[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2545-2580]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY EMERGENCY WATER DELIVERY ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3964.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 472 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3964.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over 
the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1454


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3964) to address certain water-related concerns in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the House today is considering H.R. 3964, the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.
  Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent 
on irrigated water to support our local economic and agriculture 
industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable 
water supply, and I also understand the economic devastation that is 
caused when the water supply is

[[Page 2546]]

shut off, particularly when the shutoff is avoidable.
  California is facing an emergency situation. For years, San Joaquin 
Valley farmers have been fighting against Federal regulations and 
environmental lawsuits that have diverted water supplies in order to 
help a 3-inch fish. In 2009, there was a deliberate diversion of over 
300 billion--that is ``billion,'' Mr. Chairman--gallons of water away 
from farmers. As a result, thousands of farmworkers lost their jobs, 
unemployment in some areas reached 40 percent, and thousands of acres 
of fertile farmland simply dried up.
  As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have traveled 
to Fresno, California, and seen the effects of natural and manmade 
drought firsthand. We have held multiple hearings and heard the pleas 
of communities that simply want the water turned back on and their 
livelihood restored.
  We have seen farmers, Mr. Chairman, who normally help feed the Nation 
being sent to wait in line at food banks and, in some cases, being 
served carrots that are normally grown in this area that are from 
China.
  That is why, last Congress, the House of Representatives passed 
bipartisan legislation to restore the flow of water to avoid future 
droughts. In fact, the Senate did not take up a single water bill in 
this last Congress, even after we had passed our legislation.
  So, once again, we are back here on the floor of the House with 
legislation to help California communities once again facing water 
shutoffs. But now, Mr. Chairman, the situation is much more dire.
  The lack of rainfall has exacerbated the manmade drought, and last 
month, the California Governor declared a state of emergency. A manmade 
drought coupled with a natural drought equals disaster and requires 
immediate action. Of course, these conditions could have been partially 
avoided if only the Senate had acted on the House-passed legislation 
last year.
  This comprehensive solution before us today, almost identical to what 
the House passed the last Congress, would restore some water deliveries 
that will be cut off due to Federal regulations and environmental 
lawsuits, ensure a reliable water source for people and fish, secure 
water rights, and save taxpayer money by ending unnecessary and dubious 
government projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that this crisis does not just impact 
California, but it has rippling effects across the entire Nation. 
California's San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl for the world and 
provides a significant share of the fruits and vegetables for our 
country.
  Food grows where water flows. When there is no water, our food supply 
suffers, resulting in higher food prices across the country and 
increased reliance on foreign food sources.
  This bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to 
end future manmade droughts, and to protect the jobs and economic 
livelihoods of farm families and their workers.
  The people of the San Joaquin Valley cannot wait any longer, Mr. 
Chairman, for Congress to act. As the title of this bill suggests, it 
is truly an emergency for many, and time is running out. I sincerely 
hope that, unlike the last Congress, our Senate colleagues will take up 
this bill or propose a meaningful alternative to it, then we can come 
together and figure out where we disagree and then agree on a final 
package. These communities facing massive unemployment deserve nothing 
less.
  This bill is supported, Mr. Chairman, by the entire Republican 
California delegation, and I commend my colleagues from California for 
their hard work in getting this bill to the floor today. So I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would invite my colleague to visit southern 
California to check with the rest of California on how we are handling 
the drought.
  Ninety-eight percent of California, as shown by this map, is in 
drought. We are entering the third year of drought, the driest on 
record in California.
  This bill, H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency 
Water Delivery Act, targets California's Central Valley only and was 
introduced 1 week ago with no hearing, no markup, no conversation, 
nothing, a partisan bill, introduced only by California Republicans, 
with no meaningful conversation or cooperation with the rest of the 
California Members, who are all facing similar drought impacts. It is 
similar to H.R. 1837 from 2011 in the last Congress, and it died in the 
Senate, as was pointed out.
  According to the California Department of Water Resources, the 
snowpack in the Sierras, the largest reservoir in the Central Valley 
Project System, was 6 percent of normal. Last week, the National 
Drought Monitor found that 98 percent of the State is experiencing 
moderate to severe drought--so dry in California that in the first 18 
days of January, the State saw 289 fires that burned 721 acres, 
including the Colby fire partly in my district.
  The State has hired nearly 100 more firefighters and used a super 
water scooper airplane, at a time when California should be 
experiencing its wettest month.
  California Natural Resources Secretary Laird said it best in a 
letter: ``This bill falsely holds the promise of water relief that 
cannot be delivered because, in this drought, the water simply does not 
exist.''
  This legislation, instead, reallocates water in a way that 
erroneously elevates junior water rights uses above all other water 
needs, including municipal, fisheries and environmental uses.
  It repeals existing State law for water use in California, 
establishing a very harmful precedent for other States. It repeals 
sections 104, 107, 108, 110, 204, and 401 that explicitly waive State 
law or reclamation law. It repeals historic California water rights and 
decades of carefully balanced water compromises. It undermines 
California and other States' abilities to manage its own resources. It 
overturns nearly 20 years of environmental and conservation protections 
under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, CVPIA, and the 
Endangered Species Act, and ignores the best available science 
demonstrating the negative effects on species. We are, in fact, a 
species too, the human species.
  It repeals the Federal and State agreement on the court-ordered San 
Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act. It prohibits Federal or State 
governments from exercising valid water rights in order to conserve, 
enhance, recover, or otherwise protect any species that is affected by 
operations of the CVP or State Water Project. It also reallocates water 
for junior water rights holders in the Central Valley and ignores the 
needs of southern California and other water users while privatizing a 
public resource for a select few.
  It does not--I repeat--does not create any new water to solve the 
drought. It completely eliminates the coequal goal of protecting the 
environment and allowing water deliveries. It eliminates that coequal 
code. It puts jobs at risk, not only for fishermen but also the 
economy. It would revert contract renewal terms to 40 years instead of 
the current 25.
  Mr. Chairman, the severity of this legislation benefits a very small 
group. It does not benefit all of drought-impacted California. It needs 
the cooperation of a bipartisan solution for all of the State, 
including southern California.
  Water bonds in the past have favored northern California. The levee 
funding favored the Bay Delta, and H.R. 3964 favors Central Valley 
farmers only.
  Southern California wants and needs to be included in a dialogue and 
be part of the solution. We are currently in dialogue with the Senators 
on a drought bill.
  Title XVI, which is recycled water, WaterSMART, Republicans have been 
stonewalling ideas. They are not allowing bills to be given the 
courtesy of a hearing in the subcommittee or full committee.

[[Page 2547]]

  The Bureau of Reclamation is working with WaterSMART project funding 
of only $27.5 million and water recycling project funding, Title XVI, 
of $21.5 million, with a backlog of $400 million in congressionally 
approved projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit letters in opposition: from the White 
House, a statement and a veto threat; from the Governor of California, 
Governor Brown; from the California Department of Natural Resources 
Secretary John Laird; from California Attorney General Kamala Harris; 
and from 34 diverse California environmental groups.
  The Western States Water Council indicates their opposition has not 
changed to the provisions that preempt states' rights. The bill will 
just create more litigation over water and not solve anything. We need 
to work on a bipartisan basis on putting that forth. H.R. 3964 is not 
such an attempt. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3964.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                 February 3, 2014.
     Re Opposition to H.R. 3964.

     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative DeFazio: California is 
     currently experiencing the worst water crisis in our modern 
     history. We are in our third consecutive year of extremely 
     dry weather, and our most recent snow survey found that the 
     Sierra snowpack--a source of water supply for 25 million 
     Californians--is 12 percent of the normal average, the lowest 
     ever recorded. Since declaring a drought state of emergency 
     on January 17th, state agencies have been working closely 
     with federal, local, and municipal agencies and others, to 
     respond quickly. We have taken unprecedented actions to deal 
     with the crisis, including allocating zero water deliveries 
     to water contractors from the State Water Project for the 
     first time in the project's history. Last week, California 
     also released a comprehensive plan for future water 
     management, including storage, conservation, recycling, water 
     transfers and other actions.
       H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into 
     California's efforts to manage this severe crisis. It would 
     override state laws and protections, and mandate that certain 
     water interests come out ahead of others. It falsely suggests 
     the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible 
     given the scarcity of water supplies. H.R. 3964 would 
     interfere with our ability to respond effectively and 
     flexibly to the current emergency, and would re-open old 
     water wounds undermining years of progress toward reaching a 
     collaborative long-term solution to our water needs.
       I urge you to oppose H.R. 3964.
           Sincerely,
     Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
                                  ____

                                              State of California,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                                 February 4, 2014.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House Minority Leader, Washington, DC.
       Dear House Speaker Boehner and House Minority Leader 
     Pelosi: I am writing to express my opposition to H.R. 3964, 
     the Sacramento San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery 
     Act. Like its 2012 predecessor, H.R. 1873, H.R. 3964 would 
     abrogate long-standing provisions of California law designed 
     to protect the State's natural resources and violate settled 
     constitutional principles of state sovereignty. Furthermore, 
     the legislation would imperil the State's traditional 
     authority to manage its natural resources without providing 
     any meaningful emergency drought relief for the people of 
     California.
       After two dry years, Californians are facing potentially 
     the driest year in the State's history. The Sierra Nevada 
     snow pack is 12 percent of normal. Storage levels at Shasta, 
     Folsom, and Oroville reservoirs are below the 1977 drought 
     levels. The California State Water Resources Control Board 
     (SWRCB) and the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) have 
     responded to this drought emergency by agreeing to relax 
     certain water quality standards to ensure that the federal 
     Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project 
     (SWP) can meet health and human safety requirements and can 
     reasonably protect all beneficial uses of water.
       Notwithstanding the prompt and laudable efforts of 
     California's natural resources agencies to address the 
     drought emergency, H.R. 3964 would remove key water resources 
     management powers from these agencies. The legislation would 
     transgress the principles of state sovereignty in at least 
     three important respects. First, the legislation would 
     mandate that the CVP and the SWP operate to fixed water 
     quality standards for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
     developed almost twenty years ago, and would preclude state 
     authorities from altering such standards. Second, the 
     legislation would prohibit the SWRCB and the DFW from 
     exercising their state law responsibilities to protect 
     fishery resources and public trust values, not only as to CVP 
     and SWP operations, but as to all holders of appropriative 
     water rights in California. Third, the legislation would 
     overturn settled principles of cooperative federalism by 
     vacating the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act and 
     banning the application of State fishery protections to the 
     San Joaquin River operations of the Friant Unit of the CVP.
       These proposed constraints on California's ability to 
     manage its natural resources contravene long-standing 
     principles of western water law. In California v. United 
     States (1978) 438 U.S. 645, 653 the U.S. Supreme Court 
     affirmed California's ability to impose state law terms and 
     conditions on federal reclamation projects, and declared 
     that, ``[t]he history of the relationship between the Federal 
     government and the States in the reclamation of the arid 
     lands of the Western States is both long and involved, but 
     though it runs the consistent thread of purposeful and 
     continued deference to state water law by Congress.''
       California law grants the SWRCB the continuing authority to 
     review and reconsider all water rights for the purpose of 
     determining whether their exercise would violate the 
     reasonable use requirement of Article X, Section 2 of the 
     California constitution and California's common law doctrine 
     of the public trust. According to the California Supreme 
     Court, ``[t]he state has an affirmative duty to take the 
     public trust into account in the planning and allocation of 
     water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever 
     feasible.'' (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court 
     (1983) 33 Ca1.3d 419, 446.) The California Legislature has 
     expressly adopted these principles as ``the foundation of 
     state water management policy.'' (Cal. Wat. Code, 
     Sec. 85023.) By abrogating the State's ability to apply these 
     principles to water users, H.R. 3964 contravenes the long-
     standing history of deference to state water law.
       Moreover, H.R. 3964 takes these steps in violation of 
     settled constitutional principles of state sovereignty. 
     Relying upon separation of powers principles set forth in the 
     Tenth Amendment and elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution, the 
     U.S. Supreme Court in New York v. United States has held that 
     ``congress may not simply `commandee[r] the legislative 
     processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact 
     and enforce a federal regulatory program.'' (New York v. 
     United States (1992) 505 U.S. 144, 161, citing Hodel v. 
     Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. (1981) 452 
     U.S. 263, 288.) In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme 
     Court expanded its ruling in New York and declared that 
     ``[t]oday we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that 
     prohibition by conscripting the States' officers directly.'' 
     (Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 935.) According 
     to the court, the constitutional system of dual sovereignty 
     demands that ``[t]he Federal Government may neither issue 
     directives requiring the States to address particular 
     problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their 
     political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal 
     regulatory program.'' (Id.)
       By compelling the SWP, a state funded and managed water 
     project, to operate based upon congressionally mandated Delta 
     water quality standards, rather than allowing California to 
     develop standards that reflect the most recent scientific 
     information regarding the Delta, H.R. 3964 violates the U.S. 
     Supreme Court's state sovereignty principles. By prohibiting 
     the SWRCB, the DFW or other state agencies from taking action 
     to protect fishery and public trust values other than those 
     mandated by Congress, the legislation further violates these 
     state sovereignty principles. Congressional passage of H.R. 
     3964 would have, in effect, unconstitutionally ``dragooned'' 
     state officers ``into administering federal law.'' (Id at p. 
     928.)
       I urge you to reject H.R. 3964. Consistent with the 
     principles of state sovereignty, California's natural 
     resource agencies have timely and responsibly taken measures 
     to address the present drought emergency within the context 
     of California law. It is important that the present legal 
     framework of dual sovereignty for water resources issues be 
     strengthened and preserved, rather than dismantled.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kamala D. Harris,
                                                 Attorney General.

[[Page 2548]]

     
                                  ____
                                                California Natural


                                             Resources Agency,

                                                 January 30, 2014.
     Re Opposition to H.R. 3964.

     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio and Members 
     of the Committee: California is experiencing the worst water 
     crisis in our modern history. We are in our third consecutive 
     year of below normal precipitation and, this year's 
     snowpack--on which 25 million Californians depend as the 
     source of their water supply--currently is only 10 percent of 
     what it should be. In Sacramento and Redding, we have broken 
     all records for consecutive dry days in the middle of the 
     rainy season. The California Department of Public Health 
     reports that 17 communities across the state are at risk of 
     running out of drinking water within 60-120 days. Just days 
     ago, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife announced 
     the closure of several fisheries and CAL FIRE has already 
     responded to over 400 fires in the month of January, a 
     startling fact when you consider they responded to zero 
     during the same time last year. As you know, California's 
     climate is such that it is generally dry for almost half the 
     year--and we rely on rain and snow during the winter season 
     to carry us through the year. Conditions--in terms of both 
     water supply and water quality--are unprecedented and 
     serious. Simply put, we face the driest year on record, after 
     two dry years, which is why Governor Brown proclaimed a 
     drought State of Emergency on January 17, 2014.
       California is a huge state, in which its 38 million 
     residents depend on a large and unique series of dams, 
     canals, and waterways administered by hundreds of different 
     water agencies. It is a complex system--and legislation that 
     alters it in favor of some interests over others in a 
     different part of the state, in the middle of this great 
     water emergency when water managers have tried to plan and 
     act on current realities--is not helpful.
       I write today to express California's strong opposition to 
     H.R. 3964, which seeks to undermine California's own ability 
     to address serious water challenges and to erase years of 
     progress toward a collaborative long-solution to address our 
     long-term water needs. The bill falsely holds the promise of 
     water relief that cannot be delivered because in this 
     drought, the water simply does not exist. It would be much 
     more prudent to help educate California residents and members 
     of Congress how dire this situation is, and that we must work 
     together on the limited items that might be helpful in such 
     an emergency situation.
       The state of California is also focused on finding long-
     term solutions that unite us during this challenging time. 
     State law, enacted in 2009, requires us to achieve the co-
     equal goals of both water supply reliability and ecosystem 
     restoration through the use of sound science. In fact, 
     earlier this week the state finalized an action plan on 
     storage, conservation, recycling, water transfers, and all 
     actions that we can take to make California's water system 
     more robust. We ask for your help in those constructive, 
     long-term efforts--where we are trying to bring people 
     together around solutions.
       The choices we face in this drought are extraordinary. 
     Rarely are we forced to simultaneously confront water 
     allocations this critically low, Delta salinity conditions 
     this uniquely challenging, and the difficulty of moving water 
     around the state due to low reservoir levels.
       For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 3964 
     and instead ask Congress to join us in supporting consensus-
     based water solutions that are truly responsive to 
     California's drought and long-term water needs.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Laird,
     Secretary for Natural Resources.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                 February 5, 2014. Washington, DC.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 3964--Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act

            (Rep. Valadao, R-California, and 14 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3964, the 
     Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act, 
     because it would not alleviate the effects of California's 
     current drought and would disrupt decades of work that 
     supports building consensus, solutions, and settlements that 
     equitably address some of California's most complex water 
     challenges. California is experiencing severe drought 
     conditions and low reservoir storage. The urgency and 
     seriousness of the situation requires a balanced approach 
     that promotes water reliability and ecosystem restoration.
       Specifically, H.R. 3964 would undermine years of 
     collaboration between local, State, and Federal stakeholders 
     to develop a sound water quality control plan for the Bay-
     Delta. And, contrary to current and past Federal reclamation 
     law that defers to State water law, the bill would preempt 
     California water law. Moreover, much of what the bill 
     purports to do could be accomplished through flexibilities in 
     existing law.
       The bill also would reject the long-standing principle that 
     beneficiaries should pay both the cost of developing water 
     supplies and of mitigating resulting development impacts, and 
     would exacerbate current water shortages by repealing water 
     pricing reforms that provide incentives for contractors to 
     conserve water supplies.
       Finally, H.R. 3964 would repeal the San Joaquin River 
     Settlement Agreement, which the Congress enacted to resolve 
     18 years of contentious litigation. Full repeal of the 
     settlement agreement would likely result in the resumption of 
     costly litigation, creating an uncertain future for river 
     restoration and water delivery operations for water users on 
     the San Joaquin River.
       Californians are facing significant drought-related 
     challenges. This is why the President has directed the 
     Federal agencies to work together to help California and 
     other impacted States prepare for and lessen the impact of 
     the drought. Further, it is why the Administration strongly 
     supports efforts to provide a more reliable water supply for 
     California and to protect, restore, and enhance the overall 
     quality of the Bay-Delta environment. The Administration has 
     taken great strides toward achieving these goals through a 
     coordinated Federal Action Plan, which has strengthened 
     collaboration between Federal agencies and the State of 
     California while achieving results. Unfortunately, H.R. 3964 
     would undermine these efforts and the progress that has been 
     made.
       The Administration looks forward to working with Congress 
     on legislation to address the drought in California and 
     supports efforts that provide water supplies consistent with 
     existing law in the most expeditious manner to address the 
     conditions. These efforts would include reauthorization of 
     the CALFED Bay-Delta Act, the Secure Water Act, and 
     Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act.
       For these reasons, if the President were presented with 
     H.R. 3964, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto 
     the bill.

    34 Californian Environmental Groups Against H.R. 3964--2-Feb-14

       AquAlliance, Butte Environmental Council, CA Save Our 
     Streams Council, California Coastkeeper Alliance, California 
     Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California Sportfishing 
     Protection Alliance, California Striped Bass Association, 
     California Water Impact Network, Center for Biological 
     Diversity, Citizens Water Watch of Northern California, Clean 
     Water Action, Desal Response Group, Earth Law Center, 
     Environmental Justice--Coalition For Water, Epic Wild 
     California, Food & Water Watch, Foothill Conservancy, Friends 
     of the River.
       Greatest of the Karuk Tribe, Institute for Fisheries and 
     Resources, Klamath Riverkeeper, Klower Sherman Island Duck 
     Hunters Association, Northern California Council Federation 
     of Fly Fishers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's 
     Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the 
     Delta, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, Santa Clarita 
     Organization for Planning and the Environment, Sierra Club 
     California, Sierra Nevada Alliance, Southern California 
     Watershed Alliance, The Fish Sniffer, Tuolumne River Trust, 
     Winnemem Wintu Tribe--Middle River People.
                                  ____


  Testimony of Anthony Willardson, Executive Director,Western States 
         Water Council, Before the House Committee on Natural 
               Resources,Subcommittee on Water and Power

    Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1837--The San Joaquin Valley Water 
                     Reliability Act,June 13, 2010


                              Introduction

       Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is 
     Tony Willardson and I am the Executive Director of the 
     Western States Water Council (WSWC). Our members are 
     appointed by the Governors of eighteen western states. We are 
     a nonpartisan government entity serving as an advisory body 
     on water policy issues, and are very closely affiliated with 
     the Western Governors' Association (WGA). We appreciate the 
     opportunity to testify.
       Since H.R. 1837 was only recently introduced, the Council 
     has not had an opportunity to adopt a specifically position 
     on the legislation. However, I will address general 
     principles related to federal-state relations that are useful 
     in evaluating specific legislation--including H.R. 1837--and 
     other actions addressing the serious water-related challenges 
     facing the West and the Nation. During the Council's regular 
     meetings next month, we will have an opportunity to more 
     fully consider H.R. 1837 and will share any further comments 
     thereafter.
       My testimony today is based specifically on a July 2010 
     Council policy position entitled, ``A Shared Vision for Water 
     Planning and Policy,'' as well as a June 2006 WGA Water 
     Report entitled, Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable 
     Future, the 2008 WGA ``Next Steps'' Water Report, and ongoing 
     policy discussions. Our 2010 position and the WGA Water 
     Reports include a number of

[[Page 2549]]

     policy statements and recommendations related to federal 
     programs and projects under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, 
     and which we would hope would be carefully considered as you 
     evaluate H.R. 1837.
       With regard to provisions related to preemption of state 
     law, the last paragraph of the Council's position related to 
     A Shared Vision for Water Planning and Policy, states: ``. . 
     . Nothing in any act of Congress should be construed as 
     affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere 
     with the laws of the respective States relating to: (a) water 
     or watershed planning; (b) the control, appropriation, use, 
     or distribution of water used in irrigation or for municipal 
     or any other purposes, or any vested right acquired therein; 
     or (c) intending to affect or in any way to interfere with 
     any interstate compact, decree or negotiated water rights 
     agreement.''
       This language was intentionally patterned after Section 8 
     of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (and similar Congressional 
     directives). Any weakening of the deference to state water 
     law as now expressed in Section 8 is of concern to the 
     Council--including Section 202 of H.R. 1837. Provisions of 
     this nature are inconsistent with the policy of cooperative 
     federalism that has guided Reclamation Law for over a 
     century, and are a threat to water right and water right 
     administration in all the Western States.
       Recognizing that the ``future growth and prosperity of the 
     western states depend upon the availability of adequate 
     quantities of water of suitable quality,'' western governors 
     created the Council in 1965 to address the need for an 
     accurate and unbiased appraisal of present and future [water] 
     requirements . . . and the most equitable means of providing 
     for . . . such requirements. . . .'' On a west-wide regional 
     level, the governors charged the Council ``. . . to 
     accomplish effective cooperation among western states in 
     planning for programs leading to integrated development by 
     state, federal and other agencies of their water resources.'' 
     Since its creation, the Council has served as a unified voice 
     on behalf of western governors on water policy issues.
       Over the years, the Council has continually sought to 
     develop a regional consensus on westwide water policy and 
     planning issues, including many federal initiatives and 
     legislation. The Council strives to collectively protect 
     western states' interests in water, while at the same time 
     serving to coordinate and facilitate efforts to improve 
     western water management. With respect to the latter, the 
     Council and eleven federal agencies have signed a Declaration 
     of Cooperation creating what we call our Western Federal 
     Agency Support Team (WestFAST), to increase collaboration on 
     water issues of mutual concern.
       The Council has long recognized the importance of planning 
     and policy in protecting and wisely managing our water 
     resources for the benefit of our present and future 
     generations, including our environment. The water 
     development, management and protection challenges in the 
     Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta System are not unique to 
     California, but are reflected across the West and the Nation. 
     Similarly, any solution to California's water and 
     environmental needs (and compliance with state and federal 
     mandates) affects the rest of the West to a greater or lesser 
     extent. Perhaps this is best illustrated by California's 
     physical dependence not only on the waters of northern and 
     central California, but also the Colorado River Basin, shared 
     by six other basin states.
       In recent years there has been a growing debate over 
     national water policy and the need to elevate water issues as 
     a national priority. The Council has been and continues to be 
     actively involved in those policy discussions.
       The States are primarily responsible for allocating and 
     administering rights to the use of water for myriad uses; and 
     are in the best position to identify, evaluate and prioritize 
     their needs. States and their political subdivisions share 
     primary responsibility for planning and managing our Nation's 
     water resources, both surface and ground water, both quantity 
     and quality.


