn down 
this rule, vote it down, so that we can allow the real issues to be 
debated.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just 
want to say that I know that my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle is upset because his amendment that was offered in the Rules 
Committee was not allowed on the floor. The fact is his amendment was 
not germane to the underlying bill and not related to water recycling.
  Blaming the Endangered Species Act by waiving it for 2 years to 
prevent implementation of certain biological

[[Page 24991]]

opinions will not put his constituents back to work. More importantly, 
such an initiative would not turn on the water pumps for the Central 
Valley.
  To address the drought--the real cause of the water shortage in the 
region and the State--we must work collectively toward a solution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. I thank my colleague.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2442, the rule that we are 
speaking on, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion 
Act of 2009. While this measure by Congressman Miller has merit, there 
are plenty of meritorious water projects and bills that we have 
repeatedly tried to bring to the floor to help those of us where the 
drought is most expansive in the San Joaquin Valley, and unfortunately, 
they have been ignored.
  Unfortunately, yesterday I learned that H.R. 2442 was reported out of 
the Rules Committee with a closed rule, and therefore, no amendments 
would be allowed. I oppose this rule because we need every opportunity 
to offer amendments and to vote on legislation that will bring water to 
our farmers, our farmworkers, our farm communities, and our valley in 
the middle of this drought crisis.
  My district is ground zero for this crisis. Towns from Mendota to 
Delano have 35 percent and more unemployment. There is no water, there 
is no jobs, there is no money for our farms and farmworkers to put food 
on their tables. Can you imagine what it would be like if you lived in 
a community where a third or more of your citizens had no jobs?
  In the 1990s, I was working with many of those water districts, 
farmers, and urban and environmental groups to pass legislation that 
would help fix California's broken water system. Unfortunately, we made 
little progress.
  We tried to establish a water ethos that we would all get healthy 
together again. Clearly, we are not getting healthy in the valley. Our 
valley agriculture provides half the Nation's fruits and vegetables, 
and they are withering and dying out. Millions of acre-feet of water 
have been diverted from the valley, and unfortunately, the fisheries 
are not improving.
  It is incumbent upon this body to come together and help us fix this 
problem. If we expect to get healthy again, we must secure a 
sustainable water supply for every region of California, and for 
Congressmen Cardoza, Radanovich and myself, that begins with the San 
Joaquin valley.
  Let us start anew. Let us start with leadership focusing on 
addressing California's water crisis in the valley and not shying away 
from this crisis.
  Congressman Cardoza agrees with my statement.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to my friend from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, I am a native Californian, born in Los Angeles. In fact, I 
am a fourth-generation Californian. My family was a Gold Rush family in 
1849. If you look back in the history of California for those 160 
years, it has always been about water, where there is water. Where we 
could get water in California there are jobs, there is growth, there is 
prosperity, there is opportunity. When we didn't bring water to places 
in California, we didn't have those things.
  So this debate we are having now is not new for our State, but it is 
important for our State, and I understand why my colleagues from the 
Bay Area want this recycling program. As has been mentioned, that is 
not really the issue here.
  As my colleague Mr. Miller and I have discussed, in Orange County, 
where I come from, we have some of the world's leading recycling 
programs. They work, they are effective, and we ought to do more of 
