[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11621-11631]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2898, WESTERN WATER AND AMERICAN 
  FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
     3038, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ACT OF 2015, PART II

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 362 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 362

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2898) to provide drought relief in the State 
     of California, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are

[[Page 11622]]

     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, 
     it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 114-23. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3038) to 
     provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, 
     motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out 
     of the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the good gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, H. Res. 362, providing for consideration of two very 
important pieces of legislation: H.R. 2898, which is the Western Water 
and American Food Act of 2015, and H.R. 3038, the Highway and 
Transportation Funding Act of 2015, Part II.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2898 under a structured 
rule, with eight amendments made in order that are evenly split between 
Democratic and Republican Members of this body. The rule also provides 
for consideration of H.R. 3038 under a closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider the Western Water 
and American Food Act, which is an important bill that will help us 
respond to the severe water shortages facing California, which I am 
sure many of you have heard, and much of the Western United States. 
Many people are confronting the worst drought that they have seen in 
many, many years, and a growing number of communities across the West 
have been acutely impacted by these arid conditions.
  While this crisis has been caused by the drought, our environmental 
laws, as well as misguided and outdated regulatory restrictions, have 
exacerbated the situation. This bill addresses these policy failures 
and seeks to alleviate the impacts of drought in the short and in the 
long term.
  My own district in central Washington is dealing with serious water 
supply shortages. Actually, the whole State is declared a drought area. 
These are impacting the agriculture, energy, and manufacturing sectors, 
as well as families and small businesses that rely on an adequate and 
stable supply of water. These conditions are also increasing the threat 
of dangerous wildfires and increasing the likelihood of catastrophic 
wildfire, which could destroy homes, businesses, and large amounts of 
land, as well as crippling many communities throughout the West.
  Over the past 2 weeks in my State of Washington, we have already seen 
wildfire outbreaks across the State in cities like Wenatchee and Quincy 
and counties such as Benton, Grant, Adams, and Douglas. Sadly, with an 
extremely low snowpack and continuing drought conditions, we are likely 
to see even more fires.
  Mr. Speaker, as a third-generation farmer, I know firsthand the 
challenges facing many in our Western agricultural communities and the 
critically important role that water plays in agriculture's success. In 
recognition of this fact, earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 2097, 
the Bureau of Reclamation Surface Water Storage Streamlining Act. This 
measure will speed up Reclamation's feasibility study process on 
surface water storage, spurring the development of new projects across 
the West, and I was very proud to have it included in this essential 
legislation that we are considering today.
  Water is not just a resource, it is the lifeblood of farming and 
ranching communities all across the West, and we must act swiftly and 
decisively to mitigate the impacts of this crisis that we are facing. 
The importance of water to agriculture production cannot be overstated, 
and we must take steps to support this vital industry that is 
responsible for feeding billions of people around the globe. In fact, 
today, I am proud to say, the average American farmer is responsible 
for feeding upwards of 144 people, a drastic increase from just 50 
years ago when that number was around 25.
  The reason for this change is simple and complex. Our modern farmers 
are growing more disease- and pest-resistant crops that require less 
water, less pesticides, and better conserve our natural resources. 
Although modern agriculture allows us to use less water for agriculture 
to flourish, we still must have a reliable supply of water.
  Mr. Speaker, the Western Water and American Food Act represents a 
comprehensive and bipartisan approach aimed at alleviating the 
drought's impacts through short-term and long-term measures. This bill 
will address the root causes of the crisis: complex and inconsistent 
laws, faulty court decisions, and onerous regulations at the State and 
Federal level that have exacerbated an already devastating drought.
  In California and across the West, millions are facing water 
shortages and rationing, yet many of the drought's damaging effects are 
preventable. H.R. 2898 aims to fix our broken regulatory system and 
bring our water infrastructure into the 21st century. This bill gives 
immediate relief to millions of Americans facing mandatory water 
rationing and invests in new water storage facilities to prepare for 
future droughts. Additionally, it will provide farmers with the 
certainty they need to produce the majority of our Nation's fruits and 
vegetables, which feed our Nation, as well as people around the world.
  This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3038, the Highway 
and Transportation Funding Act of 2015, Part II, a bill that will 
extend Federal surface transportation programs, as well as the 
hazardous materials transportation program and the Dingell-Johnson 
Sport Fish Restoration Act, until December 18, 2015, and fund these 
programs at the fiscal year 2014 authorized level. This extension will 
provide