         2006/2008 Western Governors' Association Water Reports

       The WGA's 2006 Water Report declared: ``States have the 
     primary responsibility for water allocation and management. 
     They have jurisdiction to sanction both new appropriations 
     and transfers of existing uses. They also have the primary 
     responsibility for integrating water quantity allocation and 
     water quality protection. As a result, states can play a 
     critical role relating to growth in the West where water is a 
     scarce resource and competing demands vie for rights to its 
     use.'' (p. 4)
       The WGA's 2008 Next Steps Report reiterated: ``States have 
     the pivotal role in water planning, as well as allocating and 
     protecting the resources. But in the West, where the federal 
     government is a substantial landowner and has a significant 
     regulatory presence, the federal role is also critical. 
     Cooperation among the states and the federal government 
     continues to be vital. To support the state leadership role, 
     the federal government should help by providing a rational 
     federal regulatory framework, together with technical and 
     appropriate financial assistance. . . . Developing optimal 
     solutions to the challenges . . . will require an integrated 
     approach and greater partnerships among state, local and 
     federal agencies. This approach should consider all needs 
     together, develop effective solutions which are complementary 
     rather than conflicting, and provide direction for selecting 
     the most appropriate . . . solutions. (p. I)


             2011 WSWC Shared Water Vision Policy Position

       The following WSWC recommendations are presented as a guide 
     for evaluating actions related to federal-state relations and 
     water resources, including H.R. 1837.
       Any vision for any water policy, water plan or planning 
     process must recognize, defer to and support State, tribal 
     and local government water plans and planning processes.
       Federal legislation should explicitly recognize and provide 
     support for ongoing watershed efforts in and between the 
     states, tribes and local entities and closely consult with 
     the states in the implementation of any new federal 
     program(s).
       Any federal legislation should avoid strategies that 
     increase mandates on state, tribal and local governments.
       Comprehensive plans developed under state or tribal 
     leadership with federal assistance should: (a) reduce 
     inefficiencies caused by project-specific responses to 
     competing demands; (b) reduce contradictory actions by 
     multiple state, local and federal agencies; and (c) minimize 
     hastily conceived reactions to the latest real or perceived 
     crisis.
       Federal agencies should use state water plans: (a) to help 
     determine water policy and planning priorities that best 
     align federal agency support to states; (b) to inform 
     decision making regarding regional water issues; and (c) to 
     coordinate investment in water infrastructure.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of this 
legislation, whose district has been heavily impacted by this manmade 
drought.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are here today is we have 
heard talk for long enough. We have seen negotiation after negotiation, 
and the last one that we are asking to go back to happened in the mid-
nineties. There was an agreement made that allowed water to go for the 
environment and for agriculture, and now we are not even getting that.
  What we are asking for is for a little attention. Many of the viewers 
probably don't find this interesting. It is just a bunch of trees, but 
these trees are dead. They have been pulled out of the ground.
  That probably doesn't mean a lot to the Chair or to a lot of other 
people in this room, but these are trees that grow crops. Those crops 
create jobs. The people that do those jobs are these people right here.
  We hear so many people talk about unemployment insurance. These 
people want to work. They want to earn a paycheck. They want to go home 
at the end of the day with their money in their pocket and be able to 
buy food that is grown around them, natural, good, wholesome American 
food. These people do not like standing in line and do not like waiting 
for government handouts. They want to work and be productive members of 
today's society.
  I know that a lot of people watching today will think, well, this is 
just a California problem, but this is the food grown in California: 99 
percent of the almonds; 99 percent of the artichokes; 99 percent of the 
figs; 99 percent of the olives; 99 percent of the pistachios.
  So when we talk about helping the people who need help and giving 
them the resources to feed their families, if we cut off water to 
California, it has a direct impact on the money that they do receive 
from the government. Because they aren't working because of the 
drought, it makes food more expensive. It limits what they can buy to 
feed their families.
  Anybody that claims to be helpful to those who need our help the most 
and votes against this bill is literally saying, I want to raise the 
cost of food for everybody in the United States.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, here we are, day two of the House 
Committee on Natural Resources' measures on the floor. Yesterday we 
spent the entire afternoon debating, among other

[[Page 2550]]

things, whether 435 Members of the House were better suited to make 
decisions about individual Forest Service ranger District Wildlife 
Management programs or units of the National Park Service's motorized 
recreation regulations, overturning local managers.
  We were told that significant amendments, real amendments about real 
issues, like the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, they couldn't be offered because we need to respect the 
legislative process.
  Are we respecting the legislative process here today? This bill was 
introduced last week. No hearings have been held in the committee. No 
action was taken by the committee. It was written, introduced, and 
brought directly to the floor of the House of Representatives. That is 
respect for the legislative process?
  Now despite everyone here knowing that we are going to face the worst 
drought the American West has seen in a century, the committee of 
jurisdiction has failed to hold even one hearing on current conditions.
  In case you have missed the news, here it is: California, driest 
conditions in over 500 years, extreme drought in 70 percent of the 
State. Nevada and Oregon, my home State, severe to extreme drought in 
80 percent of the State. Idaho, severe to extreme drought in nearly 
half the State.
  To be thinking about how we are going to mitigate this, how we are 
going to fight the fires, what are we going to do for disaster relief, 
shouldn't we be looking at reality as opposed to this piece of 
legislative theater? No.
  A number of us on the committee have asked for a hearing, a 
comprehensive hearing on all the aspects of this drought, and the 
majority has yet to respond.
  Now, this isn't a joke. It is not something we should be playing 
political games with. Seriously. We have empty reservoirs, unemployed 
people, yes, tinderbox forests, fallowed fields, and failing fisheries. 
That calls on us to be bigger and better than playing these stupid 
partisan games. That is what this is.
  Just like the bill yesterday, this bill is not a serious effort to 
legislate. It is going nowhere. The Governor of California opposes it. 
Senator Feinstein opposes it. Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, 
and Oregon are all opposed to the provisions overturning State water 
law. The party of states' rights overturning State water law? The 
nonpartisan 18 Governor-appointed Western States Water Council has 
opposed provisions in this bill overturning State water law.
  This bill is a chimera, in the real sense of the word. It is a 
mythical beast that is part lion, goat, serpent, all in one with the 
breath of burning flames. Here it comes. It is ugly, it is scary, but 
it is a fiction. It is not something real. In Greek mythology, the 
chimera was defeated by a guy named Bellerophon, a great hero--
mythical, but a slayer of beasts. In this case, the U.S. Senate is 
going to replace Bellerophon.
  This is going nowhere. We are fiddling while our forests are going to 
burn this summer.
  The only way out of the current drought conditions is to make the 
skies open and rain. We aren't making rain today with this bill. We 
aren't even making law today with this bill. This is cynical. This is 
embarrassing. We should pull this bill from consideration and actually 
work on something that will help not only those in California but all 
of us impacted in the West by this drought.
  Let's hold a hearing on this drought. Let's form a task force and 
come up with real bipartisan solutions.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member 
of the committee who has worked very hard on this legislation in the 
last Congress and in this Congress.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, California's drought is nature's fault, 
but our failure to prepare for it is our fault.
  In California, the ruling Democrats have not only obstructed the 
construction of new dams for the past 35 years but they have also 
actively sought to tear down existing ones. They have substituted 
conservation for desperately needed storage, and now that we face 
drought, we find that our few reservoirs are empty, and our 
conservation options are already exhausted.
  Worse, in the first years of this drought, 1.6 million acre-feet of 
water was dumped into the Pacific Ocean for the care and amusement of 
the delta smelt. Mr. Chairman, 800,000 acre-feet--enough for 4 million 
Californians--was deliberately drained from our now empty reservoirs 
just several months ago, knowing that that water was desperately needed 
to support the threatened human population. Part of that water was 
taken from Central Valley farmers, who now face economic extinction. 
This bill corrects these tragic policies.
  It is true, we cannot make it rain, but we can take measures to stop 
this lunacy, increase storage capacity, reinforce existing water 
rights, and ensure that we never again must face a crisis of this 
magnitude.
  This bill allows for the expansion of Lake McClure by 70,000 acre-
feet. It gives local water agencies the ability to store additional 
water at New Melones. It sets deadlines for additional storage. It 
authorizes local water districts to partner with the Federal Government 
to expedite expansion of existing reservoirs and construction of new 
ones, and it reverses the policies that put the delta smelt ahead of 
the needs of thousands of farmworkers and millions of consumers.
  Now, the people responsible for these policies say that this steals 
water from northern California. It does not. This is only water that 
would otherwise be lost to the Pacific Ocean. This bill restores the 
bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that guarantees the delta the water that it 
needs and grants a portion of any excess to the Central Valley. This 
historic accord was broken when Central Valley water was expropriated 
for the delta smelt. This bill restores that accord while making 
provisions to increase the overall supply.
  The other outlandish charge is that this measure overrides State 
water rights. It does exactly the opposite. It specifically protects 
State water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy--local, 
State, or Federal.
  We have listened to the environmental left for 40 years, and this is 
where it has gotten us. It is time to reject these voices and return to 
the commonsense and proven policies of abundance that produced the 
prosperity that we once enjoyed.

                              {time}  1515

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from northern 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for 
giving me an opportunity to speak on this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill despite my 
reservations about the bill's prospects in the Senate. Over the years, 
I have supported a number of the provisions and goals within this 
legislation, but many of them will not offer much, if any, immediate 
relief unless we see Biblical proportions of rainfall taking place in 
California during the next 6 weeks.
  As California is in the midst of the worst drought on record, 
reservoirs are at record lows, and we have 13 percent of our average 
snow pack, people in my district deserve an effort that deals with the 
current realities that can offer help.
  No one has done more over 30 years working in Sacramento and in 
Washington than I have to provide water not only for our valley but for 
the entire State, and to ensure that we have a long-term supply. 
Unfortunately, too many folks on both sides of the aisle have kicked 
this can down the road.
  As much as I think a number of reforms in this bill are long overdue 
and some of the policy decisions have increased, frankly, the damage of 
the current drought conditions, we all have to recognize that in 
California and in Western States today, we are in a triage situation.
  There are many things that we must do in the long term to increase 
our

[[Page 2551]]

water supply and fix our broken water system in California. But, 
immediately, we have to figure out how we can move water, the scarce 
resource where it is, if, in fact, we do get some additional rainfall.
  This is not about political points. It is about mitigating the human 
impact of people--people--living in 17 water districts that in 30 to 60 
days will no longer be able to provide drinking water for themselves. 
New ideas, new and immediate relief should be offered, not a rehashing 
of the old political battles.
  Last week, we saw what can happen in California when the entire 
valley delegation, working together on a bipartisan basis with Senators 
Feinstein and Boxer, asked the Bureau of Reclamation to honor the 
carryover water that had been provided by those farmers who saved it 
last year. In fact, we were able to maintain that water this year. It 
is a lifeline. The Bureau and the administration heard our united calls 
loud and clear, and they made a fair decision to allow farmers in the 
valley to keep water that otherwise would have been confiscated.
  We need more of these kinds of efforts, which is why I offered an 
amendment yesterday to create a joint committee to bring us together to 
deal with these short and long-term challenges. This effort is 
important since right now we seem to be talking past one another and 
feuding in editorial pages across the State rather than finding the 
common ground that we need.
  Although leadership chose not to bring my amendment up for a vote, I 
think we have to be open to getting down to brass tacks at some point 
in time, because it is the only way we are going to solve these 
problems--on a bipartisan basis. Solutions to our water problems are 
not and should not be partisan. Traditionally, they have been regional, 
and I can tell you where all the political fault lines lie. They are 
deep, and they are historic. It is time for cooler heads to prevail.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. COSTA. This is not about political points. It is about people who 
could lose their jobs in the drought. It is about the dairy producer 
who might soon have to consider selling the dairy their grandfather 
started. It is about farmworkers who might soon find themselves in food 
lines instead of helping produce some of the most productive crops in 
the world. It is about the children of migrant workers who might soon 
have to leave their school because their parents have to look for work 
elsewhere.
  In the coming days, we will be introducing legislation. I hope we can 
engender some bipartisan support. At the end of the day, that is what 
it is going to take to solve the water problems in California.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), another 
member of the Natural Resources Committee and a Californian.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I am pleased to be able to rise in support of Mr. Valadao's bill, a 
bipartisan measure it appears, and I am glad for that. We are able to 
work together as neighbors, northern California and central California, 
to overcome the overreaching environmental restrictions that this bill 
seeks to do. It has diverted so much water away from San Joaquin Valley 
families for their farms, away from agriculture, away from productive 
use, in favor of a 3-inch fish.
  Title IV of this measure ensures that northern California's cities 
and farmers maintain their first right to water from the area of 
origin, the river in its area, which runs through their communities.
  I am open to working with anyone at any time who has a realistic plan 
to address our historic droughts. The minority has offered amendments 
that would do nothing to address this crisis. Indeed, their proposals 
would only put more roadblocks and more red tape between Californians 
and the water they need.
  We see plenty of potential for projects that could happen, such as 
Sites Reservoir in my neighborhood in northern California; possibly the 
raising of Shasta Dam and other projects would be very viable. Indeed, 
if you look at the graph here, there is much potential that could be 
realized when 76 percent of the water that comes into the delta flows 
straight out the Pacific. Only 24 percent actually either stays in the 
delta or goes south of the massive amount of water that comes into the 
delta initially.
  The potential there for storing more water to have more available for 
everybody, whether it is farms, cities or environmental use, can be 
realized by building projects and by removing the roadblocks that are 
unnecessarily put there by bureaucracy or politics. We need to have a 
much better atmosphere of cooperating in this time of drought and 
putting our efforts forward to truly help Californians.
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill today to take that 
step. Moses parted the Red Sea. I think we need to have somebody that 
can part the red tape that has held California up for so many years for 
building the water supply it needs.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California, Congressman Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, a bill that 
would destroy jobs, does nothing to address the real problem, the 
drought, and ignores more than 20 years of established science.
  What does the bill do? Will this bill help alleviate the drought? No. 
Even if we pumped as much water as possible, Central Valley farmers 
still wouldn't have enough. There simply isn't enough water to go 
around.
  We are in an extreme drought, the worst in the last century. You can 
look at these photographs and see the snow pack last year versus the 
snow pack this year. We are in bad straits, and it is a drought. It is 
not a manmade problem, it is a drought.
  Will this bill kill jobs? Yes. The delta supports thousands of jobs 
in farming, fishing and tourism and has an economic output of more than 
$4 billion a year. This bill puts those jobs in jeopardy. Will this 
bill harm drinking water that millions of people rely on? Yes. When 
clean water is pumped south, the level of saltwater in the delta 
increases. People can't drink seawater.
  The entire State of California is in a drought. You saw it in today's 
USA Today. There are towns without water. There are more towns in line 
to lose all the water they have, and it is not due to a lack of pumping 
because of a ``little fish.'' It is due to the lack of snow and the 
lack of rain.
  Now, I know this is personal for many of my colleagues. It is 
personal for me, too. Many of the towns that I represent are running 
out of water. My home town is rationing water--65 gallons per person 
per day. It is a real, real serious problem.
  I understand the concerns of the Central Valley farmers. Ag is big in 
my district, too, and this drought is hurting my constituents, as well. 
Because of these dry conditions, grapevines will experience an early 
bud this year, and without water to protect the early bud from the 
frost, we have no crops--out of business.
  It is a drought that is causing the problem. Proponents of this bill 
say those who oppose it care more about fish than people. These 
comments cheapen the debate. They insult the intelligence of 
Californians and are not based on facts. As UC-Berkeley professor of 
agriculture and resource economics stated in the paper today, Michael 
Hanemann, he said that you can kill every fish in the delta and you 
still would have a real problem.
  Simply put, this bill is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to 
use this drought as an excuse to pump water from other users and to do 
so with zero regard for the people who depend on that water for their 
livelihoods. It would be more productive for

[[Page 2552]]

this body to join in a rain dance on the floor today than to pass this 
bill. Our people--our constituents--deserve better than this 
politically driven bill. They deserve solutions. I ask for a ``no'' 
vote on the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to another gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a former 
member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.
  Albert Einstein is quoted as saying:

       The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and 
     over again and expecting different results.