them in other places. But what we are talking about here is that there 
are other places where we need water in California.
  Now, I don't represent the Central Valley, but the Central Valley is 
the breadbasket of California, arguably of the country. There are jobs 
disappearing and there are businesses disappearing and there are farms 
disappearing, because of a man-made water crisis. It is not because of 
a drought. It is not because the water isn't available. It is because 
we won't turn on some pumps 12 months a year to provide the water to 
those farmers so they can grow food for us and for the world, to create 
jobs, and to feed Americans and generate export for our economy. The 
water provided by those pumps, 25 percent of the water in southern 
California and the L.A. area also comes from the Sacramento River Delta 
where those pumps come from.
  The travesty of this bill is not what is in it; it is what is not in 
it. And what could have been in it is the opportunity to turn on those 
pumps, which have been 12 months a year for over 50 years.
  It is not like this is a new idea or new environment. It is to get 
that water for San Francisco, and that is great. But let's get water 
for the Central Valley and the farmers in California, and let's get 
water for southern California as well. Let's not just deal with one 
part of the State. Let's deal with the whole State.
  So, Madam Speaker, I would ask that we reject this rule because of 
what it doesn't have. Let's give the Central Valley a chance. We need 
jobs. We need economic activity. Turn those pumps on. Turn this rule 
down.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I want to thank 
Ms. Matsui, Ms. Slaughter, and the entire Rules Committee for their 
support.
  Today's bill responds to a request for assistance from the State of 
California and local water managers to expand the supply of water in 
our drought-stricken State. It does no more than that. It is good for 
our economy. This bill will create thousands of jobs. It will reduce 
the stress on our oversubscribed fresh water system. This bill expands 
the water supply of six Bay Area communities, including my own 
congressional district.
  This bill authorizes additional water recycling through the 
successful Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI program. Title XVI allows 
local water managers to treat wastewater and use the clean recycled 
water for other purposes within their jurisdiction. This bill would add 
7.2 million gallons of water per day to California's water supply, 
enough water to meet the needs of 24,000 households.
  My bill is one of a series of water recycling bills that have been 
approved by the House this year and in recent years to expand the water 
supply in Republican and Democratic districts alike throughout the West 
and the Southwest. They have been passed without controversy, without 
amendment, without debate on the larger California water policy needs.
  This year alone the House has passed by voice vote and overwhelming 
majorities five local water bills the same as this legislation to 
provide for this recycling and this reuse. Why has the House done that? 
Because across the State of California, the water users in that State 
recognize the extent to which we can recycle and reuse water. We take 
immediate pressure off of the entire California water system, both the 
Federal system and the State system.
  This is an investment in which there is unanimity that it must be 
made. When you talk about doing this, you are talking about helping the 
Central Valley, because you release the pressure. When you do this, you 
are talking about helping the Delta.
  Clearly the cities, the agencies in southern California, believe this 
is important to their future. That is why the cities have put up the 
money to match the Federal effort. That is why my colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle have come forward and asked for this legislation. 
That is why they have been approved overwhelmingly on a unanimous 
bipartisan basis, because they are critical to the long-term water 
needs.
  You cannot help the Central Valley if you cannot relieve the stress 
on an