[[Page 11623]]

the committee of jurisdiction with additional time to continue their 
important work towards a long-term highway and surface transportation 
bill. Mr. Speaker, this extension will provide the House and Senate 
with time to work out a long-term surface transportation 
reauthorization bill in a bicameral, bipartisan manner.
  Every State transportation department in the country currently has 
numerous multiyear transportation projects that would benefit greatly 
from the increased certainty a 6-year transportation bill would 
provide. My hope, and I think the hope of everyone in this Chamber, is 
that this short-term extension gives us time to reach an agreement that 
can provide certainty for all of our constituents.
  Additionally, this legislation will also allow us to work on a 
resolution for the highway trust fund, which is facing a $90 billion 
shortfall. Failing to address the trust fund would have disastrous 
impacts across our country. If the trust fund were to go insolvent, 
many State transportation and infrastructure projects would grind to a 
halt, leading to furloughed workers and lost capital from investments 
on existing projects. The cost of shutting down and then restarting all 
of these projects would be astronomical and would end up costing our 
taxpayers much more in the long run.
  Mr. Speaker, another short-term extension is not what any of us would 
have wanted. Our States need certainty, and that will only come from a 
long-term transportation authorization. While the bill before us may 
not be what we all would have preferred, it is a good stepping stone to 
something greater. I believe passing H.R. 3038 is the right thing to do 
and will allow us to consider a long-term, 6-year authorization in the 
very near future.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for 
consideration of two critically important pieces of legislation. H.R. 
2898 will help drought-stricken communities in the West by providing 
critically needed reforms to the broken regulatory system, as well as 
bipartisan solutions to help provide relief to families, farms, the 
environment, and the American economy. H.R. 3038 will ensure that many 
important transportation programs do not lapse and will extend the 
highway trust fund expenditure authority, guaranteeing that this vital 
fund will remain solvent and available for infrastructure projects 
across the country while working towards a lasting solution.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my 
colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bills.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman, my friend, Mr. 
Newhouse, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, we already know what H.R. 2898 and H.R. 3038 are called, 
but they are follow-up legislation to the short-term temporary 
transportation funding bill that was signed into law last May. I am 
troubled by a number of issues concerning the rule and underlying bills 
that we are considering today.
  First, as I have stated on numerous occasions, I take serious issue 
with the manner in which the majority has chosen to consider 
legislation in this Chamber. Grouping or combining multiple, unrelated 
pieces of legislation into one rule has become the new normal, 
precluding the Members of this body from making informed judgments 
about the proper floor procedure for each measure and creating often 
confusing debates about an assortment of unconnected issues. The 
majority's insistence on the continued use of grab-bag rules prevents 
the thoughtful deliberation that important legislation requires and 
does both the Members of this Chamber and the American people an 
immeasurable disservice.
  Next, there are now only 9 legislative days remaining before Congress 
recesses in August, and much important work remains. For example, 
millions of Americans continue to suffer dire economic ramifications 
from the GOP's failure to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, the 
charter for which expired June 30.
  The Ex-Im Bank supported 164,000 private sector American jobs in 
fiscal year 2014, alone, and over 1.3 million jobs since 2009. What is 
more, the Ex-Im Bank has received the support of the last 13 
Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, including Ronald Reagan, George 
H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. It is high time 
Republicans allow a vote on its reauthorization.
  In the face of realities such as these, Republicans in Congress 
continue to put forward legislation for consideration that has very 
little bipartisan support and stands even less chance of becoming law. 
Indeed, President Obama has issued a Statement of Administration Policy 
advising that, if he is presented with H.R. 2898, the Water bill we are 
considering today, he will veto it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include that Statement for the Record.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