  That just about sums up California's water policy today. Time and 
time again, we have let Californians down by diverting water away from 
our communities because of Federal practices based on unfair 
priorities.
  California is headed toward an economic calamity unless meaningful 
action is taken. Ongoing drought conditions combined with regulatory 
restrictions have placed a tremendous strain on California water 
supplies. Today, we are offering a first step to a solution to the 
devastating drought that California is facing.
  This is not just a California problem. The Central Valley of 
California produces a significant amount of our Nation's crops. The 
devastation caused by this drought will reverberate through the country 
in the form of soaring food prices.
  Water officials across the State are taking responsible steps to ramp 
up conservation efforts and stretch every drop of water that we do 
have. Unfortunately, Congress and our Federal regulatory agencies have 
failed to take a similar approach during these trying times. With our 
State facing an unprecedented water shortage, it is time for Congress 
to end the regulatory restrictions that are outdated and ineffective.
  Like many Californians, I am tired of seeing millions and millions of 
gallons of water that could go to the people of California instead 
being dumped in the Pacific Ocean because of Federal regulations that 
punish families, farmers and the economy. It has been mentioned here 
just last year that 800,000 acre feet of water was flushed in the ocean 
during unprecedented rains. We should never be wasting that amount of 
water when people are suffering from a drought.
  Today, the House can change that equation, restore balance between 
protecting the environment and provide water to the people who need it.
  I want to thank and commend my colleague, David Valadao, for his 
passion and leadership on this issue. He has been here only a short 
time, but he is already making a tremendous impact on the Central 
Valley.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. May I inquire the length of time remaining on both 
sides, please.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 15 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Washington has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California, Congressman Ami Bera.
  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against 
this bill, and here is why. This bill does nothing to create additional 
water supplies. The water that we have already lost, we can't get that 
back. What we need to do is look at ways to better manage the water we 
have and look at ways to better conserve that water.
  We are ready to do this. We are ready to work with our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle as Californians. This isn't about Democrats 
versus Republicans. We can't pit one community against another. You are 
talking about families.
  This is a picture of Folsom Lake in my district; 500,000 residents in 
our community rely on water from Folsom Lake for drinking water.
  It is not about a little fish. It is about when a child goes to turn 
on their tap they get clean water coming out of it.
  This should be under water, and if you want to understand how bad it 
is, let's look at this picture. This is the wet side of Folsom dam. 
Where is the water? This bill takes water where it doesn't exist. You 
can't move water if it doesn't exist.
  So we stand ready to work with our colleagues in both Houses and 
across the aisle to look at better ways for us to manage water, better 
ways for us to predict and forecast weather, if you are going to have a 
dry season, to protect that water, and better ways to serve all of 
California's communities.
  It can't be northern California versus southern California versus 
central California. It has got to be Californians working together. 
Let's solve this. Let's work together, and let's create a brighter 
future for California by managing our water together.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), another former 
member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bill to 
ensure again that the House takes the lead in taking action about this 
big crisis that we are having in California's Central Valley.
  This measure puts a number of commonsense ideas on the table to 
alleviate the severity of today's drought. There is need for a Federal 
response, because California has a crosscutting network of both State 
and Federal water projects. With the passage of this bill, I hope the 
Senate will finally come to the table. If you don't like our idea, come 
up with one of your own.
  We have to have storage. We have to have conveyance. We need to plan 
for the future. There are times when we have wet years, but if we don't 
store the water, we don't have it for drought years. It is common 
sense, and it should be bipartisan and it should be bicameral.
  What I am most proud about on this bill is that you actually have 
Members from different regions of the State that have come together and 
said the time is now to finally come together on a solution for what we 
have and what we are facing today in California's Central Valley.
  I am thankful to Mr. Valadao for not only bringing this bill up, but 
for also including my provisions which will create some more water 
storage, including Los Vaqueros and Exchequer and streamlining 
construction projects.
  This bill also includes two of my bills: H.R. 2705, seeking to 
protect native salmon and steelhead on the Stanislaus River; and H.R. 
2554, which would allow 100,000 new acre-feet of storage on New Melones 
reservoir.
  We can do simple things to conserve more water. These two measures 
produce more water and alleviate pressure on supplies, and at no cost 
to the taxpayer.
  Yesterday the Senate passed the farm bill, which we passed here last 
week. Without water, in California, having a farm bill doesn't matter a 
whole lot if you can't plant the crops that feed the rest of the 
Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. The time is now to have a 
real water solution. Again, if you don't like this one, then come up 
with one of your own. Let's have some water storage. Let's actually 
have a dialogue, but let's not shut down residents of the Central 
Valley or drinking water across the State.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if it is proper to ask you 
a question, but is this February 2? I am reminded of the movie 
``Groundhog Day.'' We continue to repeat what happened yesterday and 
the year before. This is a repetition of a bill that came to the floor 
2 years ago. It was a bill that had a lot of different pieces to it but 
was very, very simple in what it accomplished, or attempted to 
accomplish, and that was to take water from someone--the environment, 
fish, and the delta, farmers, communities, Contra Costa County, the 
East Bay of

[[Page 2553]]

San Francisco--and deliver it to someone else. That would be the San 
Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project. That was 2 years ago. It must 
be February 2. It must be Groundhog Day because we are doing it all 
over again. Whatever little whistles and bells and bows you want to put 
on it, this is essentially a theft of water from someone to give to 
somebody else. Plain and simple, that is what it is about.
  In this case, the water is going to be stolen--and I use that word 
because that is accurate--from the delta, from the environment, San 
Francisco Bay, from the salmon, which is a huge industry in California, 
all the way up the coast to Oregon, to be given to the largest single-
water district in the Nation. A district that, by its contract with the 
Federal Government, is specifically set to take shortages in their 
water when there is a drought. If this bill becomes law, that won't be 
the case. They will get the water and someone else won't.
  Okay. We have seen this show before. We also saw before that this 
type of legislation, as does this bill, overturns the California 
constitution, pushes it out of the way, and all this is done by folks 
who normally call themselves State righters.
  Well, this is the biggest grab of power by the Federal Government on 
water anywhere in the history of reclamation law dating back to 1904. 
Never before has the Federal Government made such an attempt to grab 
the water rightfully belonging to a State and saying, in this case, 
California, you are going to use that water as seen fit by the farm 
bill.
  Current water law and current law and practices for a century and 
more have been the opposite. This doesn't solve the problem. We have 
got a real problem. These have been seen before and they are going to 
have to be seen over and over, because that was a year ago. We turn it 
upside right. Whatever, it is a lot of snow; right? That was a year 
ago, snow in the Sierras. That is this year, no snow.
  And by the way, the Central Valley looks pretty much like a desert--
not just the San Joaquin Valley, but the whole valley.
  We have got a problem. We have a very real problem. We really need a 
real solution. This bill isn't a solution. This bill is a call to arms. 
This bill is the clarion call of yet one more battle in the great 
California water war, and we are all veterans of that war. My 
colleagues over here on the Republican aisle, my colleagues over here 
on the Democratic aisle, we are veterans of the water war.
  Unfortunately, this bill doesn't solve the problem of California. 
There are solutions available. We really need to get to them. We really 
need to sit down and work with a bill that passed the House and the 
Senate and was signed by the President less than 2 weeks ago, the 
omnibus bill.
  In that omnibus bill there is a restoration, a reauthorization of the 
Federal drought emergency program that has some 16, 17 different 
provisions that provide for specific things that we should be funding. 
There's no money in this bill for funding. We are going to have to fund 
this. This is a Westwide problem, a problem that reaches across many, 
many States, and it is going to take all of us working together to help 
each individual State, each community, and every water district deal 
with a very real problem. It is a battle. It is a call to arms. Get to 
your barricades. Pull out the old weapons. We really need a sensible 
solution here, and, unfortunately, this bill simply doesn't do it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of 
the legislation that passed this House in a bipartisan way last time, 
which this bill emulates.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, this is about 40 years of policies that 
passed out of this body that took water from our region and sent it out 
to the ocean. That is what this debate is about. So the inconvenient 
truth for the folks on the left is that their 40 years of policies have 
resulted in people running out of water.
  One of the times they stole water was in 1992. After that, we had 
what were called the Bay-Delta Accord, State-Federal partnership. That 
was the last time we were supposed to give up water. It codified into 
law that agreement.
  So the gentleman was talking about stealing water, they are very good 
at stealing water. At the time they stole water last time, they said 
the accord was going to be the last time we were going to have water 
stolen from us. That was in 1994. But water continues to be stolen.
  Now there seems to be this misunderstanding about how the system 
works. L.A., Hollywood, San Francisco, it is a desert. They don't have 
water. They conveniently get their water from the Colorado River or 
from the Yosemite Valley. They ignore all environmental rules, but they 
make our people who live in the San Joaquin Valley live by the rules 
that they don't want to live by. That is the reality.
  So we have these projects that are built for 5 years of storage and 
movement of water. So you can see when we had a drought in 1997 and 
1991 and 2009, these were the allotments at those times. Last year, we 
actually didn't have a real bad drought. Look at the allocation. So the 
system simply isn't being used. All the aqueducts and all the dams that 
were constructed--led by Democrats, of all people, Franklin Roosevelt, 
John F. Kennedy.
  John F. Kennedy said this:

       This is a fast trip, but if it had no other benefit than to 
     permit us to look at this valley and others like it across 
     the country, where we can see the greenest and richest earth, 
     producing the greatest and richest crops in the country, and 
     then a mile away, see the same earth and see it brown and 
     dusty and useless, and all because there is water in one 
     place and there isn't in another.

  President Kennedy had the foresight to construct these projects that 
now, after 40 years of bad policies by the left, they have run the 
State out of water. They have run the State out of water.
  Meanwhile, they talk about killing the fish. Well, why are they 
killing the fish? Because all of these cities that most on the left 
represent dump their sewage into the delta. That kills the fish. So 
stop dumping the sewer water in the delta if you care about the fish. 
If you care about the fish, give up your water in Yosemite National 
Park and let that water go out to the delta to save the fish.
  Mr. Chairman, the time for stealing water has ended, and that is what 
this bill does.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This debate, Mr. Chairman, is very interesting. And what we are 
presenting here today and what is being presented by my California 
colleagues is, from their point of view, a solution to a problem caused 
by a drought and caused by regulatory action in the State of 
California.
  I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand up--
virtually everybody has said this. I know my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, 
said something that I will allude to in a moment. Mr. Costa said 
something about that. The ranking member of the Natural Resources 
Committee said something about what I am going to say, and, I dare say, 
the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano) said the same thing.
  The thread of what they all said is that there are solutions, and we 
need to work together. We need to find these solutions, to which our 
side says fine, this is our solution. We recognize you may not like it. 
We recognize that. But we also have one other point that we need to 
recognize, and that is the genius of our Founding Fathers. They created 
two branches of the legislative branch, the Congress: the House, in 
which we have the privilege of serving, and the Senate.
  I made the observation in my opening statement that the Senate has 
not acted on any water bill laws at all. Well, finally somebody in this 
area is catching that message, because the Fresno Bee in California, 
which is right in the epicenter, if you will, of the San Joaquin 
Valley, editorialized last week that Senator Feinstein must step up and 
lead on the drought. What that means, of course, is step up and write a

[[Page 2554]]

piece of legislation. I have heard my colleagues say we are working on 
a piece of legislation, maybe by next week.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make this point. This is very specific. 
Introducing a piece of legislation is not legislating. Legislating is 
when you pass a piece of legislation out of your respective House, and 
I think that is what the Fresno Bee is saying right here when they tell 
Senator Feinstein and others that they need to step up on this and pass 
some legislation.
  Listen, I am sure that legislation will be different than this. We 
have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is 
fine. I can take it, and, I dare say, my California colleagues can take 
it, too, and then we can work out the difference. But we don't know 
what your position is.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good piece of legislation. The last 
Congress acted on it, and it should act on it again.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 8-\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I rise again to express my strong opposition to H.R. 3964. This 
legislation will do tremendous harm to the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta, an area that I am privileged to represent.
  Let's start with the facts. California is in a drought and is 
experiencing its driest year on record. Snowpacks are at about 13 
percent of what they should be. Regions have set new records for 
consecutive dry days during the rainy season. Seventeen communities are 
at risk of running out of drinking water within 60 days. The National 
Drought Mitigation Center upgraded about 9 percent of California to an 
``exceptional drought,'' the organization's most intense level of 
drought severity.
  Yet, here we are again, spending time on a bill which, according to 
its authors, is only a short-term fix for a few communities and does 
nothing to help California in its water crisis. California's Natural 
Resources Secretary John Laird said that H.R. 3964 ``falsely holds the 
promise of water relief that cannot be delivered because in this 
drought, the water simply does not exist.'' Let me repeat that: ``the 
water simply does not exist.''
  I know that the other side is going to vote unanimously for this 
bill, so I ask them to look and see what is inside of it. It is not in 
your interest. This takes away states' rights. This doesn't weigh a 
state's protections.
  I ask people that live in the Great Lakes area and people that live 
in the Florida Everglades area: pay attention. This is a Federal 
precedent. It allows the Federal Government to come and take your 
water. Is that what you want? I don't think so.
  So I ask the Members of the other side of the aisle, please consider 
what this bill contains, please vote the right way. We should be 
addressing water efficiency, storage, reuse and recycling, water 
management, innovative water projects, and a long-term approach to 
water shortages.
  All H.R. 3964 ensures is that more water is shipped out of the delta, 
turning this precious estuary into a salty, stagnant marsh, devastating 
local economies, and costing the delta region thousands of jobs.
  We should stand united in preventing this legislation from ever 
becoming law. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3964.
  The CHAIR. Members are advised to address their comments to the Chair 
and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to remarks that the previous 
speaker from California made about the potential danger in this bill as 
they relate to water rights in other States.
  What the gentleman was alluding to is absolutely incorrect because 
the language in this bill is very specific; it is very specific as it 
relates to California.
  We went through this process in the last Congress when we went 
through hearings because other States--my State included--was very, 
very concerned that whatever preemption had to do with water here would 
affect other States. Last year in this bill, the language is very, very 
specific: it does not apply to other States; it is California-centric 
only.
  So I want to make that point, Mr. Chairman.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire of my 
friend if she has any more speakers; and, if not, if she is prepared to 
close, her side is prepared to close, I am prepared to close.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We have no more speakers, and I am prepared to 
close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In that case, I reserve the balance of my 
time so you can close, and we will have one final speaker.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, we have heard a lot of conversation about what is good 
and what is not good for my great State of California.
  We continue to stress we need to work together. Mr. Bera said that. 
Mr. Denham says create your own.
  Well, I thought this was the House of the people and that we are 
supposed to be working together. That is why we have such a low ranking 
in the view of the American public--we continually fight against each 
other.
  We need to sit in dialogue and be able to converse--at least agree on 
things that are necessary--to be able to help our country back on its 
feet instead of fighting over what is not necessarily fightable about.
  Mr. Hastings, the chairman, talked about the resolutions of past 
legislation. Like anything else, we don't get information about many of 
the bills until last minute. I cannot get any hearings on some of my 
bills, and neither can some of my members get hearings in the 
subcommittee or the full committee for being able to address some of 
these issues that have come up on water.
  In summary, we have, of course, this bill that repeals historic 
California water rights; overturns 20 years of environmental and 
conservation protections; ignores best available science; repeals the 
court ordered San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act; preempts 
California State law; and creates no new water.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter a Statement of Administration 
Policy:

       The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3964, the 
     Emergency Water Delivery Act, because it would not alleviate 
     the effects of California's current drought and would disrupt 
     decades of work that supports building consensus, solutions, 
     and settlements that equitably address some of California's 
     most complex water challenges. California is experiencing 
     severe drought conditions and low reservoir storage. The 
     urgency and seriousness of the situation requires a balanced 
     approach that promotes water reliability and ecosystem 
     restoration.

  It ends with:

       For these reasons, if the President were presented with 
     H.R. 3964, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto 
     the bill.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this very 
dangerous precedent for not only my State of California but for the 
rest of the Nation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), 
the majority whip.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman 
Valadao, Congressman Nunes, and all of the delegation for their work 
when it comes to water.
  The news from California is not bright. The current news: our drought

[[Page 2555]]

is the worst in a century. Governor Brown has declared a state of 
emergency because of the drought. Our water storage is at near empty. 
Farmland is going fallow. Drinking water is threatened. The State 
actually says in its latest report that 17 communities can go dry in 4 
months. In the absence of God our options are limited to ease this 
pain. It didn't have to be this way. But why are we here today and why 
are we debating this bill?
  Well, without action farms are going to go fallow. So what does that 
mean for the rest of the Nation? A lot of people don't look at what 
happens throughout California and the Central Valley. Most of the 
produce is produced there for the Nation and the world. If you just 
look at a few: 94 percent of all tomatoes, 93 percent of all broccoli, 
89 percent of all carrots, 78 percent of all lettuce. So that means 
prices will go up.
  It also means you are going to buy that produce somewhere else. You 
are going to buy it overseas: maybe China, maybe Mexico. What about the 
food safety? More importantly, what about those jobs? What about those 
workers?
  Just a few short years ago, unemployment in some of these cities were 
40 percent. It is already more than 10. The worst part of all this is 
it didn't have to be this way. We could plan for it.
  I have heard colleagues talk about this, Mr. Chairman, that back in 
1994 we actually had a bipartisan agreement: the Bay-Delta Accord. It 
was more than just Republicans and Democrats agreeing. It was 
environmentalists, farmers, water users. Everybody came to an 
agreement. But that bond was broken.
  The reason we debate this is water is so precious. Most of the 
snowpack comes from the north and travels down to the south. We have a 
State water project that--which is a little ironic--Governor Brown, 
when his father was Governor built more than 50 years ago. There have 
always been allocations to send it down south. This year they made 
history. In the history of the water project, the allocation is zero--
zero.
  When you are growing up you study history. There are always those 
Aesop's Fables. Do you remember Aesop? He was that slave in ancient 
Greece that would tell these tales to teach about a moral lesson.
  One of those fables talked about the ant and the grasshopper, where 
the ant during summertime, because he knew winter would come, would go 
out and work hard and store food for the winter. Not the grasshopper. 
He would be idle out there in the summer enjoying life, and hopefully 
nothing bad ever happened.
  Well, over the years, government regulation has made it harder. 
Government regulation has changed the Bay-Delta Accord. It is safe to 
say, environmentalists have sued. Environmentalists have decided that 
fish are more important than those who are unemployed; that maybe they 
come before the individual.
  What does that mean? Since 2007, the State Water Project has lost 2.6 
million acre feet because of these policies. Now, what does that mean, 
2.6 million acre feet? That means that is enough for the annual water 
needs of every resident in Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago combined.
  Where did that water go? Out to the ocean. Why would we send it out 
to the ocean when we could store it for the drought that we knew would 
happen?
  There is nothing that illustrates this broken system more than just 3 
years ago. You have all seen those photos that people have shown down 
here on TV of California when it had a snowpack and California today 
when it is all dry. Just 3 years ago, do you know what that snowpack 
was? More than 170 percent. Boy, that would be a good year to be an 
ant, that would be a good year to send it down, that would be a good 
year to store for today so those communities would not go dry or that 
land would not go fallow. That wasn't the case. Do you know what the 
allocation was when we had 170 percent of snowpack? Eighty percent.
  Do you know what is unjust in all of this? This year when we get zero 
percent, or when we got 80 percent of allocation, the bill was always 
the same: you paid 100 percent, regardless of what allocation you got.
  What about property rights? What about responsibility? What about a 
broken system?
  So what does this bill actually do? Well, first and foremost, it puts 
families before fish. It goes back to an agreement that everybody 
agreed upon, and it moves us in a place where we can prepare.
  Standing defenselessly in the face of future droughts is not a noble 
gesture. It is actually insanity.
  Today, this House will act again, because we would not be in the 
dryer place that we are today had the Senate taken up the bill we acted 
on in the last Congress. Why? Because this House believes and 
understood and learned the lessons of the fables before--that we 
prepare. But the Senate, in the grasshopper style, stood idly by.
  Our Senators--California is pretty powerful in the Senate. Mr. 
Chairman, I will say California has two Senators that are chairs of 
committees. There was an opportunity to act.
  What is unique in this form of government and what we have, the 
greatest in the world, we have two Houses. It doesn't mean both Houses 
have to agree at the very beginning. It does mean that you take action 
and show where you stand, just like the House did 2 years ago. The 
Senate took no stance, so how do we know where they stand?
  Well, we will act again. The Senate needs to act, show us where they 
stand, go to conference, and stand up for the families of California. 
This has gone on too long. We do not have to be in the situation we 
stand in today. There are families that did not have to be unemployed 
had we acted in the Senate, based upon what we did. There are 
communities that would not have had to go dry had we acted before.
  So enough of rhetoric, enough of the fights; the time is now. As the 
Sun sets today, a bill will be out of this House, but still nothing is 
even introduced in the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I implore, don't make California hurt anymore.
  Mr. HASTINGS OF Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3964, a bill 
that undermines long-standing local, state, and Federal agreements on 
the California water supply and creates a dangerous precedent for 
similar Congressional overreach in other states.
  As the Governor of California said, this bill ``falsely suggests the 
promise of water relief when that is simply not possible given the 
scarcity of water supplies.'' Instead, it picks winners and losers, 
prioritizing some interests above others and disrupting years of 
collaboration to balance water needs.
  The President has directed his Administration to work with California 
and local jurisdictions to provide information, flexibility in federal 
law, and emergency grant assistance to respond to the drought. Congress 
should not act unilaterally to preempt the efforts the State has 
already undertaken to respond to this disaster.

                              {time}  1600

  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-34. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 3964

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery 
     Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

           TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY

Sec. 101. Amendment to purposes.

[[Page 2556]]

Sec. 102. Amendment to definition.
Sec. 103. Contracts.
Sec. 104. Water transfers, improved water management, and conservation.
Sec. 105. Fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration.
Sec. 106. Restoration fund.
Sec. 107. Additional authorities.
Sec. 108. Bay-Delta Accord.
Sec. 109. Natural and artificially spawned species.
Sec. 110. Authorized service area.
Sec. 111. Regulatory streamlining.
Sec. 112. Warren Act contracts.
Sec. 113. Additional Warren Act contracts.
Sec. 114. Pilot Program to Protect Native Anadromous Fish in the 
              Stanislaus River.
Sec. 115. San Luis Reservoir.

                TITLE II--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION

Sec. 201. Repeal of the San Joaquin River settlement.
Sec. 202. Purpose.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Implementation of restoration.
Sec. 205. Disposal of property; title to facilities.
Sec. 206. Compliance with applicable law.
Sec. 207. Compliance with Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Sec. 208. No private right of action.
Sec. 209. Implementation.
Sec. 210. Repayment contracts and acceleration of repayment of 
              construction costs.
Sec. 211. Repeal.
Sec. 212. Water supply mitigation.
Sec. 213. Additional Authorities.

    TITLE III--REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT OF 
                           CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Sec. 301. Repayment contracts and acceleration of repayment of 
              construction costs.

 TITLE IV--BAY-DELTA WATERSHED WATER RIGHTS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION

Sec. 401. Water rights and area-of-origin protections.
Sec. 402. Sacramento River settlement contracts.
Sec. 403. Sacramento River Watershed Water Service Contractors.
Sec. 404. No redirected adverse impacts.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Precedent.
Sec. 502. No effect on Proclamation of State of Emergency.
Sec. 503. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

           TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO PURPOSES.

       Section 3402 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4706) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), by striking the period at the end; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) to ensure that water dedicated to fish and wildlife 
     purposes by this title is replaced and provided to Central 
     Valley Project water contractors by December 31, 2018, at the 
     lowest cost reasonably achievable; and
       ``(h) to facilitate and expedite water transfers in 
     accordance with this Act.''.

     SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION.

       Section 3403 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4707) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) the term `anadromous fish' means those native stocks 
     of salmon (including steelhead) and sturgeon that, as of 
     October 30, 1992, were present in the Sacramento and San 
     Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and ascend those rivers 
     and their tributaries to reproduce after maturing in San 
     Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean;'';
       (2) in subsection (l), by striking ``and,''
       (3) in subsection (m), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and'', and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) the term `reasonable flows' means water flows capable 
     of being maintained taking into account competing consumptive 
     uses of water and economic, environmental, and social 
     factors.''.

     SEC. 103. CONTRACTS.

       Section 3404 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4708) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``limitation on contracting 
     and contract reform'' and inserting ``contracts''; and
       (2) by striking the language of the section and by adding:
       ``(a) Renewal of Existing Long-Term Contracts.--Upon 
     request of the contractor, the Secretary shall renew any 
     existing long-term repayment or water service contract that 
     provides for the delivery of water from the Central Valley 
     Project for a period of 40 years.
       ``(b) Administration of Contracts.--Except as expressly 
     provided by this Act, any existing long-term repayment or 
     water service contract for the delivery of water from the 
     Central Valley Project shall be administered pursuant to the 
     Act of July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483).
       ``(c) Delivery Charge.--Beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a contract entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to this section shall include a provision that 
     requires the Secretary to charge the other party to such 
     contract only for water actually delivered by the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 104. WATER TRANSFERS, IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT, AND 
                   CONSERVATION.