[[Page 24992]]

oversubscribed system. It is just that fact. The pumps are on. The 
pumps have been on for months. But what they would suggest you do is, 
you devastate the San Francisco Bay Area. We have already lost tens of 
thousands of jobs, from the fisheries, from the ice stores, from the 
gas stations, from the tourist businesses, from the loss of the salmon 
running from Monterey, the midcoast, all the way up to the Washington 
border. Those jobs have been impacted.
  This is not a good situation. That is why I said I haven't lost many 
lawsuits that I have supported. The point was to check your guns at the 
door and see if we could work together. And this has agreement--it has 
unanimous agreement of the water agencies across the State that this is 
helpful. This will make a difference. That is why they have supported 
all these projects.
  We can start to work together, water agencies that today are down at 
the Department of the Interior trying to see if we could get things 
done that the last administration prohibited the Bureau of Reclamation 
from doing, such as entering new fish screens within the Delta that we 
think will save 250,000 acre-feet of water. 250,000. Does that sound 
familiar in the valley?
  But the last administration would not let the Bureau of Reclamation 
take those projects, even though they would be paid for by State funds. 
That is the importance of this legislation. This is about whether or 
not we as a State come together from the Oregon border to the Mexican 
border and solve this problem across all of our needs, which is 
agriculture, which is business, which is municipal use of water.
  We have the potential to do that, and these pieces of legislation are 
critical. That is why, up until now, the House decided on a joint 
bipartisan basis that we would get these bills as fast as we can to the 
Senate and hopefully get action and get these projects underway, 
because the cities have already put up the money, the engineering is 
done, the projects are cleared. That is why many of them were eligible 
for stimulus money, because they are ready to go. They have been 
waiting to go. They have been waiting, in fact in many cases a number 
of years, because the administration wouldn't put up the money until 
the stimulus bill of this year.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my friend from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank my friend from Florida.
  As I listen to my colleague from California, I rise opposed to this 
rule. You cannot bring water to California when you bring another 
closed rule to the floor. You cannot bring debate to the floor when you 
don't allow amendments.
  Madam Speaker, the people of the Central Valley are being crushed 
with record unemployment from a man-made drought, from 14 percent to 
over 40 percent. Plain and simple, the majority that runs this House is 
failing to fix this problem. Jobs are being lost because the pumps were 
shut off.
  At a time of crisis, when there is no excuse for partisanship, some 
appear to be playing partisan games at the expense of people's 
livelihoods. Instead of coming together as Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents, the solution to get the water flowing sits behind post 
office bills and this bill that would recycle water for use in San 
Francisco Bay.
  I ask this simple question: why are we failing to take up a needed 
bill to turn the pumps on to get the water flowing again? This is not a 
liberal, conservative or moderate issue. This is a commonsense issue.
  Madam Speaker, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said the 
Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself. Well, the pumps are off, 
the pipes are dry, the land is no longer able to produce, and the soil 
is being destroyed. How do you bring water to California with a closed 
rule? How do you sit on this floor and say you are bringing all these 
bills up for water but you deny the valley, you deny the breadbasket 
and you deny the ability for the pumps to be turned on?
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind everyone here that 
earlier this year several other local water measures were resoundingly 
approved by the House. They include the South Orange County Recycled 
Water Enhancement Act, which was in Representative Calvert's district; 
the Lake Hodges Surface Water Improvement Act in Representative 
Bilbray's district; the Magna Water District Reuse and Groundwater 
Recharge Act in Representative Chaffetz' district of Utah; the 
Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling project in Representative 
Gallegly's district; the Hermiston water recycling and reuse project, 
Representative Walden of Oregon; the Tule River Tribe Water Development 
Act in Representative Nunes' district.
  Until it was caught up in partisanship, H.R. 2442 would have followed 
the same procedure. H.R. 2442 is no different than any of these bills. 
What is different is politics.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my friend from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I'm here standing in support of 
Congressman Nunes and the California delegation that has spoken against 
this rule and for water for the valley. And as I watched this debate 
unfold here on the floor, something about the depth of the emotion in 
the voice and in the eyes of Devin Nunes told me I needed to go see for 
myself, Mr. Speaker.
  So in late August, I went down to the Fresno area and traveled the 
valley--most of the valley, not all of the valley--and I looked at 
250,000 acres of man-made dust. And I know there are at least 600,000 
acres of man-made drought in that Central Valley area, and then I went 
up to San Francisco with a heavy heart. And I can tell you what I saw 
when I looked at that dust in the valley. I felt like that Indian in 
the commercial that saw his river full of junk and tires and the tear 
trickled down his cheek to think that man could do that to man. And 
they're watering the lawns in San Francisco while we have a man-made 
drought and they're taking out dead trees from orchards in California 
in the valley.
  I also led a codel to go look at the swamp Arabs in Iraq, and there, 
Saddam Hussein, years ago we'll know, decided that he didn't like the 
politics of the people in the south, the Shias in the south that lived 
in that swamp, and so he shut off and diverted the Tigris and Euphrates 
Rivers and shut off the water and dried out the swamp Arabs in the 
south. And I visited that area. It was a political decision and a man-
made drought for the swamp Arabs in Iraq, and we're quite proud that we 
sent our American military in to turn on that water and reflood that 
swamp and give them back the lifeblood of the people in southern Iraq 
on the delta area there.
  Here, we have the valley, and this is a battle going on between San 
Francisco, the urban areas in California, and the most productive area 
in the world. And I'm from Iowa and I'm saying this. The most dollars 
per acre produced out of the valley of anyplace in the world, and we 
have a man-made drought. We're watering lawns in San Francisco and 
diverting more water to San Franciscans, who didn't look to me like 
they were very dry, and throwing dust in the face of the hardworking 
people in the valley.
  I can't believe we can have a man-made tragedy of this magnitude and 
we're told, check your guns at the door. Check your guns at the door 
when the cards are dealt, and we have a closed rule that shuts off any 
debate other than on the rule itself, no amendments allowed, no vote 
being able to be forced. We can't shape policy in this Congress if it's 
being shaped up there in the hole in the wall.
  I want to bring that debate down to the floor. And if you at least 
have enough courage to ask for an open rule and allow some amendments 
so the Members of this Congress can weigh in, then the people of the 
country can weigh in and they can have their voice heard. We can turn 
on the water.