    h.r. 2898--western water and american food security act of 2015

                  (Rep. Valadao, R-CA, July 14, 2015)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2898, the Western 
     Water and American Food Security Act of 2015, because it 
     fails to address critical elements of California's complex 
     water challenges and will, if enacted, impede an effective 
     and timely response to the continuing drought while providing 
     no additional water to hard hit communities. Like similar 
     legislation in the last Congress, H.R. 2898 was developed 
     with little input from the public, the Administration, or key 
     stakeholders affected by the drought. The urgency and 
     seriousness of the California drought requires a balanced and 
     flexible approach that promotes water reliability and 
     ecosystem restoration.
       Specifically, H.R. 2898 dictates operational decisions and 
     imposes a new legal standard which could actually limit water 
     supplies by creating new and confusing conflicts with 
     existing laws, adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to 
     Federal and State cooperation. This additional standard could 
     slow decision-making, generate significant litigation, and 
     limit real-time operational flexibility critical to 
     maximizing water delivery. And, contrary to current and past 
     Federal reclamation law that defers to State water law, the 
     bill would preempt California water law.
       In addition, H.R. 2898 directs specific operations 
     inconsistent with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), thereby 
     resulting in conditions that could be detrimental to the 
     Delta fish and other species listed under Federal and State 
     endangered species laws.
       The Administration strongly supports efforts to help 
     alleviate the effects of drought in the West; however, the 
     Administration is concerned with section 401, which 
     establishes deadlines for completing feasibility studies for 
     certain water storage projects. The provision is unnecessary 
     and the dates provided in the bill could prevent the 
     participation of non-Federal partners in certain studies and 
     may inhibit the Administration's ability to consider a full 
     range of options for addressing these issues. In addition, 
     financial penalties levied upon the Bureau of Reclamation 
     under section 403 for not meeting these deadlines would only 
     undermine the Department of the Interior's ability to help 
     address the effects of drought in the West.
       Much of the bill contains provisions that have little 
     connection to the ongoing drought. The bill includes language 
     constraining the Administration's ability to protect the 
     commercial and tribal fishery on the Trinity and Klamath 
     Rivers, which will have impacts not just in California, but 
     throughout the west coast. The bill would also 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 Administration has directed 
     Federal agencies to work with state and local officials in 
     real-time to maximize limited water supplies, prioritize 
     public health and safety, meet state water quality 
     requirements, and ensure a balanced approach to providing for 
     the water needs of people, agriculture, businesses, power, 
     imperiled species and the environment. Consistent with the 
     2015 Interagency Drought Strategy, the Administration and 
     Federal agencies have partnered with state agencies in 
     California to improve coordination of water operations in the 
     state. In June, the Administration announced new actions and 
     investments of more than $110 million to support workers, 
     farmers, and rural communities suffering from drought and to 
     combat wildfires. This builds on the more than $190 million 
     that agencies across the Federal government have invested to 
     support drought-stricken communities so far this year. 
     Unfortunately,

[[Page 11624]]

     H.R. 2898 would undermine these efforts and the progress that 
     has been made.
       For these reasons, if the President were presented with 
     H.R. 2898, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto 
     the bill.