       Section 3405 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4709) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting before ``Except as provided herein'' the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall take all necessary actions 
     to facilitate and expedite transfers of Central Valley 
     Project water in accordance with this Act or any other 
     provision of Federal reclamation law and the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969.'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``to combination'' and 
     inserting ``or combination'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) The contracting district from which the water is 
     coming, the agency, or the Secretary shall determine if a 
     written transfer proposal is complete within 45 days after 
     the date of submission of such proposal. If such district or 
     agency or the Secretary determines that such proposal is 
     incomplete, such district or agency or the Secretary shall 
     state with specificity what must be added to or revised in 
     order for such proposal to be complete.
       ``(F) Except as provided in this section, the Secretary 
     shall not impose mitigation or other requirements on a 
     proposed transfer, but the contracting district from which 
     the water is coming or the agency shall retain all authority 
     under State law to approve or condition a proposed 
     transfer.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal 
     reclamation law--
       ``(A) the authority to make transfers or exchanges of, or 
     banking or recharge arrangements using, Central Valley 
     Project water that could have been conducted before October 
     30, 1992, is valid, and such transfers, exchanges, or 
     arrangements shall not be subject to, limited, or conditioned 
     by this title; and
       ``(B) this title shall not supersede or revoke the 
     authority to transfer, exchange, bank, or recharge Central 
     Valley Project water that existed prior to October 30, 
     1992.''.
       (2) In subsection (b)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``METERING'' and inserting 
     ``MEASUREMENT''; and
       (B) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``The contracting district or agency, not including 
     contracting districts serving multiple agencies with separate 
     governing boards, shall ensure that all contractor-owned 
     water delivery systems within its boundaries measure surface 
     water at the district or agency's facilities up to the point 
     the surface water is commingled with other water supplies.''.
       (3) By striking subsection (d).
       (4) By redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively.
       (5) By amending subsection (e)(as redesignated by paragraph 
     (4))--
       (A) by striking ``as a result of the increased repayment'' 
     and inserting ``that exceed the cost-of-service'';
       (B) by inserting ``the delivery of'' after ``rates 
     applicable to''; and
       (C) by striking ``, and all increased revenues received by 
     the Secretary as a result of the increased water prices 
     established under subsection 3405(d) of this section,''.

     SEC. 105. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT RESTORATION.

       Section 3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4714) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) by striking ``is authorized and directed to'' and 
     inserting ``may'';
       (ii) by inserting ``reasonable water'' after ``to 
     provide'';
       (iii) by striking ``anadromous fish, except that such'' and 
     inserting ``anadromous fish. Such'';
       (iv) by striking ``Instream flow'' and inserting 
     ``Reasonable instream flow'';
       (v) by inserting ``and the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service'' after ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service''; 
     and
       (vi) by striking ``California Department of Fish and Game'' 
     and inserting ``United States Geological Survey'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``primary purpose'' and inserting 
     ``purposes'';
       (ii) by striking ``but not limited to'' before ``additional 
     obligations''; and
       (iii) by adding after the period the following: ``All 
     Central Valley Project water used for the purposes specified 
     in this paragraph shall be credited to the quantity of 
     Central Valley Project yield dedicated and managed under this 
     paragraph by determining how the dedication and management of 
     such water would affect the delivery capability of the 
     Central Valley Project during the 1928 to 1934 drought period 
     after fishery, water quality, and other flow and operational 
     requirements imposed by terms and conditions existing in 
     licenses, permits, and other agreements pertaining to the 
     Central Valley Project under applicable State or Federal law 
     existing on October 30, 1992, have been met. To the fullest 
     extent possible and in accordance with section 3411, Central 
     Valley Project water dedicated and managed pursuant to this 
     paragraph shall be reused to fulfill the Secretary's 
     remaining contractual obligations to provide Central Valley 
     Project water for agricultural or municipal and industrial 
     purposes.'';
       (C) by amending paragraph (2)(C) to read:
       ``(C) If by March 15th of any year the quantity of Central 
     Valley Project water forecasted to be made available to water 
     service or repayment contractors in the Delta Division of the 
     Central Valley Project is below 75 percent of the total 
     quantity of water to be made available under said contracts, 
     the quantity of Central

[[Page 2557]]

     Valley Project yield dedicated and managed for that year 
     under this paragraph shall be reduced by 25 percent.''.
       (2) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Satisfaction of purposes.--By pursuing the activities 
     described in this section, the Secretary shall be deemed to 
     have met the mitigation, protection, restoration, and 
     enhancement purposes of this title.''.

     SEC. 106. RESTORATION FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 3407(a) of the Central Valley 
     Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4726) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``There is 
     hereby''.
       (2) By striking ``Not less than 67 percent'' and all that 
     follows through ``Monies'' and inserting ``Monies''.
       (3) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Prohibitions.--The Secretary may not directly or 
     indirectly require a donation or other payment to the 
     Restoration Fund--
       ``(A) or environmental restoration or mitigation fees not 
     otherwise provided by law, as a condition to--
       ``(i) providing for the storage or conveyance of non-
     Central Valley Project water pursuant to Federal reclamation 
     laws; or
       ``(ii) the delivery of water pursuant to section 215 of the 
     Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-293; 96 Stat. 
     1270); or
       ``(B) for any water that is delivered with the sole intent 
     of groundwater recharge.''.
       (b) Certain Payments.--Section 3407(c)(1) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``mitigation and restoration'';
       (2) by striking ``provided for or''; and
       (3) by striking ``of fish, wildlife'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``of carrying out all 
     activities described in this title.''.
       (c) Adjustment and Assessment of Mitigation and Restoration 
     Payments.--Section 3407(d)(2) of the Central Valley Project 
     Improvement Act is amended by inserting ``, or after October 
     1, 2015, $4 per megawatt-hour for Central Valley Project 
     power sold to power contractors (October 2015 price levels)'' 
     after ``$12 per acre-foot (October 1992 price levels) for 
     municipal and industrial water sold and delivered by the 
     Central Valley Project''.
       (d) Completion of Actions.--Section 3407(d)(2)(A) of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act is amended by 
     inserting ``no later than December 31, 2020,'' after ``That 
     upon the completion of the fish, wildlife, and habitat 
     mitigation and restoration actions mandated under section 
     3406 of this title,''.
       (e) Report; Advisory Board.--Section 3407 of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Report on Expenditure of Funds.--At the end of each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Restoration Fund Advisory Board, shall submit to Congress a 
     plan for the expenditure of all of the funds deposited into 
     the Restoration Fund during the preceding fiscal year. Such 
     plan shall contain a cost-effectiveness analysis of each 
     expenditure.
       ``(h) Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established the 
     Restoration Fund Advisory Board (hereinafter in this section 
     referred to as the `Advisory Board') composed of 12 members 
     selected by the Secretary, each for four-year terms, one of 
     whom shall be designated by the Secretary as Chairman. The 
     members shall be selected so as to represent the various 
     Central Valley Project stakeholders, four of whom shall be 
     from CVP agricultural users, three from CVP municipal and 
     industrial users, three from CVP power contractors, and two 
     at the discretion of the Secretary. The Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Commerce may each designate a representative to 
     act as an observer of the Advisory Board.
       ``(2) Duties.--The duties of the Advisory Board are as 
     follows:
       ``(A) To meet at least semiannually to develop and make 
     recommendations to the Secretary regarding priorities and 
     spending levels on projects and programs carried out pursuant 
     to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
       ``(B) To ensure that any advice or recommendation made by 
     the Advisory Board to the Secretary reflect the independent 
     judgment of the Advisory Board.
       ``(C) Not later than December 31, 2015, and annually 
     thereafter, to transmit to the Secretary and Congress 
     recommendations required under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Not later than December 31, 2015, and biennially 
     thereafter, to transmit to Congress a report that details the 
     progress made in achieving the actions mandated under section 
     3406 of this title.
       ``(3) Administration.--With the consent of the appropriate 
     agency head, the Advisory Board may use the facilities and 
     services of any Federal agency.''.

     SEC. 107. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Authority for Certain Activities.--Section 3408(c) of 
     the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4728) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Contracts for Additional Storage and Delivery of 
     Water.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to enter 
     into contracts pursuant to Federal reclamation law and this 
     title with any Federal agency, California water user or water 
     agency, State agency, or private organization for the 
     exchange, impoundment, storage, carriage, and delivery of 
     nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, fish 
     and wildlife, and any other beneficial purpose.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     deemed to supersede the provisions of section 103 of Public 
     Law 99-546 (100 Stat. 3051).
       ``(3) Authority for certain activities.--The Secretary 
     shall use the authority granted by this subsection in 
     connection with requests to exchange, impound, store, carry, 
     or deliver nonproject water using Central Valley Project 
     facilities for any beneficial purpose.
       ``(4) Rates.--The Secretary shall develop rates not to 
     exceed the amount required to recover the reasonable costs 
     incurred by the Secretary in connection with a beneficial 
     purpose under this subsection. Such rates shall be charged to 
     a party using Central Valley Project facilities for such 
     purpose. Such costs shall not include any donation or other 
     payment to the Restoration Fund.
       ``(5) Construction.--This subsection shall be construed and 
     implemented to facilitate and encourage the use of Central 
     Valley Project facilities to exchange, impound, store, carry, 
     or deliver nonproject water for any beneficial purpose.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 3408(f) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Interior and Insular Affairs and the 
     Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries'' and inserting 
     ``Natural Resources'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period 
     at the end the following: ``, including progress on the plan 
     required by subsection (j)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``The filing and 
     adequacy of such report shall be personally certified to the 
     Committees referenced above by the Regional Director of the 
     Mid-Pacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation.''.
       (c) Project Yield Increase.--Section 3408(j) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4730) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G), respectively.
       (2) By striking ``In order to minimize adverse effects, if 
     any, upon'' and inserting ``(1) In general.--In order to 
     minimize adverse effects upon''.
       (3) By striking ``needs, the Secretary,'' and all that 
     follows through ``submit to the Congress, a'' and inserting 
     ``needs, the Secretary, on a priority basis and not later 
     than September 30, 2015, shall submit to Congress a''.
       (4) By striking ``increase,'' and all that follows through 
     ``options:'' and inserting ``increase, as soon as possible 
     but not later than September 30, 2018 (except for the 
     construction of new facilities which shall not be limited by 
     that deadline), the water of the Central Valley Project by 
     the amount dedicated and managed for fish and wildlife 
     purposes under this title and otherwise required to meet the 
     purposes of the Central Valley Project including satisfying 
     contractual obligations. The plan required by this subsection 
     shall include recommendations on appropriate cost-sharing 
     arrangements and authorizing legislation or other measures 
     needed to implement the intent, purposes, and provisions of 
     this subsection and a description of how the Secretary 
     intends to use the following options--''.
       (5) In subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and construction of 
     new water storage facilities'' before the semicolon.
       (6) In subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end.
       (7) In subparagraph (G), by striking the period and all 
     that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting 
     ``; and''.
       (8) By inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
       ``(H) Water banking and recharge.''.
       (9) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Implementation of plan.--The Secretary shall 
     implement the plan required by paragraph (1) commencing on 
     October 1, 2015. In order to carry out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall coordinate with the State of California in 
     implementing measures for the long-term resolution of 
     problems in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 
     Delta Estuary.
       ``(3) Failure of the plan.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of Federal reclamation law, if by September 30, 
     2018, the plan required by paragraph (1) fails to increase 
     the annual delivery capability of the Central Valley Project 
     by 800,000 acre-feet, implementation of any non-mandatory 
     action under section 3406(b)(2) shall be suspended until the 
     plan achieves an increase in the annual delivery capability 
     of the Central Valley Project by 800,000 acre-feet.''.
       (d) Technical Correction.--Section 3408(h) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (h)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (h)(i)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
       (e) Water Storage Project Construction.--The Secretary, 
     acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, 
     may partner or enter into an agreement on the water storage 
     projects identified in section 103(d)(1) of the Water Supply 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 
     108-361) (and Acts supplemental and amendatory to the Act) 
     with local joint powers authorities formed pursuant to State 
     law by irrigation districts and other local water districts 
     and local governments within the applicable hydrologic 
     region, to advance these projects. No additional Federal 
     funds are authorized for the activities authorized in 
     sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i), 103(d)(1)(A)(ii), and 
     103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108-361. However, each water 
     storage project under sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i), 
     103(d)(1)(A)(ii), and

[[Page 2558]]

     103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108-361 is authorized for 
     construction if non-Federal funds are used for financing and 
     constructing the project.

     SEC. 108. BAY-DELTA ACCORD.

       (a) Congressional Direction Regarding Central Valley 
     Project and California State Water Project Operations.--The 
     Central Valley Project and the State Water Project shall be 
     operated pursuant to the water quality standards and 
     operational constraints described in the ``Principles for 
     Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of 
     California and the Federal Government'' dated December 15, 
     1994, and such operations shall proceed without regard to the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or 
     any other law pertaining to the operation of the Central 
     Valley Project and the California State Water Project. 
     Implementation of this section shall be in strict conformance 
     with the ``Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta 
     Standards Between the State of California and the Federal 
     Government'' dated December 15, 1994.
       (b) Application of Laws to Others.--Neither a Federal 
     department nor the State of California, including any agency 
     or board of the State of California, shall impose on any 
     water right obtained pursuant to State law, including a pre-
     1914 appropriative right, any condition that restricts the 
     exercise of that water right in order to conserve, enhance, 
     recover or otherwise protect any species that is affected by 
     operations of the Central Valley Project or California State 
     Water Project. Nor shall the State of California, including 
     any agency or board of the State of California, restrict the 
     exercise of any water right obtained pursuant to State law, 
     including a pre-1914 appropriative right, in order to 
     protect, enhance, or restore under the Public Trust Doctrine 
     any public trust value. Implementation of the ``Principles 
     for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of 
     California and the Federal Government'' dated December 15, 
     1994, shall be in strict compliance with the water rights 
     priority system and statutory protections for areas of 
     origin.
       (c) Costs.--No cost associated with the implementation of 
     this section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any 
     Central Valley Project contractor, or any other person or 
     entity, unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary basis.
       (d) Native Species Protection.--California law is preempted 
     with respect to any restriction on the quantity or size of 
     nonnative fish taken or harvested that preys upon one or more 
     native fish species that occupy the Sacramento and San 
     Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries or the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Rivers Delta.

     SEC. 109. NATURAL AND ARTIFICIALLY SPAWNED SPECIES.

       After the date of the enactment of this title, and 
     regardless of the date of listing, the Secretaries of the 
     Interior and Commerce shall not distinguish between natural-
     spawned and hatchery-spawned or otherwise artificially 
     propagated strains of a species in making any determination 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) that relates to any anadromous fish species present in 
     the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries 
     and ascend those rivers and their tributaries to reproduce 
     after maturing in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean.

     SEC. 110. AUTHORIZED SERVICE AREA.

       The authorized service area of the Central Valley Project 
     shall include the area within the boundaries of the Kettleman 
     City Community Services District, California, as those 
     boundaries exist on the date of the enactment of this title. 
     Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of October 30, 1992 
     (Public Law 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600 et seq.), upon enactment 
     of this title, the Secretary is authorized and directed to 
     enter into a long-term contract in accordance with the 
     reclamation laws with the Kettleman City Community Services 
     District, California, for the delivery of up to 900 acre-feet 
     of Central Valley Project water for municipal and industrial 
     use. The Secretary may temporarily reduce deliveries of the 
     quantity of water made available pursuant to up to 25 percent 
     of such total whenever reductions due to hydrologic 
     circumstances are imposed upon agricultural deliveries of 
     Central Valley Project water. If any additional 
     infrastructure or related-costs are needed to implement this 
     section, such costs shall be the responsibility of the non-
     Federal entity.

     SEC. 111. REGULATORY STREAMLINING.

       (a) Applicability of Certain Laws.--Filing of a Notice of 
     Determination or a Notice of Exemption for any project, 
     including the issuance of a permit under State law, related 
     to any project of the CVP or the delivery of water therefrom 
     in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act 
     shall be deemed to meet the requirements of section 102(2)(C) 
     of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) for that project or permit.
       (b) Continuation of Project.--The Bureau of Reclamation 
     shall not be required to cease or modify any major Federal 
     action or other activity related to any project of the CVP or 
     the delivery of water there from pending completion of 
     judicial review of any determination made under the National 
     Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
       (c) Project Defined.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) Cvp.--The term ``CVP'' means the Central Valley 
     Project.
       (2) Project.--The term ``project''--
       (A) means an activity that--
       (i) is undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public 
     agency, or that requires an issuance of a permit by a public 
     agency;
       (ii) has a potential to result in physical change to the 
     environment; and
       (iii) may be subject to several discretionary approvals by 
     governmental agencies;
       (B) may include construction activities, clearing or 
     grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and 
     activities or equipment involving the issuance of a permit; 
     or
       (C) as defined under the California Environmental Quality 
     Act in section 21065 of the California Public Resource Code.

     SEC. 112. WARREN ACT CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall offer to the Oakdale Irrigation District and the South 
     San Joaquin Irrigation District (hereafter in this section 
     referred to as the ``districts'') a contract enabling the 
     districts to collectively impound and store up to 200,000 
     acre-feet of their Stanislaus River water rights in the New 
     Melones Reservoir in accordance with the terms and conditions 
     of sections 1 through 3 of the Act of February 21, 1911 (43 
     U.S.C. 523-525; commonly known as the ``Warren Act''); 
     provided that before offering any such contract, the 
     Secretary has determined that the amount of water to be 
     impounded and stored under the contract will not directly or 
     indirectly result in any redirected adverse water supply or 
     fiscal impacts to any Central Valley Project contractor 
     related to the Secretary's operation of the Central Valley 
     Project to meet legal obligations imposed by or through any 
     State or Federal agency, including but not limited to those 
     legal obligations emanating from the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), the Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., commonly known as the 
     ``Clean Water Act'' pursuant to the 1977 amendments, Public 
     Law 95-217), and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 
     (Cal. Water Code 13000, et seq.).
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The terms and conditions of any 
     contract entered into under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) be for a term of not less than 10 years; and (2) 
     expressly provide that--
       (A) the districts may use any water impounded and stored in 
     the New Melones Reservoir for any legal purpose under 
     California law, including use within the boundaries of either 
     district, transfer to and reasonable and beneficial use by a 
     person or entity not located within the boundaries of either 
     district, and for instream use in the Stanislaus River, the 
     San Joaquin River, or the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta; 
     and
       (B) any water impounded and stored by either district shall 
     not be released or withdrawn if the end of month September 
     storage level for New Melones Reservoir is projected to be 
     equal to or below 300,000 acre-feet, but in such event the 
     impounded and stored water shall be retained in the New 
     Melones Reservoir for use by the districts in the following 
     year, subject to the same 300,000 acre-foot minimum storage 
     requirement, and without additional payment being required.
       (c) Conservation Account.--Any water impounded and stored 
     in the New Melones Reservoir by either district under the 
     contract shall not be considered or accounted as water placed 
     in the districts' conservation account, as that account is 
     defined and explained in the August 30, 1988 Stipulation and 
     Agreement entered into by and between the Bureau of 
     Reclamation and the districts.

     SEC. 113. ADDITIONAL WARREN ACT CONTRACTS.

       (a) ) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall develop and offer to the Calaveras County Water 
     District (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``CCWD'') a contract enabling the CCWD to impound and store 
     up to 100,000 acre-feet of their Stanislaus River water 
     rights in the New Melones Reservoir in accordance with the 
     terms and conditions of sections 1 through 3 of the Act of 
     February 21, 1911 (43 U.S.C. 523-525; commonly known as the 
     ``Warren Act''). This stored water may be obtained for use by 
     CCWD at a point, or points determined convenient to the 
     District.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The terms and conditions of any 
     contract entered into under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) be for a term of not less than 10 years; and
       (2) expressly provide that--
       (A) the CCWD may use any water impounded and stored in the 
     New Melones Reservoir for any legal purpose under California 
     law, including use within the boundaries of the CCWD, 
     transfer to and reasonable and beneficial use by a person or 
     entity not located within the boundaries of CCWD, and for 
     instream use in the Stanislaus River, the San Joaquin River, 
     or the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta; and
       (B) any water impounded and stored by either district shall 
     not be released or withdrawn if the end of month September 
     storage level for New Melones Reservoir is projected to be 
     equal to or below 300,000 acre-feet, but in such event the 
     impounded and stored water shall be retained in the New 
     Melones Reservoir for use by the districts in the following 
     year, subject to the same 300,000 acre-foot minimum storage 
     requirement, and without additional payment being required.

     SEC. 114. PILOT PROGRAM TO PROTECT NATIVE ANADROMOUS FISH IN 
                   THE STANISLAUS RIVER.