[[Page 24993]]

  This is not about the minnow you'll find and other species. It's 
about a fight over the water. But a man-made drought and 600,000 acres, 
40,000 jobs lost, shut off the water to the swamp Arabs, shut them off 
to the people down in the Central Valley. It is heartbreaking, Mr. 
Speaker, and this has got to stop. The voice of the people needs to be 
heard.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that five amendments were 
submitted to the Rules Committee for this bill. All five were 
nongermane. Not a single amendment would be allowed on this floor under 
an open rule.
  I reserve my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The Chair will remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and 
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or 
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to 
yield 5 minutes to my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose 
this rule. As a former member of the Rules Committee, and currently as 
the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I want to 
address several arguments that have been made that try to justify 
blocking amendments to provide relief for tens of thousands of 
suffering people suffering an economic disaster in the San Joaquin 
Valley as a result of a man-made and government-enforced drought.
  First, I want to specifically dispel the notion that allowing the 
House to vote on relief to these suffering communities wasn't possible 
because amendments were nongermane. Mr. Speaker, it is entirely within 
the power of the House Rules Committee to allow debate on any amendment 
that it wishes and, conversely, to shut down debate on any amendment 
they do not want to see discussed on the House floor. The Rules 
Committee does, can, and regularly does, waive the germaneness rule. It 
simply refused to do so on this matter because the Democrat leadership 
of this House doesn't wish to have this matter, this matter of the man-
made drought in the San Joaquin Valley, debated or discussed on the 
House floor. Any notion, any notion, Mr. Speaker, that they couldn't 
allow these amendments even 10 minutes of debate time followed by a 
vote is simply not true.
  So let's be clear about what we're debating here. The underlying bill 
relates to Federal water recycling projects in the San Francisco Bay 
Area of California. The amendments not made in order relate to Federal 
water supply and a man-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley in 
California. This is hardly a case of mixing apples and oranges. The 
truth is that the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose to hand a 
shiny red apple to the San Francisco Bay Area and give a giant 
raspberry to the people in the San Joaquin Valley.
  The other argument I wish to address and dispel is that the drought 
in California is an issue only for those in California to resolve. Mr. 
Speaker, if this House can debate and vote on a bill to provide 
millions of taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer dollars, for water 
projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, then this House can certainly 
debate and vote on providing relief to farmers and farmworkers that are 
denied Federal water by Federal lawsuits and Federal policies, again, 
in the San Joaquin Valley of California. This isn't a case of having 
your cake and eat it, too. It's a matter of water for San Francisco and 
none for the San Joaquin Valley.
  Lastly, to the argument this is a California issue for Californians 
to resolve, I will note that the votes in the Rules Committee to block 
the amendments from being heard were by a margin of six ``no'' and five 
``yes.'' All four Republicans voted to allow the amendments to be heard 
on the floor, as did Mr. Cardoza from California, and a Democrat, but 
not one single one of Mr. Cardoza's Democrat colleagues joined him. We 
were told this is a California matter, and yet relief for the San 
Joaquin Valley is denied because of the votes of Democrats on the Rules 
Committee from New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Maine, and Colorado, 
who all voted ``no'' to block discussion of these amendments on the 
House floor.
  The arguments of germaneness and it's a California only matter are 
simply excuses being used to try to hide the fact that the Democrat 
leaders who control this House don't want to allow a vote on solutions 
and provide relief to the tens of thousands of people suffering in the 
San Joaquin Valley.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unfair rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we are in a drought. We are in a drought. 
That's a fact. And this legislation will help ensure that future 
droughts in California will have less of a damaging impact. When water 
is used more efficiently, droughts like the one we are currently 
experiencing become less severe because we have built in defense 
mechanisms.
  We know that the drought, and not the Endangered Species Act or House 
leadership, is the real reason why so many individuals are suffering in 
California's Central Valley. In fact, according to Ron Milligan, the 
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operations manager for the Central Valley 
Project, the average delta water exports prior to 2008 were 5.7 million 
acre-feet. In 2009, the export fell to 3.6 million acre-feet. Of the 
2.1 million acre-foot shortfall, 1.6 million is due to the drought. 
Only 500,000 of the decreased results are from the delta smelt ruling.
  If anything, our colleagues who represent that part of the State 
should support H.R. 2442 as a means of fighting against the drought. 
They should also support it as a way to increase the amount of water 
available statewide for local agencies to access.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minute to my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that this bill will apparently 
benefit people in the San Francisco Bay Area with water. As I 
understand it, I think we have some leadership on the majority side 
that is from that area. And that's wonderful that they'll benefit with 
water, but it is deeply troubling to hear people come to this floor and 
start trying to blame the past administration for water problems in 
California.
  At what point are people going to acknowledge, you know what? The 
Democratic majority, we're in the majority as Democrats. We took 
control over 2\1/2\ years ago, and we're responsible here. We have had 
an opportunity to do something about this for over 2 years, and we have 
not done anything because the majority leadership has chosen not to do 
anything.
  My friend Devin Nunes recruited me over 2 years ago. He had me look 
at this, and I saw how the smelt were being protected, and that's fine. 
But the smelt, the 2-inch minnow, while people are starving, the land 
is starving, the people are starving, they're losing their jobs.
  When Devin brought this to my attention, it smelt badly back then. It 
smelt badly a year ago. It's smelt badly all this year, and now, my 
friends, it stinks. It's time to have open rules that allow us to bring 
water to everyone who needs it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that further investing in 
water recycling is sound public policy. This bill would allow the Bay 
Area to reuse water. This legislation would not mandate additional 
water transfers or adversely affect California's Central Valley in any 
way. H.R. 2442 is a proactive step taken by our delegation to address 
California's water situation in a positive way.
  I'd like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on the rule.
  I was sitting here waiting to speak on the underlying legislation 
after the rule is passed because I think it is an important ingredient 
towards dealing with a serious problem in California

[[Page 24994]]

that affects us all, but I am compelled to come to the floor to support 
briefly the rule that is brought before us.
  My friend from the other side of the aisle from Texas recently asked, 
wonders at what point the majority stops blaming the Bush 
administration. I would hope that at some point the minority looks at a 
lost decade of Republican stranglehold on reasonable environmental 
policy, not just for California, but throughout the West, that actually 
set us back. We're playing catch-up now on things that we should have 
done for years in water infrastructure and water policy.

                              {time}  1415

  Second, the notion that somehow we are wasting water because it flows 
into the delta and on into the Pacific Ocean, I will tell you, my 
fishermen in the Pacific Northwest don't think that is a waste. They 
don't think the smelt--which is a proxy for a collapsing ecosystem that 
is posing problems throughout the Pacific Northwest on historic 
fisheries and speaking to other environmental problems--is not a waste.
  I find it amusing to hear some people come to the floor and talk 
about a man-made, government-made drought. For heaven sakes, look at 
what's happening to the water levels; look at the areas there where 
they don't even monitor what is happening with groundwater to keep 
careful control. The California legislature just tied itself into knots 
unable to advance sensible water policies.
  There is a governmental failure all right, a governmental failure 
that at the Federal Government, the State government, and the local 
government we haven't dealt meaningfully with these conflicts. Instead 
we have treated farmers, fishermen, the environment and local 
communities that rely on these sources, we have treated them shabbily. 
Well, now with the climate change and persistent drought and the fact 
that some people aren't going to sit back and take it anymore, it's 
coming home to roost.
  I hope that there is a more spirited and robust discussion about the 
reality. I hope California gets its act together on a State level.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. And I hope that the Federal Government makes up for 
that lost decade.
  We are in a situation now where water is the precious resource for 
going forward, and what we're seeing here is a blip on the radar screen 
that is going to be affecting each and every State across the country. 
We better stop pretending that this drought is somehow government 
caused. We need to get our act together, get policies in place, protect 
the environment, be rational and be fair.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. I thank my friend from Florida.
  I just want to make sure that we set the record straight on this 
salmon fishing issue. A lot of people are probably watching out there 
and wondering, well, are these salmon fishermen really out of work? The 
truth is that the salmon fishermen can still fish; they just can't fish 
for salmon. And that is because the government--us, this body--and 
others told the fishermen that they cannot fish for salmon. Every other 
country in the world can fish for salmon, just us.
  So not only are we not allowing the salmon fishermen to fish, we are 
also paying them not to fish; several hundred million dollars we have 
given the salmon fishermen so that they will not fish for salmon. 
Meanwhile, we have 40,000 people that are without work, and they get 
nothing.
  So there is no correlation between these pumps that have run for 50 
years and salmon fishermen not fishing, except for this: the government 
says, salmon fishermen, you can't fish for salmon. The government also 
says, keep the pumps shut off so that people in the San Joaquin Valley 
don't have any water and can't grow any crops to provide Americans 
food. So this whole argument about the poor salmon fishermen is 
complete fiction.
  I would like to know where my colleagues were--some of them who were 
in this body--in the 1980s when they ran every Portuguese American 
fisherman out of the San Diego area. There were several thousand mostly 
Portuguese fishermen, and nobody came to their aid. They fished for 
tuna. All those jobs were lost to foreign countries. And now all of a 
sudden we're here and we're worried about salmon fishermen? Bogus, 
absolutely bogus. Shameful on this body.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 
issue that's been debated, one thing continues to come to mind: the 
merits of this issue, this water issue of such importance to people in 
the San Joaquin Valley in California, have been debated during this 
rule debate because there is no other option.
  The substantive legislation, two amendments that Mr. Nunes came to 
the Rules Committee and asked to be authorized for debate by the House, 
they were denied; they were not made in order. So there is no other 
option but during the time when we are debating the rule, the terms of 
debate for an underlying bill that will subsequently be debated, this 
is the only time when Mr. Nunes and the others who know this issue so 
intimately and feel it, appropriately, so passionately in 
representation of their constituents, it's the only opportunity that 
they have to be able to bring out the issue, to educate us. And it's a 
shame because the Congress as a whole, the House as a whole, should be 
able to debate this issue and consider it and decide it.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have 
written and called many of us and made their opinions known at meetings 
asking us whether we pledge to read bills before we vote on them. The 
reason is that many people were outraged when they found out that the 
majority leadership forced the Congress to vote on a number of sweeping 
and very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or 
even to read the bills.
  For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus 
bill and on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on a cap-and-trade 
bill. I remember that one was presented to us at three in the morning 
in the Rules Committee, and a few hours after that we had it here on 
the floor. All those bills were passed without Members being able to 
read them, having time to do so. That's no way to run the House, and so 
our constituents are rightfully upset.
  You would think that this issue of sufficient time to read 
legislation should not be controversial. The distinguished Speaker 
stated, and I quote, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine 
bills and conference reports before floor consideration,'' and yet that 
has not been the case time after time after time.
  So 182 Members have signed a discharge petition at the front desk 
that would require all legislation to be available to Members of 
Congress for at least 72 hours before the legislation is brought to the 
House floor for a vote.
  So, accordingly, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so we can amend the rule and allow the House to consider that 
legislation, House Resolution 554, a bipartisan bill by my friends and 
colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson.
  Now, with regard to any Members being concerned that that may 
jeopardize consideration of the underlying legislation, I want to make 
it clear that this motion provides for separate consideration of the 
Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can vote on this 
underlying legislation, the water bill, and then once we're done, 
consider House Resolution 554.
  Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