       (a) Establishment of Non-native Predator Fish Removal 
     Program.--The Commissioner and districts, in consultation 
     with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife, shall jointly develop and conduct a pilot 
     non-native predator fish removal program to remove non-native 
     striped

[[Page 2559]]

     bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black bass, and other 
     non-native predator fishes from the Stanislaus River. The 
     pilot program shall--
       (1) be scientifically based;
       (2) include methods to quantify the number and size of 
     predator fishes removed each year, the impact of such removal 
     on the overall abundance of predator fishes, and the impact 
     of such removal on the populations of juvenile anadromous 
     fish found in the Stanislaus River by, among other things, 
     evaluating the number of juvenile anadromous fish that 
     migrate past the rotary screw trap located at Caswell;
       (3) use wire fyke trapping, portable resistance board 
     weirs, and boat electrofishing, which are the most effective 
     predator collection techniques that minimize affects to 
     native anadromous fish;
       (4) be developed, including the application for all 
     necessary scientific research and species enhancement permits 
     under section 10(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)), for the performance of the pilot 
     program, not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act;
       (5) be implemented on the first business day of the 
     calendar year following the issuance of all necessary 
     scientific research and species enhancement permits needed to 
     begin the pilot program; and
       (6) be implemented for a period of seven consecutive 
     calendar years.
       (b) Management.--The management of the pilot program shall 
     be the joint responsibility of the Commissioner and the 
     districts. Such parties shall work collaboratively to insure 
     the performance of the pilot program, and shall discuss and 
     agree upon, among other things, changes in the structure, 
     management, personnel, techniques, strategy, data collection, 
     reporting and conduct of the pilot program.
       (c) Conduct.--
       (1) In general.--At the election of the districts, the 
     pilot program may be conducted by their own personnel, 
     qualified private contractors hired by the districts, 
     personnel of, on loan to, or otherwise assigned to the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, or a combination thereof.
       (2) Participation by the bureau of reclamation.--In the 
     event the districts elect to conduct the program using their 
     own personnel or qualified private contractors hired by them, 
     the Commissioner has the option to assign an employee of, on 
     loan to, or otherwise assigned to the Bureau of Reclamation, 
     to be present for all activities performed in the field. Such 
     presence shall insure compliance with the agreed upon 
     elements specified in subsection (b). The districts shall pay 
     100 percent of the cost of such participation as specified in 
     subsection (d).
       (3) Timing of election.--The districts shall notify the 
     Commissioner of their election on or before October 15 of 
     each calendar year of the pilot program, which election shall 
     apply to the work performed in the subsequent calendar year.
       (d) Funding.--
       (1) Annual funding.--The districts shall be responsible for 
     100 percent of the cost of the pilot program. On or before 
     December 1 of each year of the pilot program, the 
     Commissioner shall submit to the districts an estimate of the 
     cost to be incurred by the Bureau of Reclamation in the 
     following calendar year, if any, including the cost of any 
     data collection and posting under subsection (e). If an 
     amount equal to the estimate is not provided to the 
     reclamation fund identified in section 3 of the Act of 
     February 21, 1911 (43 U.S.C. 525), or any other fund as 
     directed by the Commissioner, by the districts on or before 
     December 31 of each year, (a) the Bureau of Reclamation shall 
     have no obligation to conduct the pilot program activities 
     otherwise scheduled, and (b) the districts shall be 
     prohibited from conducting any aspect of the pilot program, 
     until full payment is made by the districts.
       (2) Accounting.--On or before September 1 of each calendar 
     year, the Commissioner shall provide an accounting of the 
     prior calendar year's expenses to the districts. If the 
     estimate paid by the districts was less than the actual costs 
     incurred by the Bureau of Reclamation, the districts shall 
     have until September 30 of that calendar year to pay the 
     difference to the reclamation fund. If the estimate paid by 
     the districts was greater than the actual costs incurred by 
     the Bureau of Reclamation, then a credit shall be provided to 
     the districts, which shall be deducted from the estimate 
     payment the districts must make for the work performed by the 
     Bureau of Reclamation, if any, in the next calendar year.
       (e) Reporting and Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--On or before the 15th day of each month, 
     the Commissioner shall post on the website of the Bureau of 
     Reclamation a tabular summary of the raw data collected in 
     the prior month. (2) REPORT.
       (2) Report.--On or before June 30 of the calendar year 
     following the completion of the program, the Commissioner and 
     districts shall jointly publish a peer reviewed report that--
       (A) discusses the findings and conclusions of the pilot 
     program;
       (B) synthesizes the data collected under paragraph (1); and
       (C) makes recommendations for further study and action.
       (f) Permits Process.--
       (1) Not later than 180 days after filing of an application 
     by the Commissioner and the districts, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, or both, as appropriate, 
     shall issue all necessary scientific research and species 
     enhancement permits under section 10(a)(1) of the Endangered 
     Species Act (16 U.S.C. 153(9)(a)(1)), for the performance of 
     the pilot program.
       (2) Any permit application that is not approved by the 
     Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Commerce, or both, as 
     appropriate, for any reason, within 180 days after receiving 
     the application, shall be deemed approved.
       (3) All permits issued shall be in the name of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation and the districts.
       (4) Districts may delegate the authority to administer the 
     permit authority to any qualified private contractor retained 
     in accordance with subsection (c).
       (5) The pilot program, including amendments thereto by the 
     appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall constitute a 
     conservation plan that complies with the requirements of 
     section 10(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)).
       (g) NEPA.--Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) shall not apply 
     with respect to section 402 and the issuance of any permit 
     under this subsection during the seven year period beginning 
     on the date of the implementation of the pilot program.
       (h) Restrictions.--Any restriction imposed under California 
     law on the catch, take, or harvest of any non-native or 
     introduced aquatic or terrestrial species that preys upon 
     anadromous fish and that occupies or is found in the 
     Stanislaus River is hereby void and is preempted.
       (i) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) Anadromous fish.--
       (A) The term ``anadromous fish'' as applied to the 
     Stanislaus River and the operation of New Melones--
       (i) means those native stocks of salmon (including 
     steelhead) that--

       (I) as of October 30, 1992 were present in and had not been 
     extirpated from the Stanislaus River, and
       (II) which ascend the Stanislaus River to reproduce after 
     maturing in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean; and

       (ii) does not mean any stock, strain or member of American 
     shad, sockeye salmon, or striped bass.
       (B) The definition of anadromous fish provided in section 
     3403(a) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public 
     Law 102-575) shall not apply to the operation of New Melones 
     Dam and Reservoir, or to any Federal action in the Stanislaus 
     River.
       (2) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the 
     Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
       (3) Districts.--The term ``districts'' means the Oakdale 
     Irrigation District and the South San Joaquin Irrigation 
     District.
       (4) Pilot program.--The term ``program'' means the pilot 
     non-native predator removal program established under this 
     section.
       (j) Sunset.--The authorities provided under this section 
     shall expire seven years after the implementation of the 
     pilot program.

     SEC. 115. SAN LUIS RESERVOIR.

       In connection with operations of the Central Valley 
     Project, California, if San Luis Reservoir does not fill by 
     the last day of February, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     permit any entity with an agricultural water service or 
     repayment contract for the delivery of water from the Delta 
     Division or the San Luis Unit to reschedule into the 
     immediately following contract year (March 1 through the last 
     day of February) any unused Central Valley Project water 
     previously allocated for irrigation purposes. If water 
     remaining in federal storage in San Luis Reservoir on the 
     last day of February is insufficient to meet all rescheduling 
     requests, the Secretary shall apportion, based on contract 
     quantity, among all such contractors that request to 
     reschedule water all water remaining in San Luis Reservoir on 
     the last day of February. The Secretary shall thereafter make 
     all reasonable efforts to make available additional 
     rescheduled water; provided that such efforts shall not 
     interfere with the Central Valley Project operations in the 
     contract year into which Central Valley Project has been 
     rescheduled.

                TITLE II--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION

     SEC. 201. REPEAL OF THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.

       As of the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary 
     shall cease any action to implement the Stipulation of 
     Settlement (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk 
     Rodgers, et al., Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S-
     88-1658 LKK/GGH).

     SEC. 202. PURPOSE.

       Section 10002 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended by striking 
     ``implementation of the Settlement'' and inserting 
     ``restoration of the San Joaquin River''.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 10003 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) The term `Restoration Flows' means the additional 
     water released or bypassed from Friant Dam to insure that the 
     target flow entering Mendota Pool, located approximately 62 
     river miles downstream from Friant Dam, does not fall below 
     50 cubic feet per second.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) The term `Water Year' means March 1 through the last 
     day of February of the following Calendar Year, both dates 
     inclusive.''; and

[[Page 2560]]

       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) The term `Critical Water Year' means when the total 
     unimpaired runoff at Friant Dam is less than 400,000 acre-
     feet, as forecasted as of March 1 of that water year by the 
     California Department of Water Resources.''.

     SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATION.

       Section 10004 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``authorized and directed'' and all that follows through ``in 
     the Settlement:'' and inserting ``authorized to carry out the 
     following:'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5);
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``(3)'' and inserting ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph 13 of the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) In each Water Year, commencing in the Water Year 
     starting on March 1, 2015--
       ``(A) shall modify Friant Dam operations so as to release 
     the Restoration Flows for that Water Year, except in any 
     Critical Water Year;
       ``(B) shall ensure that the release of Restoration Flows 
     are maintained at the level prescribed by this part, but that 
     Restoration Flows do not reach downstream of Mendota Pool;
       ``(C) shall release the Restoration Flows in a manner that 
     improves the fishery in the San Joaquin River below Friant 
     Dam, but upstream of Gravelly Ford in existence as of the 
     date of the enactment of this part, and the associated 
     riparian habitat; and
       ``(D) may, without limiting the actions required under 
     paragraphs (A) and (C) and subject to subsections 10004(a)(3) 
     and 10004(l), use the Restoration Flows to enhance or restore 
     a warm water fishery downstream of Gravelly Ford to and 
     including Mendota Pool, if the Secretary determines that it 
     is reasonable, prudent, and feasible to do so; and
       ``(3) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of this section, the Secretary shall develop and implement, 
     in cooperation with the State of California, a reasonable 
     plan, to fully recirculate, recapture, reuse, exchange, or 
     transfer all Restoration Flows and provide such recirculated, 
     recaptured, reused, exchanged, or transferred flows to those 
     contractors within the Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and 
     Buchanan Unit of the Central Valley Project that relinquished 
     the Restoration Flows so recirculated, recaptured, reused, 
     exchanged, or transferred. Such a plan shall address any 
     impact on ground water resources within the service area of 
     the Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit of the 
     Central Valley Project and mitigation may include ground 
     water banking and recharge projects. Such a plan shall not 
     impact the water supply or water rights of any entity outside 
     the Friant Division, Hidden unit, and Buchanan Unit of the 
     Central Valley Project. Such a plan shall be subject to 
     applicable provisions of California water law and the 
     Secretary's use of Central Valley Project facilities to make 
     Project water (other than water released from Friant Dam 
     pursuant to this part) and water acquired through transfers 
     available to existing south-of-Delta Central Valley Project 
     contractors.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Mitigation of Impacts.--Prior to October 1, 2015, the 
     Secretary shall identify--
       ``(1) the impacts associated with the release of 
     Restoration Flows prescribed in this part;
       ``(2) the measures which shall be implemented to mitigate 
     impacts on adjacent and downstream water users, landowners 
     and agencies as a result of Restoration Flows prescribed in 
     this part; and
       ``(3) prior to the implementation of decisions or 
     agreements to construct, improve, operate, or maintain 
     facilities that the Secretary determines are needed to 
     implement this part, the Secretary shall implement all 
     mitigations measures identified in subsection (d)(2) before 
     Restoration Flows are commenced.'';
       (5) in subsection (e), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (6) in subsection (f), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     all that follows through ``section 10011'' and insert ``this 
     part'';
       (7) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``the Settlement and'' before this part; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``or exchange contract'' and inserting 
     ``exchange contract, or water rights settlement or holding 
     contracts'';
       (8) in subsection (h)--
       (A) by striking ``Interim'' in the header;
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``Interim Flows under the Settlement'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration Flows under this part'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C)--

       (I) in clause (i), by striking ``Interim'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration''; and
       (II) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;

       (iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (iv) by striking subparagraph (E);
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``Interim'' and inserting ``Restoration'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (A); and
       (iii) by striking ``(B) exceed'' and inserting ``exceed'';
       (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Interim'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration''; and
       (E) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Claims.--Within 60 days of enactment of this Act the 
     Secretary shall promulgate a rule establishing a claims 
     process to address current and future claims including, but 
     not limited to, ground water seepage, flooding, or levee 
     instability damages caused as a result of, arising out of, or 
     related to implementation of subtitle A of title X of Public 
     Law 111-11.'';
       (9) in subsection (i)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``the Settlement and parts I and III'' and inserting ``this 
     part'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (iii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``additional amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated, including the''; and
       (II) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and

       (iv) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (10) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(k) No Impacts on Other Interests.--No Central Valley 
     Project or other water other than San Joaquin River water 
     impounded by or bypassed from Friant Dam shall be used to 
     implement subsection (a)(2) unless such use is on a voluntary 
     basis. No cost associated with the implementation of this 
     section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any 
     Central Valley Project contractor, or any other person or 
     entity, outside the Friant Division, the Hidden Unit, or the 
     Buchanan Unit, unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary 
     basis. The implementation of this part shall not result 
     directly or indirectly in any reduction in water supplies or 
     water reliability on any Central Valley Project contractor, 
     any State Water Project contractor, or any other person or 
     entity, outside the Friant Division, the Hidden Unit, or the 
     Buchanan Unit, unless such reductions or costs are incurred 
     on a voluntary basis.
       ``(l) Priority.--All actions taken under this part shall be 
     subordinate to the Secretary's use of Central Valley Project 
     facilities to make Project water available to Project 
     contractors, other than water released from the Friant Dam 
     pursuant to this part.
       ``(m) In General.--Notwithstanding section 8 of the 
     Reclamation Act of 1902, except as provided in this part, 
     including title IV of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys 
     Water Reliability Act, this part preempts and supersedes any 
     State law, regulation, or requirement that imposes more 
     restrictive requirements or regulations on the activities 
     authorized under this part. Nothing in this part shall alter 
     or modify the obligations, if any, of the Friant Division, 
     Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit of the Central Valley Project, 
     or other water users on the San Joaquin River or its 
     tributaries, under orders issued by the State Water Resources 
     Control Board pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality 
     Control Act (California Water Code sections 13000 et seq.). 
     Any such order shall be consistent with the congressional 
     authorization for any affected Federal facility as it 
     pertains to the Central Valley Project.
       ``(n) Project Implementation.--Projects to implement this 
     title shall be phased such that each project shall follow the 
     sequencing identified below and include at least the--
       ``(1) project purpose and need;
       ``(2) identification of mitigation measures;
       ``(3) appropriate environmental review; and
       ``(4) prior to releasing Restoration Flows under this part, 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) complete the implementation of mitigation measures 
     required; and
       ``(B) complete implementation of the project.''.

     SEC. 205. DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY; TITLE TO FACILITIES.

       Section 10005 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the Settlement 
     authorized by this part'' and inserting ``this part'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``The Secretary''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the Settlement authorized by this part'' 
     and inserting ``this part''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``through the exercise of its eminent 
     domain authority''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this 
     part''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 10009(c)'' and 
     inserting ``section 10009''.

     SEC. 206. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW.

       Section 10006 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``unless otherwise 
     provided by this part'' before the period at the end; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';

[[Page 2561]]

       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, unless otherwise 
     provided by this part'' before the period at the end;
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 10004'' and 
     inserting ``this part''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by inserting ``, including without limitation to 
     sections 10004(d) and 10004(h)(4) of this part,'' after 
     ``implementing this part''; and
       (B) by striking ``for implementation of the Settlement''.

     SEC. 207. COMPLIANCE WITH CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT 
                   ACT.

       Section 10007 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
       (A) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting 
     ``enactment of this part''; and
       (B) by inserting: ``and the obligations of the Secretary 
     and all other parties to protect and keep in good condition 
     any fish that may be planted or exist below Friant Dam 
     including any obligations under section 5937 of the 
     California Fish and Game Code and the public trust doctrine, 
     and those of the Secretary and all other parties under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).'' 
     before ``, provided''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, as provided in the 
     Settlement''.

     SEC. 208. NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

       Section 10008(a) of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``not a party to the Settlement'' after 
     ``person or entity''; and
       (2) by striking ``or the Settlement'' before the period and 
     inserting ``unless otherwise provided by this part. Any 
     Central Valley Project long-term water service or repayment 
     contractor within the Friant Division, Hidden unit, or 
     Buchanan Unit adversely affected by the Secretary's failure 
     to comply with section 10004(a)(3) of this part may bring an 
     action against the Secretary for injunctive relief or 
     damages, or both.''.

     SEC. 209. IMPLEMENTATION.

       Section 10009 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) in the header by striking ``; settlement fund'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``the Settlement'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``this part'';
       (ii) by striking ``, estimated to total'' and all that 
     follows through ``subsection (b)(1),''; and
       (iii) by striking ``provided however,'' and all that 
     follows through ``$110,000,000 of State funds'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A) In general.--The 
     Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``Except as provided in the Settlement, 
     to'' and inserting ``To''; and
       (ii) by striking ``this Settlement'' and inserting ``this 
     part'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``In addition'' through ``however, that 
     the'' and inserting ``The'';
       (B) by striking ``such additional appropriations only in 
     amounts equal to''; and
       (C) by striking ``or the Settlement'' before the period;
       (4) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this part'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``from the sale of 
     water pursuant to the Settlement, or''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``the Settlement'' 
     and inserting ``this part'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement and'' 
     before ``this part''; and
       (5) by striking subsections (d) through (f).

     SEC. 210. REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT 
                   OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

       Section 10010 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(D), by striking ``the Settlement and'' 
     before ``this part''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``the Settlement and'' 
     before ``this part'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3);
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``the Settlement'' in 
     both places it appears and inserting ``this part'';
       (4) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Interim Flows or Restoration Flows, 
     pursuant to paragraphs 13 or 15 of the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``Restoration Flows, pursuant to this part'';
       (ii) by striking ``Interim Flows or'' before ``Restoration 
     Flows''; and
       (iii) by striking ``the Interim Flows or Restoration Flows 
     or is intended to otherwise facilitate the Water Management 
     Goal, as described in the Settlement'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration Flows''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``except as provided in paragraph 16(b) of 
     the Settlement'' after ``Friant Division long-term 
     contractor''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the Interim Flows or Restoration Flows 
     or to facilitate the Water Management Goal'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration Flows''.

     SEC. 211. REPEAL.

       Section 10011 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is repealed.

     SEC. 212. WATER SUPPLY MITIGATION.

       Section 10202(b) of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Interim or 
     Restoration Flows authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and 
     inserting ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Interim or 
     Restoration Flows authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and 
     inserting ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``meet the Restoration 
     Goal as described in part I of this subtitle'' and inserting 
     ``recover Restoration Flows as described in this part'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) by striking ``the Interim or Restoration Flows 
     authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, and for ensuring appropriate 
     adjustment in the recovered water account pursuant to section 
     10004(a)(5)''.

     SEC. 213. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.

       Section 10203 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``section 10004(a)(4)'' and inserting 
     ``section 10004(a)(3)''; and
       (B) by striking ``, provided'' and all that follows through 
     ``section 10009(f)(2)''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c).

    TITLE III--REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT OF 
                           CONSTRUCTION COSTS

     SEC. 301. REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT 
                   OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

       (a) Conversion of Contracts.--
       (1) Not later than 1 year after enactment, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, upon request of the contractor, shall convert 
     all existing long-term Central Valley Project contracts 
     entered under subsection (e) of section 9 of the Act of 
     August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1196), to a contract under 
     subsection (d) of section 9 of said Act (53 Stat. 1195), 
     under mutually agreeable terms and conditions.
       (2) Upon request of the contractor, the Secretary is 
     further authorized to convert, not later than 1 year after 
     enactment, any Central Valley Project long-term contract 
     entered under subsection (c)(2) of section 9 of the Act of 
     August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1194), to a contract under 
     subsection (c)(1) of section 9 of said Act, under mutually 
     agreeable terms and conditions.
       (3) All contracts entered into pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) require the repayment, either in lump sum or by 
     accelerated prepayment, of the remaining amount of 
     construction costs identified in the most current version of 
     the Central Valley Project Schedule of Irrigation Capital 
     Allocations by Contractor, as adjusted to reflect payments 
     not reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for 
     ultimate return by the contractor, no later than January 31, 
     2015, or if made in approximately equal annual installments, 
     no later than January 31, 2018; such amount to be discounted 
     by the Treasury Rate. An estimate of the remaining amount of 
     construction costs as of January 31, 2015, as adjusted, shall 
     be provided by the Secretary of the Interior to each 
     contractor no later than 180 days after enactment;
       (B) require that, notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), 
     construction costs or other capitalized costs incurred after 
     the effective date of the converted contract or not reflected 
     in the schedule referenced in subparagraph (A), and properly 
     assignable to such contractor, shall be repaid in not more 
     than 5 years after notification of the allocation if such 
     amount is a result of a collective annual allocation of 
     capital costs to the contractors exercising contract 
     conversions under this subsection of less than $5,000,000. If 
     such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be 
     repaid as provided by applicable reclamation law, provided 
     that the reference to the amount of $5,000,000 shall not be a 
     precedent in any other context; and
       (C) provide that power revenues will not be available to 
     aid in repayment of construction costs allocated to 
     irrigation under the contract.
       (4) All contracts entered into pursuant to paragraph (2) 
     shall--
       (A) require the repayment in lump sum of the remaining 
     amount of construction costs identified in the most current 
     version of the Central Valley Project Schedule of Municipal 
     and Industrial Water Rates, as adjusted to reflect payments 
     not reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for 
     ultimate return by the contractor, no later than January 31, 
     2018. An estimate of the remaining amount of construction 
     costs as of January 31, 2018, as adjusted, shall be provided 
     by the Secretary of the Interior to each contractor no later 
     than 180 days after enactment; and
       (B) require that, notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), 
     construction costs or other capitalized costs incurred after 
     the effective date of the contract or not reflected in the 
     schedule referenced in subparagraph (A), and properly 
     assignable to such contractor, shall be repaid in not more

[[Page 2562]]

     than 5 years after notification of the allocation if such 
     amount is a result of a collective annual allocation of 
     capital costs to the contractors exercising contract 
     conversions under this subsection of less than $5,000,000. If 
     such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be 
     repaid as provided by applicable reclamation law, provided 
     that the reference to the amount of $5,000,000 shall not be a 
     precedent in any other context.
       (b) Final Adjustment.--The amounts paid pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to adjustment following a 
     final cost allocation by the Secretary of the Interior upon 
     completion of the construction of the Central Valley Project. 
     In the event that the final cost allocation indicates that 
     the costs properly assignable to the contractor are greater 
     than what has been paid by the contractor, the contractor 
     shall be obligated to pay the remaining allocated costs. The 
     term of such additional repayment contract shall be no less 
     than 1 year and no more than 10 years, however, mutually 
     agreeable provisions regarding the rate of repayment of such 
     amount may be developed by the parties. In the event that the 
     final cost allocation indicates that the costs properly 
     assignable to the contractor are less than what the 
     contractor has paid, the Secretary of the Interior is 
     authorized and directed to credit such overpayment as an 
     offset against any outstanding or future obligation of the 
     contractor.
       (c) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any repayment obligation under 
     subsection (a)(3)(B) or subsection (b), upon a contractor's 
     compliance with and discharge of the obligation of repayment 
     of the construction costs as provided in subsection 
     (a)(3)(A), the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations of 
     any provision of Federal reclamation law shall not apply to 
     lands in such district.
       (2) Notwithstanding any repayment obligation under 
     paragraph (3)(B) or paragraph (4)(B) of subsection (a), or 
     subsection (b), upon a contractor's compliance with and 
     discharge of the obligation of repayment of the construction 
     costs as provided in paragraphs (3)(A) and (4)(A) of 
     subsection (a), such contractor shall continue to pay 
     applicable operation and maintenance costs and other charges 
     applicable to such repayment contracts pursuant to the then-
     current rate-setting policy and applicable law.
       (d) Certain Repayment Obligations Not Altered.--
     Implementation of the provisions of this section shall not 
     alter the repayment obligation of any other long-term water 
     service or repayment contractor receiving water from the 
     Central Valley Project, or shift any costs that would 
     otherwise have been properly assignable to any contractors 
     absent this section, including operations and maintenance 
     costs, construction costs, or other capitalized costs 
     incurred after the date of enactment of this Act, to other 
     such contractors.
       (e) Statutory Interpretation.--Nothing in this part shall 
     be construed to affect the right of any long-term contractor 
     to use a particular type of financing to make the payments 
     required in paragraph (3)(A) or paragraph (4)(A) of 
     subsection (a).
       (f) Definition of Treasury Rate.--For purposes of this 
     section, ``Treasury Rate'' shall be defined as the 20-year 
     Constant Maturity Treasury rate published by the United 
     States Department of the Treasury as of October 1, 2014.

 TITLE IV--BAY-DELTA WATERSHED WATER RIGHTS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION

     SEC. 401. WATER RIGHTS AND AREA-OF-ORIGIN PROTECTIONS.

       Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, Federal 
     reclamation law, or the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') is 
     directed, in the operation of the Central Valley Project, to 
     strictly adhere to State water rights law governing water 
     rights priorities by honoring water rights senior to those 
     belonging to the Central Valley Project, regardless of the 
     source of priority;
       (2) the Secretary is directed, in the operation of the 
     Central Valley Project, to strictly adhere to and honor water 
     rights and other priorities that are obtained or exist 
     pursuant to the provisions of California Water Code sections 
     10505, 10505:5, 11128, 11460, and 11463; and sections 12200 
     to 12220, inclusive; and
       (3) any action that affects the diversion of water or 
     involves the release of water from any Central Valley Project 
     water storage facility taken by the Secretary or the 
     Secretary of the Department of Commerce to conserve, enhance, 
     recover, or otherwise protect any species listed under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall 
     be applied in a manner that is consistent with water right 
     priorities established by State law.

     SEC. 402. SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS.

        In the implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), in the Bay-Delta and on the 
     Sacramento River, the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce 
     are directed to apply any limitations on the operation of the 
     Central Valley Project or to formulate any ``reasonable 
     prudent alternative'' associated with the operation of the 
     Central Valley Project in a manner that strictly adheres to 
     and applies the water rights priorities for ``Project Water'' 
     and ``Base Supply'' provided for in the Sacramento River 
     Settlement Contracts. Article 3(i) of the Sacramento River 
     Settlement Contracts shall not be utilized by the United 
     States as means to provide shortages to the Sacramento River 
     Settlement Contracts that are different than those provided 
     for in Article 5(a) of those contracts.

     SEC. 403. SACRAMENTO RIVER WATERSHED WATER SERVICE 
                   CONTRACTORS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b) and the absolute 
     priority of the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors to 
     Sacramento River supplies over Central Valley Project 
     diversions and deliveries to other contractors, the Secretary 
     is directed, in the operation of the Central Valley Project, 
     to allocate water provided for irrigation purposes to 
     existing Central Valley Project agricultural water service 
     contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed in 
     compliance with the following:
       (1) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in a 
     ``Wet'' year.
       (2) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in an 
     ``Above Normal'' year.
       (3) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in a 
     ``Below Normal'' year.
       (4) Not less than 75% of their contract quantities in a 
     ``Dry'' year.
       (5) Not less than 50% of their contract quantities in a 
     ``Critically Dry'' year.
       (b) Protection of Municipal and Industrial Supplies.--
     Nothing in subsection (a) shall be deemed to (i) modify any 
     provision of a water service contract that addresses 
     municipal and industrial water shortage policies of the 
     Secretary, (ii) affect or limit the authority of the 
     Secretary to adopt or modify municipal and industrial water 
     shortage policies, (iii) affect or limit the authority of the 
     Secretary to implement municipal and industrial water 
     shortage policies, or (iv) affect allocations to Central 
     Valley Project municipal and industrial contractors pursuant 
     to such policies. Neither subsection (a) nor the Secretary's 
     implementation of subsection (a) shall constrain, govern or 
     affect, directly or indirectly, the operations of the Central 
     Valley Project's American River Division or any deliveries 
     from that Division, its units or its facilities.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``existing Central Valley Project agricultural 
     water service contractors within the Sacramento River 
     Watershed'' means water service contractors within the 
     Shasta, Trinity, and Sacramento River Divisions of the 
     Central Valley Project, that have a water service contract in 
     effect, on the date of the enactment of this section, that 
     provides water for irrigation.
       (2) The year type terms used in subsection (a) have the 
     meaning given those year types in the Sacramento Valley Water 
     Year Type (40-30-30) Index.

     SEC. 404. NO REDIRECTED ADVERSE IMPACTS.

       The Secretary shall insure that there are no redirected 
     adverse water supply or fiscal impacts to those within the 
     Sacramento River or San Joaquin River watershed or to the 
     State Water Project arising from the Secretary's operation of 
     the Central Valley Project to meet legal obligations imposed 
     by or through any State or Federal agency, including, but not 
     limited to those legal obligations emanating from the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or 
     this Act, or actions or activities implemented to meet the 
     twin goals of improving water supply or addressing 
     environmental needs of the Bay Delta.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. PRECEDENT.

       Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) coordinated operations between the Central Valley 
     Project and the State Water Project, previously requested and 
     consented to by the State of California and the Federal 
     Government, require assertion of Federal supremacy to protect 
     existing water rights throughout the system; and
       (2) these circumstances are unique to California.

     Therefore, nothing in this Act shall serve as precedent in 
     any other State.

     SEC. 502. NO EFFECT ON PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY.

       Nothing in this Act shall affect in any way the 
     Proclamation of State of Emergency and associated Executive 
     Order issued by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. on January 17, 
     2014, or the authorities granted thereby, including without 
     limitation the authority of the California State Water 
     Resources Control Board to modify any standards or 
     operational constraints adopted to implement the ``Principles 
     for on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of 
     California and the Federal Government'', dated December 15, 
     1994, so as to make additional irrigation and municipal and 
     industrial water supplies available in the Central Valley 
     Project and State Water Project service areas during the 
     state of emergency.

     SEC. 503. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT.

       (a) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.--Section 3(a)(62)(B)(i) of 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(62)(B)(i)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the normal maximum'' the first place that 
     it appears and all that follows through ``April, 1990.'' and 
     inserting the following: ``the boundary of FERC Project No. 
     2179 as it existed on February 15, 2013, consisting of a 
     point approximately 2,480 feet downstream of the confluence 
     with the North Fork of the Merced River, consisting of 
     approximately 7.4 miles.''; and
       (2) by striking ``the normal maximum operating pool water 
     surface level of Lake McClure'' the second place that it 
     appears and inserting ``the boundary of FERC Project No. 2179 
     as it existed on February 15, 2013, consisting of a point 
     approximately 2,480 feet downstream of the confluence with 
     the North Fork of the Merced River''.
       (b) Exchequer Project.--Section 3 of Public Law 102-432 is 
     amended by striking ``Act'' and

[[Page 2563]]

     all that follows through the period and inserting ``Act.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 113-340. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 113-340.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by 
the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 24, after the first period, insert the 
     following: ``Charges for all delivered water shall include 
     interest, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, on 
     the basis of average market yields on outstanding marketable 
     obligations of the United States with the remaining periods 
     of maturity comparable to the applicable reimbursement period 
     of the project, adjusted to the nearest 1/8 of 1 percent on 
     the underpaid balance of the allocable project cost.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 3964 is very, 
very simple. It is an inconvenient truth, however, that it creates a 
revenue stream to the Treasury by eliminating an irrigation subsidy 
which requires irrigators to pay project debt with interest--in other 
words, ending free taxpayer subsidy since 1902, which has been in place 
since reclamation was created. It requires that any new water contracts 
or renewed contracts must reflect the price of water with interest and 
repay the debt of the project to only the Treasury with interest. This 
will be of small assistance to balancing our national debt.
  When reclamation was established in 1902, it was meant to deliver 
water to farms with approximately 160 acres. Subsequent congressional 
action has changed the acreage limitation along with the repayment 
contract for these projects. So, in 1982, acreage was increased to 960 
acres. Congressional action has also made the repayment of project debt 
interest free for irrigators while municipalities, like my 
constituents--my water people--and power users pay the required 
appropriate interest. I wish other State water users were as lucky as 
these folks.
  H.R. 3964 removes the role of the Federal Government in protecting 
environment and public good. That is not good. If we are removing the 
role of the Federal Government, then we should also remove the Federal 
subsidy associated with renewed or new water contracts.
  My constituents and anybody else's must fairly and equally repay 
additional interest on any project, and they have. For over a decade, 
southern California foresaw needed infrastructure, and many local 
entities stepped up to the plate and provided some relief. We paid for 
and constructed new storage facilities, like the Diamond Valley Lake 
Reservoir, entirely paid for by local groups and without one Federal 
cent, adding 1 million acres of new storage. This is on top of the 
investments we have made in title XVI--recycled water, which has only a 
25 percent Federal match--which created 680,000 acre-feet in California 
alone.
  Let's end this interest-free subsidy at our taxpayers' expense, at 
all of America's taxpayers' expense. Eliminating this unfair subsidy 
will help to cut our deficit, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on this amendment.
  With regard to a statement that was just made on the Bay Delta, it 
seems that Secretary Babbitt and the Secretary of Natural Resources 
were the ones who actually passed the Bay Delta Accord, and 3 years 
were spent by Mr. Garamendi in trying to implement this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was rejected on a 
bipartisan vote of 174-250 when the gentlelady introduced it in 2012, 
and it deserves a similar fate on the floor today. Let's be clear about 
what it does.
  It singles out Central Valley Project participants who pay their 
Federal loans off early to a punitive surtax that is imposed on no 
other Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States. Their 
surtaxes will be passed on to consumers through higher prices. Now, the 
Central Valley Project was already singled out for a punitive tax--
about $50 million annually--by Congress in 1992 to fund an array of 
environmental slush funds.
  I believe that beneficiaries should pay the cost of water projects 
but that they should pay only the costs of those projects and no more. 
These are not cash cows for the Federal Government to milk until they 
are dry. When the left speaks of corporate farms, they leave out the 
fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated, and that is who 
we would be singling out for this special tax. That tax is then paid in 
only one of two ways: by employees through lower wages or by consumers 
through higher prices.
  I have a modest suggestion. Perhaps we should start putting people 
back to work rather than running them out of business.
  I have often criticized the gentlelady and her colleagues for 
policies that have created the conditions that indirectly send water 
prices through the roof, but this proposal does so quite directly and 
dramatically. I think that is why so many of her colleagues on the 
Democratic side abandoned her 2 years ago and why they would be well 
advised to do so again.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, we can go on debating the issue, but 
everybody who takes a loan has to pay interest, and I don't see any 
reason why since 1902 our irrigators have been singled out for not 
having to pay that while the power marketing agencies and other water 
agencies do have to ante up that interest. They do pass it on to the 
consumer, but the consumer understands why.
  We need to be transparent on the issue and be able to let people know 
really what we are paying for. Yes, we have the lowest priced crops in 
California, but we must be able to ensure that we let the rest of the 
Nation know why we need to move forward. The Central Valley Project, 
the CVP, was $1.78 billion. Only $236 million has been repaid, and 
$1.45 billion has not been repaid.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an amendment that is in order so as to 
begin trying to help balance our budget. We hope that we will get our 
colleagues to understand that all of us have to hurt a little bit, and 
I don't see why this does not have the merit that it should, so I urge 
a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, it ought to be obvious to everyone 
that, once you have paid off a loan, you don't keep paying interest on 
that loan. Why? Because you have already paid it off. That is what 
every project managed by the Bureau of Reclamation does. When they are 
given permission to prepay the loan--to pay off the loan just the way 
you would pay off your home loan early--they no longer are charged 
interest for it.
  The gentlelady would single out the Central Valley--and the Central 
Valley alone--for this punitive surtax. I have often wondered why the 
policy seemed to be aimed at the Central Valley. I don't know what it 
is that my friends in the opposition have against the

[[Page 2564]]

thousands of farmworkers whose livelihoods depend upon farming in that 
region, but they have been waging war on that hapless and helpless 
group for far too long. This is another example of singling them out 
for a special punitive tax paid by no one else in all of the Bureau of 
Reclamation experience.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Matsui

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 18, line 24, strike ``shall be'' and all that follows 
     through the first period on page 19, line 2, and insert the 
     following: ``shall not be suspended, but rather shall 
     continue to be the responsibility of south of Delta CVP 
     contractors.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Matsui) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3964 that would preserve senior 
water right holders in northern California. This bill grossly 
oversimplifies the issue of California water, and it tries to solve the 
problem by causing more harm to California's water system than good.
  As I mentioned during our debates about California water, we should 
not jeopardize the health of one part of the State for another. In 
northern California, we have balanced our watershed between the urban 
areas, agriculture, the environment. We have been good stewards and 
care deeply about how our watershed is preserved and grows.
  This legislation would take the problems of one part of the State and 
export them to the other. We cannot have a lasting solution to our 
water problems until we work on a comprehensive solution that includes 
all of the stakeholders. Specifically, this bill attempts to dissolve 
the responsibility for 800,000 acre-feet of water for the delta 
environment. That doesn't solve California's water problems. It only 
exacerbates them.
  We all know that the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta needs to be 
restored, not driven into further decline. The delta is a hub of 
California's water system. California needs it to be healthy. My 
amendment to H.R. 3964 seeks to amend the language regarding the 
elimination of water for the delta environment. The amendment also 
preserves senior water rights in northern California.
  The underlying legislation only creates discord at a time when we 
need alliances. We can and must do better for California as a whole. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, more than any other, 
focuses on the central issue surrounding this bill: What comes first--
families or fish?
  In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act carved out 
800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated for fish and wildlife purposes. That 
water came out of the allocations for the Central Valley that all sides 
had agreed to. At the time, it was promised that the water would be 
replaced. That promise is unfulfilled to this day.
  Worse, the Federal Government began treating this allotment as a 
floor rather than as a ceiling. In the mid-1990s, a zealous official in 
the Department of the Interior preempted State water rights and ordered 
that more than 1 million acre-feet of water appropriated by the Central 
Valley Project be used for purposes not authorized under water rights 
permits issued by the State of California.
  This bill reestablished the 800,000 acre-foot allotment agreed to by 
all sides when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt promised: ``A deal is a 
deal, and if it turns out there is a need for additional water, it will 
come at the expense of the Federal Government.'' This provision redeems 
the promise that was broken by Mr. Babbitt's deputy, and the provision 
that the gentlelady is offering would have us delete that provision.
  I might add that, also under this bill, the 800,000 acre-feet can be 
recycled by communities once it has met its environmental purpose 
rather than being lost to the ocean. To those who tell us they like 
recycling, this is the ultimate recycling bill. I might also point out 
that an amendment that had a very similar effect 2 years ago was 
rejected on a bipartisan vote of 178-247 in this House. I would 
recommend that we do so again today.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, my friend on the other side is trying to 
distract the public on what their bill actually does.
  H.R. 3964 would not provide any relief from the real drought, but it 
would instead permanently reallocate water for one interest.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Chairman, the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
designated 800,000 acre-feet of water for environmental purposes. This 
water is important. It is used to balance our water needs between 
urban, agricultural, and environment.
  This so-called ``b2'' water was dedicated to help stem the rapid 
decline of the delta ecosystem. H.R. 3964 repeals the ``b2'' water 
allocation in the CVPIA unless 800,000 acre-feet of additional capacity 
is found by 2018. Who is going to make up the 800,000 acre-feet by 
2018?
  As written, the bill would relieve the south delta CVP users of any 
responsibility for the environmental water. Instead, it would attempt 
to shift the responsibilities to northern California, putting into 
jeopardy senior water rights holders in northern California.
  Mr. Chairman, my district, the city of Sacramento, and Sacramento 
County wrote letters stating what we all know. This is a backdoor 
attempt to undermine longstanding California water rights and let one 
interest jump to the head of the line.
  In short, this bill is another blatant water grab from northern 
California.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will protect senior water rights holders 
in northern California and assure we are all in this together in 
California. We should not pit one against another.
  Again, this bill will not help alleviate the drought. Even if we 
pumped as much water south as possible, Central Valley farmers still 
wouldn't have enough. That is because a lack of pumping is not the 
problem. The problem is a lack of rain and snow. There is no more water 
to pump.
  Northern California is in severe drought. This bill does not solve 
California's drought. It only further divides our State.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
and in strong support of H.R. 3964.
  Final passage of this bill, as we come to the floor, is a defining 
vote. It is a vote by which the public will be able to determine just 
whose side we are on. Do we favor animals--even fish--above the well-
being of people?
  A clique of environmental extremists with lots of money and no common

[[Page 2565]]

sense have fostered insane policies that are destroying one of the most 
vibrant and productive industries in California. These antihuman, pro-
animal policies have resulted in the unemployment of tens of thousands 
of hardworking Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Their 
lives and livelihood have been destroyed, all for the purpose of 
protecting a minnow that isn't even good enough to be baked.
  Yes, by this vote, the public will be able to determine whether or 
not, at a time of drought and crushingly high unemployment, we will 
continue to dump hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of fresh water into 
the San Francisco Bay every year--enough water to grow 10 million tons 
of tomatoes, 200 million boxes of lettuce, or 20 million tons of 
grapes.
  This is government regulation gone berserk. Instead of protecting us 
from environmental threats, people are being treated as expendable. The 
current policy is destructive not only to our farmers, who are probably 
affected the most, but it is increasing the cost of putting food on our 
families' tables.
  All of this is being done for what? To protect the well-being of a 
fish.
  Now we have an opportunity to reestablish our priorities. A vote 
against this bill is a vote for radical environmentalists' antihuman 
policies. A vote for this bill is a vote to reaffirm that we place a 
higher value on human beings and want to improve their condition.
  Join me in opposing this amendment and supporting the bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I will just say this. I grew up in the 
Central Valley. My father was a farmer. So I understand clearly the 
challenges the farming community has.
  I am not an individual who dismisses the farming community. I lived 
on a farm. My father was a small farmer. My grandfather was a farmer. 
My uncle was a farmer. So I understand these challenges.
  I also understand we are together in California, and we must work 
together, and we should be using this time to find real solutions to 
California's water issues, including the drought. Unfortunately, we 
seem to be playing partisan games.
  My amendment would simply protect water rights in northern 
California. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague from the Central Valley (Mr. Valadao), the author of this 
measure.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, what we are asking for here is a little 
understanding of the situation we have got.
  This graph here shows how much water was in storage at the end of 
2013. There was quite a bit of water, but the allocation was this much.
  What this amendment does is continue to waste all the water here that 
should have been used for families at their homes, because people need 
clean water to drink. They also need water to grow food. Farmers don't 
farm for fun, they farm for food, because people like to eat. It is a 
funny little concept we have got going on here. We cannot continue to 
waste water.
  I have enjoyed seeing the pictures of all the dams and everybody 
referring to the drought as the only issue that we have got. We have 
got a waste of water. We have got to stop wasting that water. That is 
what our goal is, and that is why I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bera of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 504. PROTECTIONS FOR DELTA COUNTIES.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not have 
     a harmful effect on the quality, quantity, or safety of 
     drinking water supplies for residents of the five Delta 
     Counties (Contra Costa County, Sacramento County, San Joaquin 
     County, Solano County, and Yolo County, California).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bera) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. 
Supporters of this bill argue that it won't negatively impact upstream 
users. My constituents are these upstream users.
  My amendment protects upstream users, adding safeguards for the five 
California delta counties. It guarantees that this politically 
motivated water grab would not harm the quality, quantity, or safety of 
drinking water supplies for these residents.
  California is in the middle of a crisis. We need real solutions, not 
political solutions. Last year was our driest year on record. The 
snowpack where the State gets over a third of its water is at record 
lows.
  We all agree there is a problem. So let's sit down, Democrats and 
Republicans, and work to find solutions together, not pit one community 
against another. In the meantime, let's not sacrifice one community. 
This amendment ensures that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, like Tennyson's rotting mackerel in the 
moonlight, this amendment shines and stinks.
  It states the obvious: the bill will not harm delta drinking water 
supplies. Well, of course it won't. After all, the delta counties are 
senior to the Central Valley in their water rights and so they have 
first call on that water. Under this bill, no agency of the State or 
Federal Government can take that right away.
  Furthermore, under this bill, the delta counties can also reuse 
environmental water that otherwise would have been lost to the ocean, 
making this the ultimate water recycling bill.
  This bill in no way affects the quality of drinking water in the 
delta or anywhere else. The proof of that is the fact that in the years 
following adoption of the Bay Delta Accord, which H.R. 3964 merely 
restores, never was it suggested by any water agency that drinking 
water or agricultural water was adversely affected in any way, shape, 
or form.
  By placing this provision in the bill, it immediately opens it up to 
litigation that could tie it up in the courts for years. The mere 
allegation by a single litigant, no matter how outlandish, no matter 
how contorted, could stall these vitally needed reforms. It would also 
give this administration the ability to claim a right to nullify this 
law based on such a fiction.
  A few years ago, when Central Valley water was being diverted for the 
delta smelt, I confronted the Secretary of the Interior in the Natural 
Resources Committee. I pointed out that with thousands of farmworkers 
unemployed, with a quarter-million acres of prime farmland destroyed, 
with food lines in the agricultural capital of the West, with 
unemployment in some of these communities reaching 45 percent, he had 
the authority to suspend the diversions and restore that water to the 
Valley to stop this human tragedy. He acknowledged that he had that 
authority, but he wouldn't use it, he said, because doing so ``would be 
like admitting failure.''