[[Page 24995]]

  The rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to make a 
strong Federal commitment to sustaining California's economy, water 
supply, and our environment.
  This bill was reported unanimously by the National Resources 
Committee on September 29. It was voted under suspension on September 
30. It was introduced in May. There has been ample time for the 
minority to review this legislation. Now is the time to act on it.
  The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act would 
lessen the limited demand for fresh water by the region and the State. 
It is critical that we avoid partisan debate and disagreements over 
water issues and pass this legislation.
  Moreover, the House has already expedited similar measures for a 
bipartisan collection of congressional districts across California. The 
south Orange County recycling project was passed in February in Mr. 
Calvert's district. The Lake Hodges Surface Water improvements was 
passed in April in Mr. Bilbray's district. The Calleguas Municipal 
Water District recycling initiative was approved in September for Mr. 
Gallegly. The Magna Water District Reuse proposal in Utah was passed 
for Mr. Chaffetz's district. The Hermiston water recycling and reuse 
project in Oregon was passed for Mr. Walden's district. And the Tule 
River Water Development Act was passed by a vote of 417-3 in July for 
Mr. Nunes' district.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that local water projects typically have 
bipartisan support here in the House of Representatives. I am 
disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have set 
aside that tradition, forcing us to bring this rule to the floor today.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

          Amendment to H. Res. 830 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        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 Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       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 Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART 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 237, 
nays 178, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 786]

                               YEAS--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud

[[Page 24996]]


     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Boyd
     Cao
     Carney
     Cleaver
     Deal (GA)
     Emerson
     Hall (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kind
     McCollum
     Melancon
     Mollohan
     Radanovich
     Scalise
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters

                              {time}  1453

  Messrs. CHILDERS and GOODLATTE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. TANNER and WELCH 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.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 193, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 787]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--193

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Boyd
     Cao
     Carney
     Cleaver
     Deal (GA)
     Emerson
     Hall (TX)
     Herger
     Johnson (GA)

[[Page 24997]]


     McCollum
     Melancon
     Mollohan
     Olver
     Radanovich
     Scalise
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters

                              {time}  1501

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California and Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________