[[Page 2566]]

  The amendment before us would give the same administration the excuse 
to ignore reality and act on ideological whim.
  When this amendment was offered 2 years ago, it was rejected on a 
bipartisan vote of 177-243 in this House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  California is facing a severe statewide drought. It is having 
devastating impacts on families all across our State. This bill will 
only make things worse for many. It will jeopardize the drinking water 
for millions of Californians.
  In my district, families from Contra Costa and Solano Counties get 
their drinking water from the delta. This supply is already limited due 
to the extreme drought. This bill wants to pump that limited drinking 
water south. Doing this would flood the delta with seawater--and people 
can't drink seawater.
  That is why this amendment is so important. It simply says that this 
bill shall not harm the delta's very limited drinking water supply.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I thank the gentleman 
from Sacramento for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, in closing, from my 
perspective, this is stating the obvious. Let's protect the water 
rights of the users in my community in northern California. This just 
codifies that. It just makes sure that when folks in the five delta 
counties turn on their taps, they can get clean water, quality water.
  So if it is in the bill, there is no reason not to vote ``yes'' on 
this and codify it and make sure we are protecting those families in 
northern California.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\3/4\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), who introduced 
the predecessor to this bill 2 years ago.
  Mr. NUNES. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment and the last amendment are about one 
thing. Let's not be fooled here. It is about sewer discharge from the 
communities in the delta that continue to dump their sewer water, 
runoff water, into the delta. They don't want to have to take 
responsibility for their actions.
  So I hate to have to keep going back to this, but I am going to have 
to go back to it again.
  You see a discharge there. Here are the communities all dumping 
sewage into the delta. That is all both of these amendments are about. 
That is why you should vote against them.
  What is interesting about this is you have heard a lot of talk about 
the fish. This is what the true believers really want to protect. They 
want to protect this fish right here called the delta smelt. This is 
what this is about. It is about the Endangered Species Act. It is about 
the biggest water grab in history and running people out of water to 
protect this little fish.
  But they just don't want to protect that fish, oh, no. That is not 
good enough, Mr. Chairman. They want to dump their sewer water, protect 
the smelt, and protect the striped bass.
  The striped bass is not native to the delta, but they want to protect 
it. Do you know why they want to protect it? Because they say that 
fishermen want to fish. But, conveniently, it is not native to the 
delta. But guess what the striped bass eats? If you can see on this, it 
eats the smelt.

                              {time}  1630

  It eats the smelt, Mr. Chairman. Inconvenient little truth there. So 
they want to protect these and these. This one eats those. This is a 
problem that can't be fixed by people who want to protect little fish, 
Mr. Chairman.
  So, as we started out today, this is a bill that passed the last 
Congress. Had the Senate acted on it, we would not be in the situation 
that we are today. We are out of water because we are not using the 
infrastructure that our State has built and added on to over the last 
century. We decided to throw all that infrastructure away, not use it, 
dump the water out to the ocean. Now we have no more water left.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 504. STUDY ON WATER RESOURCES.

       Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct a study and submit a report to the Congress on the 
     resiliency and adaptability of all Bureau of Reclamation 
     projects and facilities in California to any ongoing or 
     forecasted changes to the quality, quantity, or reliability 
     of water resources. The study shall include recommendations 
     on how to strengthen the resiliency and adaptability of the 
     Bureau's projects and facilities in California.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment. As we 
know, California is in the middle of a severe drought, an emergency 
with no significant relief in sight. We must do all we can to 
responsibly manage this situation, working with State and local 
officials to ensure that our farmers, our businesses, and our 
constituents have the resources they need now and in the future.
  While we work to address the current drought situation, the 
emergency, we know that severe droughts like this one will only become 
more frequent in the future due to climate change; and we must do all 
we can as we deal with this emergency to also prepare for the next one.
  My amendment simply requires a study of the resiliency and 
adaptability of Bureau of Reclamation facilities and projects in 
California to predict changes to the quality, quantity, or reliability 
of water resources. Simply put, it will look at how well the Bureau is 
prepared for the expected impacts of climate change.
  Like it or not, climate change is real, and it is already happening. 
We have seen the evidence all around us in more extreme storms, in 
wildfires, in sea level rising and severe drought.
  Water is gold in California. Scientists have long warned that climate 
change will make droughts, shortages of water, particularly in the 
Western United States, longer, stronger, and more frequent. So rather 
than bury our heads in the sand denying the science, we should be doing 
all we can to make our infrastructure more resilient and adaptable.
  At every point in our water infrastructure, from reservoirs to 
kitchen faucets, we need to find sustainable ways to lessen the impact 
of severe droughts like this one. That means more conservation, more 
efficiency, and more recycling, to be sure, but it also means 
increasing the resiliency and adaptability of existing infrastructure 
to maximize the limited resources we have.
  That is what my amendment is all about--preparing for the future. 
Simply lurching from crisis to crisis, from drought to drought, is no 
way to govern, and that is exactly what we have been doing. According 
to a FEMA study, every dollar spent on predisaster mitigation reduces 
the cost of future damages by $4.

[[Page 2567]]

  The drought emergency may not be destroying structures and 
infrastructures, like some of our extreme storms do, but it is 
definitely causing serious damage to our crops, to our critical 
habitats, to our livelihoods. Yet the underlying bill does nothing to 
address these serious problems, and it does nothing to alleviate the 
drought emergency in California, and it does nothing to prevent any in 
the future. Instead, it uses the drought emergency as an excuse to 
repeal Federal environmental laws to preempt California law, and it 
would set a dangerous precedent that would have lasting implications on 
how water is managed throughout the West. That is why the bill is 
opposed by the State of California and numerous local government 
agencies, fishing and hunting organizations, editorial boards, and 
national environmental groups. Rarely has such a diverse coalition come 
together to oppose a piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of wasting time on a divisive bill that is 
going nowhere, we should be working together to find comprehensive 
solutions that get our communities the resources they need.
  I want to be clear, my amendment does not fix the serious problems 
with this underlying bill, and I will oppose the bill even if my 
amendment is adopted. But my amendment will at least move us one step 
closer to properly preparing for future drought emergencies, so I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to impose yet 
another environmental study that could lead to more water being 
diverted away from families and farmers and flushed out into the ocean. 
If you support throwing more stored water out to the ocean and making 
this crisis worse, then this amendment is another step toward that end.
  Now, those who speak of ``resiliency'' and ``adaptability'' are using 
these terms to propose that dams evacuate more water storage earlier in 
the water year to account for faster snowmelt from the mountains and 
rain-based inflows. Now, just today, the East Bay Express reported that 
water managers deliberately dumped 800,000 acre-feet--as I said 
earlier, enough for 4 million Californians--into the Pacific Ocean that 
they knew was desperately needed as the drought continued to worsen.
  Folsom Lake, the principal source of water storage for Sacramento and 
its suburbs, is nearly empty now because of those releases. We watched 
the Sacramento River at full flood all autumn and wondered what in the 
world were they thinking.
  The fact is a hydrology consensus does not exist on this, and we 
should not be asking the GAO to investigate terms that are based on a 
lack of scientific consensus.
  This amendment does nothing to restore water that continues to be 
lost to punitive Federal regulations and may, in fact, contribute to 
new regulatory overreach.
  Californians are in a drought crisis now. It is time for action, not 
another bureaucratic study with no end in sight. This is why we must 
not impose studies in this bill or create steps to further erode water 
storage. We need to build more storage and capture more water, and that 
is precisely what this bill does. This bill is aimed at implementing a 
permanent solution to California's water crises so we can put people 
back to work permanently and restore balance back to California's water 
supply.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my colleague.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we continually hear about the 800,000 
acre-feet. Indeed, there is 800,000 acre-feet. It is not out to the 
ocean; It is into the delta. That water is available for a variety of 
purposes, including Contra Costa, the entire East Bay, and Solano 
County that I represent. It is there as environmental water, but it has 
multiple purposes, so it is not wasted water at all.
  The other thing is this allocation chart that keeps coming up. That 
is an allocation based upon a prediction of the amount of water that 
rain will fall that year. It is not the actual amount of water 
delivered. If you take a look at the actual amount of water delivered, 
it is substantially greater.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the 
gentlewoman is.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment. It 
simply requires a study of adaptability and resiliency of the Bureau of 
Reclamation's water infrastructure in California.
  Scientists are warning us that severe droughts like this one will 
only grow more severe and frequent in the future. We have a 
responsibility to our farmers, our businesses, and all of our 
constituents to do everything possible to prepare for these impacts. My 
amendment is a step in this direction, so I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for making the point. I want people to look at the pictures of the 
empty reservoir at Folsom, the near-empty reservoir at Oroville and 
remember 800,000 acre-feet that could have been retained behind those 
dams was released by water officials for the environmental regulations 
that the gentleman defends. I think people need to reflect on that 
water that should right now be sitting behind those dams but for these 
regulations and realize what is exacerbating this terrible drought.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa), my friend and neighbor.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot about, this particular 
amendment is going to start another study. We heard earlier about more 
task forces. This is why we have had 40 years' worth of delay--or 
longer--on building new projects in California.
  We hear about what the projected flows are going to be. Here is what 
the actual flows are, coming back to this chart once again. You see 
over here, on the left, 76 percent of the water that flows into the 
delta goes straight out to the ocean--three-quarters. A mere 6 percent 
stays in the delta for its use. Eighteen percent is split between 
Central Valley and southern California needs. So we are wasting a lot 
of water, a lot of opportunity that could be taken advantage of and 
still capturing water for environmental need as well as ag need and 
urban need.
  This chart shows, this illustration, that we talk about water that 
needs to be delivered south of the delta, indeed, even to the central 
coast, which is running very quickly out of water as well. The central 
coast benefits from the pumps.
  The pumps, when you talk about fish take, are approximately 2 
percent. Maybe we can do better, but they are doing a pretty good job.
  As was talked about earlier, predator fish in the delta are taking 
anywhere from 65 to 90 percent of the fish kill of the salmon and other 
protected fish that we are basing all of this fuss on.
  So we need to get very real about what the problem is and that the 
solutions aren't coming today from these amendments. But, indeed, Mr. 
Valadao's bill is a step in that direction, as well as establishing 
long-term, the type of storage, the type of reoperation that is in 
favor of the people that are productive in California being the 
breadbasket of the Nation and of the world.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 2568]]


  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of the bill, the following:

     SEC. 504. FISHERIES DISASTER DECLARATION.

       The Proclamation of State Emergency and associated 
     Executive Order issued by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. on 
     January 17, 2014, shall be considered a request by the 
     Governor for purposes of section 312(a) of the Magnuson-
     Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1861a) to determine that a fishery resource disaster exists 
     for fisheries that originate in the State of California.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3964.
  Mr. Chair, the bill before us today, H.R. 3964, is a radical bill 
that is strongly opposed by the State of California as well as other 
Western states, fishing groups, and many other stakeholders.
  H.R. 3964 would seriously undermine our ability to solve California's 
water problems, and it poses a serious threat to water management all 
across the Western United States.
  And, to be clear, this is not a man-made drought. There is not enough 
water to meet all demands. In 2009, with the Endangered Species Act and 
other environmental laws in place, more water was exported than in 
other drought years.
  This bill would effectively repeal the last hundred years of 
policymaking--unraveling legal settlements, defying settled Supreme 
Court precedent, and up-ending state and local efforts to find 
solutions.
  H.R. 3964 would block or repeal numerous state and federal laws 
protecting California's Bay-Delta estuary and San Joaquin River, 
including:
  The 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act;
  The 2009 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act;
  The 2009 bipartisan compromise passed by the California State 
Legislature;
  The state and federal endangered species acts; and
  Several other provisions of state law and water rights.
  What's worse, this bill explicitly overrides more than 100 years of 
federal law by exempting the federal Central Valley Project from 
Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, which requires deference to 
State authority over water resources.
  Republicans have to understand that reverting back to the 1994 Bay-
Delta Accord would severely damage the ecosystem. We can't negate 20 
years of science and expect our ecosystem to survive.
  This bill is opposed by a range of stakeholders from across 
California and around the country, including Trout Unlimited, the 
United Farm Workers, and every major national conservation and wildlife 
group.
  Eighty California environmental, environmental justice, recreational 
and commercial fishing groups, and Indian tribes signed a letter of 
opposition that was sent to all House members.
  Many water agencies, local governments, and business groups across 
California also oppose the bill.
  And serious economic analysis shows that this bill would devastate 
our economy.
  The Delta Protection Commission says that, ``Delta agriculture 
supports nearly 23,000 jobs statewide, over $1.9 billion in value added 
to the state, and over $4.6 billion in economic output in the state of 
California.''
  Three different studies from UC Davis, University of the Pacific, and 
UC Berkeley estimated that the drought cost approximately 4,000 to 
5,000 jobs in 2008/09.
  Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Administration estimated that 
the two-year closure of the salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009 resulted in 
the loss of $534 million and almost 5,000 jobs.
  The Delta Protection Commission stated that Delta recreation and 
tourism generates approximately over 4,900 jobs and $600 million in 
economic output in the state of California.
  As California State Governor Brown wrote to California offices:
  ``H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into California's 
efforts to manage this severe crisis. It would override state laws and 
protections, and mandate that certain water interests come out ahead of 
others;
  It falsely suggests the promise of water relief when that is simply 
not possible given the scarcity of water supplies. H.R. 3964 would 
interfere with our ability to respond effectively and flexibly to the 
current emergency, and would re-open old water wounds undermining years 
of progress toward reaching a collaborative long-term solution to our 
water needs.''
  This bill is a radical attempt to put one special interest ahead of 
everyone else in California, and it would end all productive efforts to 
solve problems in California.
  I strongly oppose H.R. 3964 and urge my colleagues to oppose this 
dangerous bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, on January 17, 2014, 
the Governor of California issued a proclamation, a state of emergency 
regarding the drought. My amendment simply states that the Secretary of 
Commerce should treat this emergency proclamation as requested by the 
Governor under Section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to determine 
whether there is a commercial fishery failure for any fisheries that 
originate in the State of California.
  Many charter and commercial boat fisheries on the west coast are 
dependent upon chinook and coho salmon stock that originate in 
Colorado's rivers and then migrate to the Pacific Ocean, where they are 
harvested.
  Just one of these runs, the fall-run chinook from the Central Valley, 
turns north, and it makes up as much as 50 percent of the salmon 
production off Oregon and to areas to the north, and it is responsible 
for as much as 90 percent of California's salmon catch.

                              {time}  1645

  This run and others are in peril due to the drought. The reductions 
in river flows will impact incubating eggs, juvenile fish that are 
rearing in the upper regions of the river, and fry that are trying to 
out-migrate to the ocean.
  While many fishing groups are working with Federal and State agencies 
to plan for the drought conditions and mitigate as much as possible 
against the potential impacts by facilitating out-migration, we cannot 
know how successful those efforts will be. While it is likely the 
drought will not have a large impact on commercial activities this 
year, many of these fisheries could see devastating impacts over the 
next several years, particularly in 2015 and 2016.
  This amendment does not mandate a fisheries disaster declaration, but 
it will enable the Secretary to issue one should it be necessary. Such 
a declaration will enable the fishermen to qualify for disaster 
assistance. Many of us--whether we are from fisheries in the Pacific 
Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, or the gulf--have dealt with fisheries disasters 
in the past.
  During the last drought in California, I had to literally stalk 
Secretary Gutierrez of the Bush administration to get a declaration. 
Joe Barton graciously had him come in to testify and put him in a side 
room and said, Wait a minute. There are a few Members of Congress who 
want to talk to you, and it was myself and a number of other Members 
from California, Oregon, who got him to sign a disaster declaration, 
and we were successful. Well, this time, let's put it on the desk now 
and give the Secretary that capability to easily declare a disaster.
  While it is clear this drought will have wide-ranging economic 
impacts, this amendment will put Commerce Secretary Pritzker on notice 
that we have the potential to face a major economic hardship in the 
fishing industry as well.
  This amendment will ensure that our fisheries and our fishing 
industries that depend upon salmon stocks from California rivers will 
be given due consideration as these impacts unfold.

[[Page 2569]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member stated, this amendment states 
that the California Governor's declared drought emergency is considered 
a request to the Federal Government to declare a fisheries disaster. 
Under longstanding law, the Governor can make such a request by sending 
a letter to the Commerce Secretary.
  The amendment does not change underlying law that requires the 
Commerce Secretary to determine whether a fisheries disaster 
declaration is merited. This amendment simply serves as a request, but 
the Commerce Secretary still has discretion to make a decision on this 
request. As such, we do not have any objections to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment, and I 
appreciate his sensitivity to the potential disaster for our fisheries.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Huffman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 504. STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER REFORM LAWS.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall interfere with the State of California's Delta and 
     water management reform and funding bills of 2009, including 
     SB7x-1, SB7x-2, SB7x-6, and SB7x-7.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about 3-inch fish in this debate. 
In fact, to hear my colleagues in the Republican Party tell it, this is 
a story of a 3-inch fish that is taking water away in this critical 
drought that should be allocated to people.
  Well, the truth is, Mr. Chairman, you would have to have the brain of 
a 3-inch fish to believe that narrative. There is no such thing 
happening in this critical drought year. What is happening, however, is 
some people are cynically trying to capitalize on the worst drought in 
California history in order to steal water from some parts of the State 
and from other water users and give it to a few. In fact, if this bill 
were accurately named, it would be called the ``Massive Federal 
Preemption Overreach and Water Theft Act for the Elections of 2014,'' 
but it is, in fact, pretending to be something quite different.
  We need to ask ourselves why the State of California is so 
passionately opposing this bill. Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote a 
letter just yesterday following the same position that prior attorneys 
general have always taken on this issue, including Republican attorneys 
general, that the Federal Government should abide by the 100-year 
precedent of deference, of cooperative Federalism, letting California 
administer its own water rights and allocate that water instead of the 
sweeping preemption that we see in this bill.
  This bill would upset the most basic tenets of California water law. 
The fact that the California constitution provides the State the 
ability to allocate water, the ability to administer things like the 
public trust doctrine, all of that is repealed and swept away by the 
preemption provisions in this bill. It doesn't have to be that way.
  In a crisis like this, it actually is possible for Republicans and 
Democrats and people from all parts of the State to come together and 
solve problems. I know that because I was part of something just like 
that that happened in our last multiyear critical drought. I chaired 
the Water Committee in the State Assembly in 2009 when there was a 
historic water package passed, a package that was supported by 
Republicans and Democrats, signed by a Republican Governor, supported 
by people from inland Central Valley California, southern California, 
urban areas. National media like The New York Times called it the most 
significant water reform in California in 60 years.
  Well, unfortunately, all of that, too, is repealed, just swept away 
by the overreaching preemption in this bill.
  The amendment I am offering, Mr. Chairman, would say, at least let's 
save what the national media and just about everybody else in the water 
world had called the most important thing, the best thing to happen in 
California water in the last 60 years. Let's save that from preemption 
as this bill goes forward if the amendment is made in order, and I 
would request that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my objection to this amendment is 
similar to others of its ilk. It would allow litigation to block 
implementation of this bill indefinitely. There is, of course, nothing 
in this bill that would interfere with the State's water bond or its 
groundwater monitoring or groundwater conservation. Indeed, it will 
improve groundwater conservation since it brings balance back to 
surface water deliveries and restores the incentives for groundwater 
recharging.
  The poison pill is not only the prospect of indefinite delay based 
upon the allegation of a single individual that can find the ear of a 
sympathetic judge. It is introducing the subjective standard of coequal 
goals for the delta.
  The term ``coequal goals'' is something that is subjective. A term 
like this is subject to litigation not only at the State level but will 
be used as a means, if this amendment is adopted, to litigate this bill 
and delay the balance that it restores.
  That balance was established by the bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that 
was hailed by all sides as a historic agreement to serve the coequal 
goals of human prosperity and environmental protection. When that 
agreement was signed, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt assured all 
parties that ``a deal is a deal, and if it turns out there is a need 
for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal 
Government.'' The water diversions for the delta smelt, based upon the 
same opportunity to litigate that this amendment renews, shattered that 
promise. This bill redeems it. The amendment should be rejected.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the public trust doctrine and the coequal 
goals articulated in that 2009 California legislation are the 
centerpieces of California water. Without those coequal goals codified 
in that State law, the entire Bay Delta conservation plan is over. It 
is done. It has zero chance of success.
  Without the public trust doctrine and other State laws in critical 
years where a fully allocated and appropriated system like we have in 
California, where tough balancing decisions have to be made by the 
State water board, without those basic tools for how to do that job, 
they can't do their job. They can't allocate a diminishing resource, 
and the entire system of water and water rights allocation is thrown 
into chaos.
  So to hear my friend talk about his concern for litigation, I have to 
say, this is the recipe for endless litigation, confusion, and 
uncertainty in California. This is essentially throwing a grenade into 
California water that would ignite a water war unlike anything we have 
ever seen.

[[Page 2570]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the 
gentleman from California is.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply request a 
``yes'' vote. It doesn't have to be partisanship. It doesn't have to be 
taking water from one part of the State or from one set of users and 
giving it to the other, scapegoating the 3-inch fish.
  There is actually a way to solve water problems, even in California 
where water is scarce. We did it in 2009. It was widely recognized as 
historic, important, and positive. Let's save those 2009 water reforms 
from being roadkill from this reckless piece of legislation and vote 
``yes'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate what Mr. McClintock 
said. This is designed to kill the bill. This is a sneaky little lawyer 
amendment designed for litigation. This amendment, Valadao amendment, 
stops all litigation and gives back the people of California their 
water, and it quits wasting water. That is what this does.
  I can understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle don't 
like to talk about the little 3-inch fish, which, I guess it has a 
little brain now. Well, it is a bait fish; of course it has a little 
brain.
  The folks you have to ask yourselves about are the ones who come down 
here and talk about State preemptions when they know the Endangered 
Species Act is a preemption. They know what passed in 1992 was a State 
preemption. They know what passed in 2009 was a State preemption. 
Sneaky little lawyers all over the place.
  Money, Mr. Chairman, money. It is about money. It is about NRDC. NRDC 
has made millions of dollars that we still cannot get an accounting 
for. Mr. Chairman, I want to know, how much money has NRDC made off of 
bringing water lawsuits in the State of California? Millions. Millions 
and millions and millions. That is what this amendment is designed to 
do, is to create jobs for lawyers. That is what this is about.
  So I would advise and ask my colleagues to kill this amendment by 
voting ``no.''
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 504. EFFECTIVE DATE CONDITIONS.

       Nothing in this Act shall take effect until the Secretary 
     of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, determines that carrying out this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall not have a harmful effect 
     on water quality or water availability for agricultural 
     producers in the five Delta Counties (Contra Costa County, 
     Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, Solano County, and 
     Yolo County, California).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 
3964, which I urge all of my colleagues to support.
  As my colleagues know, I am honored to represent the people of San 
Joaquin Delta. The delta is a precious resource that provides 
tremendous economic benefits to our entire State. Preserving the delta 
should be a priority for all of California.
  Agriculture is the economic backbone of the delta region, generating 
about $3 billion of economic activity a year in my district. Three 
billion dollars is a lot of money for us, and our producers rely on 
high quality water for their products.
  As currently written, H.R. 3964 will ship more water out of the 
delta, even though current shipments have already threatened the water 
quality for our delta farmers.
  During debate on this legislation in the previous Congress, we were 
told that the bill was a great deal for the delta, and yet delta 
counties opposed the legislation then, and we still strongly oppose the 
legislation now. That is because this bill, as Governor Brown says, 
will mandate that certain water interests come out ahead of others.
  All of California is experiencing a drought that threatens nearly 
82,000 farmers and ranchers in the State. We should not be pitting 
farmers against each other. Simply put, this bill will steal water from 
northern California and devastate water quality for delta farmers.

                              {time}  1700

  Farmers need freshwater, not saltwater, for their harvest. What my 
colleagues are saying is this: We have got the votes, we have got the 
money, let's go take the water; in other words, the doctrine of might 
makes right.
  Mr. Chairman, we should follow established law and protect the rights 
of the delta farmers. That is why I am offering a simple amendment to 
make sure that the most harmful provisions of this bill do not take 
effect until the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Agriculture verify that water quality for agriculture in the delta 
region is not negatively affected.
  Proponents of H.R. 3964 claim that the bill is pro-farmer, but this 
bill steals water from one part of California and gives it to another. 
If the authors of H.R. 3964 support farmers throughout the entire 
State, they should support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has it exactly backwards. 
This prevents water from being stolen from northern California in 
violation of State water rights. It strengthens the water rights that 
exist in current law. It means that water cannot be stolen from 
northern California even by the State itself.
  This amendment offered by my friend is a variation of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera) earlier. It gives 
the Secretary of the Interior the ability to suspend most provisions of 
this law until she certifies it will have no adverse effect on delta 
agricultural water. Well, the same points apply. Despite the fact that 
this bill strengthens water rights in which the delta is senior to the 
Central Valley, this bill would give the Secretary, on whim, the power 
to ignore this law even in wet years, an authority her predecessor has 
already emphatically proven can and will be abused.
  I will challenge the gentleman to cite one example of a complaint 
that agricultural water in the delta was adversely affected during all 
the years the Bay Delta Accord was in effect. This bill merely restores 
the Bay Delta Accord while strengthening northern California water 
rights. If he cannot cite even one example, he must admit that this 
amendment is a hoax designed to nullify the law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, our farmers are already experiencing 
saltwater intrusion. Saltwater levels are increasing. Shipping more 
water south of the delta is going to increase our saltwater 
concentration. This is a known, ongoing problem.
  I ask my colleague, Mr. Chairman, that if he is confident that the 
bill will

[[Page 2571]]

benefit California farmers, including delta farmers, then he should 
support my amendment, because that is exactly what we are asking it to 
do--to allow the Secretary of Agriculture and allow the Secretary of 
the Interior to make an assessment before water is shipped, lowering 
our quality.
  So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close if the gentleman 
is.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, basically, I am asking my colleagues to 
give us a chance to make sure that our farmers are not damaged, our 
farmers are not hurt and that our $3 billion of economic activity is 
not curtailed in favor of a bill of doubtful quality. I think it is 
going to make a difference if we can just work together, find a 
solution that all the stakeholders can abide by and not resort to what 
appears to be a water steal.
  I think my farmers are going to ask me to defend their water quality, 
and that is exactly what I am doing. If my colleagues are supporting 
defending the farmers and the rights of the farmers throughout the 
State, then they should support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I remind the House that this same 
amendment was brought up 2 years ago and rejected, once again, on a 
bipartisan vote of 177-243.
  I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Valadao), the author of this important legislation.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, as someone who farms myself, I understand 
the value of water, and when the State Water Resources Control Board 
issues a cease and desist order in the gentleman's district for 
illegally diverting water--that was something when I spent some time up 
in Sacramento, I actually got on a boat and went around the delta and 
noticed so many pumps out there with no meters pumping water and 
pumping above their right, taking more water than they were supposed to 
to the level of 77.7 cubic feet per second illegally. So when we talk 
about stealing water, there is a lot going on there that needs to be 
talked about.
  More importantly, yes, water is an important resource, and we should 
respect that and appreciate the quality, but to insert more bureaucracy 
in the middle to prevent us from taking what is rightfully ours and 
then have the audacity to dump sewage in this water and then claim you 
are trying to protect it and keep it clean, we are talking sewage from 
these communities, 380 million gallons per day being dumped in the 
delta, and then they come and tell us they are trying to protect and 
keep this water clean.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Peters of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 504. COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLIES AND WATER BUDGETS NOT 
                   ADVERSELY AFFECTED.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     adversely affect any community's water supply or water budget 
     for future years, taking into account predicted dry years. 
     For the purpose of this section, the term ``water budget'' 
     means an accounting of the rates of water movement and the 
     change in water storage in all or parts of the atmosphere, 
     land surface, and subsurface of an area.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chairman, California is experiencing 
its worst drought in decades, threatening local drinking water 
supplies, power generation and California's economy, and relief does 
not seem to be near at hand.
  More than three-quarters of the State is in extreme or exceptional 
drought, and it affects every resident in my home State. It would be 
wrong to take action today that would help one part of the State but 
harm another.
  In its current form, the bill is not clear on how reallocating 
thousands of acre-feet of water from the San Joaquin River restoration 
to the State's agricultural sector will affect future water supply. We 
must think about the long-term impacts of today's water decisions, and 
my amendment ensures that this bill will not adversely affect any 
community's water supply or water budget, especially during predicted 
dry years.
  It is imperative that we figure out how to ensure sustainable water 
supplies so that next year or in 5 years or in 20 years, Californians 
on the farms, in the suburbs or in our cities will still have enough 
water to drink to pursue their livelihoods.
  Water is our most precious resource, and we must manage it carefully. 
The underlying bill does not create more water and will not make it 
rain. We must make sure that decisions made here in Washington won't 
hurt everyday Californians.
  Water decisions in California affect every part of the State, 
including my district in southern California. Recently, the State Water 
Project announced a zero allocation for this year. This unprecedented 
move means that southern California communities, including San Diego, 
will get no water from the Bay Delta in the northern part of the State.
  Reallocating and rerouting water will not solve that problem. The 
real solution is to become resilient in the face of future droughts 
through improved conservation, expanded storage and increased diversity 
in our water supplies.
  San Diego was devastated by drought in the 1970s, and since then, 
southern California has made necessary investments to better prepare 
for, respond to and withstand drought. Over several decades, San Diego 
has reduced its long-term water demand and has invested in increased 
efficiency.
  Per capita water use has decreased about 27 percent since 2007, and 
local cities and water districts are on pace to meet their State-
mandated water-efficiency targets for 2020. Total regional consumption 
of potable water in 2013 was 24 percent lower than in 2007.
  By raising the San Vicente Dam, the largest dam raise in the Western 
Hemisphere, and constructing the Olivenhain Dam, San Diego has 
dramatically increased its storage capability, which will supply 
adequate storage during dry years. The San Diego County Water Authority 
and the city of San Diego are national leaders in recycling wastewater 
and in desalination, turning ocean water into usable potable water.
  So San Diego has done, and is continuing to do, its part because we 
have done a good job of conserving, preparing and investing as needed 
to minimize the coming hardships. A real drought solution should not 
put any community at risk of losing future water supplies to another 
region without addressing better measures to conserve and store water.
  This certainly is not the last drought California will face. We will 
continue to have water supply challenges, and we need to be continuing 
to prepare for the future. All users must become more resilient, and 
any action now should have the foresight to maintain water supplies for 
dry years that are sure to come.

[[Page 2572]]

  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to protect communities 
across California and to promote a long-term vision for protecting our 
scarce water resources. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, California has been plagued by 
litigation and regulation, delay and obfuscation on its water policy, 
and we are now living with the result of that.
  The gentleman offers us an amendment that is more of the same--in 
fact, in this case, delaying the bill until the Federal Government 
measures the water content of clouds. Enough is enough. It is a time 
now for action, and this bill calls for action.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is another stall tactic. 
There have been several speakers who have talked about how this bill 
creates no water. Well, I hate to break it to people, but bills don't 
create water. It rains. That is why the founding fathers of our State, 
including Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, two United States 
presidents, worked with the leadership of California to develop a 
system that could keep water for 5 years so we could withstand 5 years 
of drought.
  I hate to have to use this, but this is how it works. Mr. Chairman, 
the sun melts the snow. The snow gets stored in the reservoirs, in this 
case this is Yosemite, where San Francisco gets all of its water. Then 
the water runs out. That is how it works. That is how the system was 
designed to work.
  If you don't understand this chart, I have another chart. Once again, 
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, because this one is a little basic. But, 
sun--sun creates heat. Heat melts ice. Ice becomes water. Water we use 
to drink and irrigate our crops. That is how this works.
  Government doesn't create water. Government can only help to create 
the infrastructure to hold the water in an area that is like California 
that is always in a drought.
  So our friends from the coastal areas of California like to have it 
both ways. They like to drink their water from the Sierra Nevadas and 
pipe it over so it never has to go into the delta. At the same time, 
they dump their sewage into the delta that kills the fish.
  So this bill was not designed to make it rain. Nobody can do that. We 
don't need to measure clouds. This bill is designed to get the water 
that we have in the wet years and hold it for the dry years.
  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I guess we have come to some 
agreement that the Government can't create water, and that is 
productive. I guess what I would say is that we are at 12 percent of 
snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which has functioned as our water 
storage, and it is not there.
  What I would say is that over decades, the State, the Federal 
Government, the cities and agencies within California have worked to 
deal with a framework for addressing this kind of situation, and the 
bill, as it is constituted, would change that.
  All my amendment does is give some assurance to communities that in 
the event that there are water transfers that their particular water 
budgets would not be affected.
  I think it is a reasonable assurance to give. I think the author of 
the bill might suggest it is already there. If it is, let's codify it, 
and it will make the bill much better to provide that assurance to 
cities, counties, agencies and the State that has worked so hard for 
developing a framework for dealing with this very situation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of the 
measure.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, we are coming to an end here and this bill 
is about to get voted on. What we have got going on here, and we have 
all figured it out from all the colorful presentations and all the 
pictures on both sides, we are in a drought. We know that. We can't 
make it rain; we also know that. But we also know that over the years 
our forefathers invested to make sure that we can alleviate the pain of 
what we are going through today. We did not use that the way we were 
supposed to.
  This is the third time this graph is coming up, and I think it is 
important. All the different years that we have gone through a drought, 
we have had decent allocations. The green here is the allocation for 
2013, of 20 percent. Yet we had all this water in storage. What 
happened to this water? When everybody talks about how their 
communities are running out of water, this water should have been going 
to those districts, should have been going to those homes.
  Kids, parents, families, farmers, this water should have been going 
to you to grow crops, to feed families. This is important. That is the 
most important part about this. We had a lot of water. We lost it all. 
It was dumped out into the ocean in the name of a fish.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VALADAO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We are going back and forth with a lot of numbers here, and there's 
something we need to understand. The allocation is a number that is 
taken from the nature of the--that the water year is supposed to be. 
That is the early allocation.
  Mr. VALADAO. Reclaiming my time, the most important thing I have 
noticed over time with the studies and the reports is that the food 
prices do not affect the people in this room. We all know from all the 
news articles, at least half of the people in this room, money is no 
issue to you. For the average person sitting at home watching today, 
this has a direct impact on you at home. It has a direct impact on you 
at your grocery store, on your grocery bill.
  This is an important piece of legislation, and I would love to see 
some other ideas that could actually deliver some water, not more ideas 
to take water from the valley and send it out to the ocean. We have 
seen that. We have done that. We have survived on that. We need to come 
up with some actual ideas and help protect water for our futures, for 
our communities in southern California like the author would like to 
see.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the 
Chair.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Peters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
113-340 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mrs. Napolitano of California.
  Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Matsui of California.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Bera of California.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mrs. Capps of California.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Huffman of California.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. McNerney of California.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Peters of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded

[[Page 2573]]

vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 239, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 42]

                               AYES--179

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Amodei
     Chaffetz
     Courtney
     Daines
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Himes
     Larson (CT)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Vargas

                              {time}  1744

  Mr. CRAWFORD, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, and Messrs. FARENTHOLD and McHENRY 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, on February 5, 2014, I was unable to cast my 
vote for the amendment offered by Representative Napolitano to H.R. 
3964, rollcall vote No. 42. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Matsui

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 228, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 43]

                               AYES--193

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter

[[Page 2574]]


     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Amodei
     Chaffetz
     Daines
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Schwartz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1749

  Mr. REED changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CARDENAS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bera of California

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Bera) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 226, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 44]

                               AYES--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--226

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

[[Page 2575]]


     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Amodei
     Chaffetz
     Daines
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Scalise
     Schwartz
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1753

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 227, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 45]

                               AYES--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Amodei
     Benishek
     Chaffetz
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rogers (MI)
     Rush
     Schwartz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1758

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Huffman

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Huffman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 231, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 46]

                               AYES--189

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod

[[Page 2576]]


     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Amodei
     Chaffetz
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gutierrez
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Serrano
     Velazquez


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1801

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 47]

                               AYES--193

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry

[[Page 2577]]


     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Amodei
     Chaffetz
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Schwartz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1805

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Peters of California

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Peters) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 231, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 48]

                               AYES--192

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Amodei
     Chaffetz
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Schwartz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1809

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3964) to 
address certain water-related concerns in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Valley, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 472, 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3964 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:

[[Page 2578]]

       Add at the end of the bill the following:
    TITLE IX--PRESERVING LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES AND PROTECTING TRIBAL 
                              SOVEREIGNTY

     SEC. 901. PRESERVING LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES.

       Nothing in this Act shall preempt or supersede State, 
     county, or local law, including State water law, that 
     prohibits the export of ground water to other areas.

     SEC. 902. PROTECTING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY.

       Nothing in this Act shall undermine Native American tribal 
     sovereignty, or reduce the quantity or quality of the water 
     available to affected Indian tribes.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which, unfortunately, will not kill the bill or send it back to 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  Perhaps all of you have heard that there is a drought in the West. If 
you haven't, I am here to tell you there is a serious drought in the 
West--not just California, but throughout the West.
  This particular piece of legislation is said to deal with the 
drought. It does not. This legislation does two things that every one 
of us ought to be concerned about.
  First of all, it is a water grab. It takes water from somebody and 
gives it to somebody else.

                              {time}  1815

  Secondly, if you are interested in states' rights, if you are 
interested in the power of a community to decide its own future, you 
had better be paying attention to this bill. This bill is very, very 
much about the power of a community, a power of a State to decide what 
it wants to do with its water.
  This is an issue of profound importance to every State in the West 
that has a reclamation project, because this bill sets out for the very 
first time the Federal Government overriding State constitution, in 
this case the constitution of the State of California, State water law, 
and contracts. This is serious stuff.
  If this were to somehow solve the crisis in California, you may 
accept it. But it does not. It does not create 1 gallon of water. It 
simply steals what little water there is available from some and gives 
it to another.
  I yield to my colleague from California (Mr. Bera).
  Mr. BERA of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of this motion because it will make 
this bill better. This is about protecting existing State law, and the 
current bill before us takes away State law.
  It is about protecting our communities, our local rights, our county 
rights. This motion will make this bill much better.
  It is incredibly important to the residents in the five delta 
counties and the folks that I represent, that they have water that they 
can drink. This motion allows us to honor those State, county, and 
local laws and makes this bill better. I urge my colleagues to support 
the motion.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from California 
(Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for offering this 
motion to improve a deeply flawed bill.
  California is home to over 100 federally recognized tribes, including 
over two dozen in my congressional district. Many tribes, including the 
Hoopa, the Yurok, and the Karuk in my district, depend on wild salmon 
as both a vital source of economic opportunity and a respected way of 
life.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California yield for 
a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will it take my time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It will.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am afraid I cannot yield. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, some of the water impacted by this bill is 
critically needed by tribes in my district. This bill explicitly waives 
State and Federal law in a way that almost certainly would lead to 
additional diversions from the Trinity River, which would undermine 
tribal fishing and water rights.
  The Yurok Tribe in my district has written about provisions in this 
bill that they would undermine the Federal Government's ability to meet 
its Federal trust obligation to protect, preserve, and enhance the 
trust resources of that tribe.
  This House has an obligation to clarify that this cynical bill would 
not diminish any protected tribal water and fishing rights, and so I 
urge a ``yes'' on this motion to recommit, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very, very clear with my 
colleagues. California water issues go back to the very beginning of 
the State, the Gold Rush, and as they have said, whiskey's for 
drinking, water's for fighting.
  Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to solve the current crisis in 
California. What it does, it sets in motion a series of pieces of 
legislation that will unravel 150 years of California water law and set 
in place extraordinary chaos.
  It does deliver water from one area to another area, literally 
stealing that water and giving it to others.
  It does override the California State Constitution and what we call 
the Public Trust Doctrine, that is, the water of California belongs to 
all the people of California. It is allocated by law, by precedent, and 
by water rights that are allocated. This overrides that.
  We don't want the Federal Government to go there if you care anything 
about your State, about the water in your State, and about your 
community. We need a long-term and short-term solution.
  Fortunately, in the omnibus bill, we did reinstate the Federal 
drought protection drought response act. We have many of the tools in 
place to deal with the drought today. What we don't have is money.
  I would ask the majority to put up a bill that delivers the money to 
carry out what is already in the law, which we did just 2 weeks ago.
  Unfortunately, this bill puts in place a new water war which we do 
not and cannot have at a time when we need to come together to solve 
California water problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for any of you that were 
listening to the debate as we debated the amendment in the general 
debate on this, it is very, very evident that this bill is focused only 
on California--only on California. And the reason I make that point, 
because part of the reason that California is in this situation is 
because of Federal law and Federal regulations.
  Now, one of the ironies here, there is a lot of ironies when you look 
at these motions to recommit, but my good friend, the sponsor of the 
motion to recommit, I believe, was in office, or overseeing, at some 
time when these water projects were passed for California. And here is 
the interesting point, because he makes the very, what is a valid 
point, one worries about preempting State law. But the Central Valley 
Project in California preempted California law when it was passed. 
Nobody heard anything about that then. The San Joaquin River project 
preempted State law.
  I just want to make this point. No other State is affected. This is a 
California-centric piece of legislation.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a fact?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will not yield to the gentleman. He 
didn't

[[Page 2579]]

give me that courtesy earlier. I am not going to give him that 
courtesy.
  Finally, this is the final point that I want to make, and this is 
important. This is important.
  We heard the solution to the California water problems is embodied in 
this bill. It is similar to a bill that we passed last year--with 
bipartisan support, I might add. We heard, today, my friends on the 
other side debate over and over, there are solutions. There are 
solutions to this, there are solutions to that. You know something? 
Nobody offered a solution. Furthermore, the other body in our 
legislative process has yet to offer a solution.
  Now, I can understand people not liking this solution. I understand 
that. But somebody has to give us something to negotiate with. That is 
what the issue is all about.
  We think this is right. We will find out if it is right if the House 
votes to pass this, and then we will go to the next process. But, for 
goodness sakes, give California a chance to get a solution.
  This MTR does nothing to advance that. Vote ``no'' on the MTR and 
vote for the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the question of 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 231, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 49]

                               AYES--191

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Amodei
     Chaffetz
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1829

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229, 
noes 191, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               AYES--229

     Aderholt
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)

[[Page 2580]]


     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--191

     Amash
     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Amodei
     Chaffetz
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Turner
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1838

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________