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, even more offensive, in a display of 
colossal incompetence, last week, the Republican leadership was forced 
to pull their entire Interior Appropriations bill to protect their 
Conference from having to defend the display of the Confederate battle 
flag on Federal lands, imagery long recognized as a symbol of hatred 
and intolerance. As a result, funding for critically important agencies 
such as the Environmental Protection Agency, whose programs protect 
wildlife, the environment, and public health, continues to hang in the 
balance.
  This rule first provides for consideration of H.R. 2898, the Western 
Water and American Food Security Act of 2015, which Republicans claim 
will alleviate the drought crisis currently unfolding in California and 
other Western States, but this bill is just another example of the 
countless partisan attempts made by the majority to roll back important 
environmental protections while also preempting State laws. Let me put 
a footnote right there, ``preempting State laws.'' These are the people 
that argue State rights and now would preempt them in Western portions 
of our great country, particularly California, reducing water 
management flexibility.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, this bill undercuts the Endangered Species Act by 
changing the well-defined standard used to determine when an action 
negatively affects an endangered species and introduces an untested, 
undefined standard.
  As evidenced by this piece of legislation, the Republicans' solution 
to the drought crisis is to provide handouts to big agricultural 
interests at the expense of the environment and everyone else.
  I want to make it very clear that I represent agricultural interests 
as do my colleagues who are Republicans. We represent all of the 
specialty crops and sugarcane grown, and we understand these dynamics 
very well.
  Not only will this bill scale back desperately needed environmental 
protections, it will affect thousands of fishing jobs in California and 
Oregon that local residents depend on.
  Given the changing standard of the Endangered Species Act, this bill 
will dramatically weaken protections for salmon and other fish and 
wildlife in California's Bay-Delta Estuary.
  This bill claims to help California, but even California doesn't want 
it. California's own Secretary of Natural Resources has said that this 
bill--and let me quote him--will ``reignite water wars, move water 
policy back into the courts, and try to pit one part of the State 
against another.''
  This bill will elevate the water rights for certain agricultural 
contractors over the existing water rights that benefit refuges and 
wildlife areas.
  In short, this bill circumvents California's groundbreaking equitable 
water conservation programs and puts the desires of big agriculture 
over everyone else.
  This combined rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 3038, 
termed the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015, Part II, 
because it is yet another short-term, temporary patch to ensure that 
the highway trust fund does not become insolvent.
  It is a patch. It is the ninth time we are patching. If you had a 
tire and were riding down a highway and if every time you looked up you 
had to have another patch, pretty soon you would recognize that you 
would need new tires. What we need in this country is a 6-year highway 
bill.
  Back in May, Congress passed and the President signed a bill we can 
now appropriately call the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 
2015, Part I.
  At that time, we were assured by our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle that a multiyear bill that would provide the long-term 
funding certainty and stability needed to keep transportation and 
construction projects operating was on the horizon. That was in May.
  We were promised, Mr. Speaker, that if we voted to provide funding 
through July 31, the comprehensive, multiyear highway bill America so 
desperately needs would become a reality in time to avoid any 
insolvency.
  Unfortunately, today we find ourselves in the same situation as we 
did in May. I just heard my good friend from Washington make the 
argument that, in the next 6 months, we will be able to work together 
to do the things necessary for a 6-year highway bill. I am paraphrasing 
what he said.
  As we had in May, today we have a rapidly approaching, self-imposed 
deadline and are frantically seeking an interim fix. Like its 
predecessor, this highway bill does nothing to address the long-term 
solvency of the highway trust fund.
  There is one thing I have learned here about kicking the can down the 
road: If kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, here in 
the United States Congress, we would win gold, we would win bronze, we 
would win silver, and we would win aluminum for kicking the can down 
the road.
  Instead, we are again being asked to vote for legislation that would 
keep the highway trust fund solvent through December 18.
  Note the date of December 18, just before Christmas, so that we can 
play the game: ``If you don't vote for this next patch--if we don't do 
6 years--then we will keep you here until Christmas without the 
necessary assurances that a long-term bill will become a reality.''
  This is no way to govern. Our insistence on kicking the can down the 
road does nothing to protect American jobs or to invest in critical 
infrastructure that every man and woman in this House of 
Representatives recognizes is desperately needed in this Nation of 
falling bridges and pock-marked roads.
  Finally, investing in our Nation's infrastructure and, indeed, in our 
Nation's future will require us to make tough choices.
  Instead of considering raising the Federal gas tax--I said the ugly 
words, ``Federal gas tax''--which is the primary source of funding for 
the highway trust fund--and it has not been increased since 1993, 
people--this bill seeks to cut taxes on liquefied natural gas and 
liquefied petroleum gas at a cost of $90 million over the next decade.
  Any comprehensive highway bill must consider, in part, addressing the 
Federal gas tax. Why don't we just face up to that, go to our 
constituents and explain it to them so they will understand that this 
is a desperate need for this entire Nation.
  Our failure to come together to pass a multiyear transportation bill 
year after year has resulted in 65 percent of our Nation's roads being 
rated ``deficient.'' All you have to do is drive around Washington to 
recognize that.
  It has left 25 percent of our Nation's bridges in disrepair, and it 
has left 45 percent of Americans without access to transit.
  This failure has far-reaching and devastating implications and must 
be addressed with thoughtful and meaningful bipartisan legislation that 
will provide the certainty and consistency required to fuel jobs and 
keep the highways and other transportation infrastructure safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I share the gentleman from Florida's enthusiasm for the important 
work that is in front of this Congress. These combined rules offer us 
the opportunity to bring forward important legislation at a critical 
time in as efficient a way as possible.
  I am excited, as a freshman Congressman, to be able to be a part of 
this institution, certainly, but to be able to do this hard work that 
we have in front of us. We have a lot to do, and doing it in this way 
allows us to get these important things done very quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Valadao), a young man who shares a very interesting perspective because 
he is living the drought conditions that we just read about in the 
State of California. He is the author of this important bill we have 
before us, and he is a resident of Hanford, California.

[[Page 11625]]


  Mr. VALADAO. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his help with 
this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, a little bit on the history of the Valley and the area 
that I represent. It is an area filled with immigrants.
  When you look at my district and when you look at the people I 
represent, 80 percent of them are minorities. One of the reasons I feel 
that I had the opportunity to be elected and the honor of being able to 
represent that district is due to my own background.
  My dad came to this country in 1969 as a new immigrant. He didn't 
speak English as well as he should have, and still, to this day, he 
speaks with a very strong accent, as does my mom.
  When my dad started working in plants and trying to save money so 
that he could start his own farm someday and give us the opportunity to 
have the American Dream, he learned to speak Spanish while working 
alongside a lot of Hispanic folks.
  While working really hard and saving his money, he had the 
opportunity to save enough money to actually buy some cattle and work 
his way up to the point at which he actually owned some land.
  When we look at an opportunity for the American Dream, when we listen 
to people talk about the opportunity to be successful and protect the 
small business guy, I am that guy.
  I am the guy who had that opportunity because of my parents, because 
of their hard work. I have been in that struggle. I don't just 
represent them in Congress, I am that face. I am that person who had 
that opportunity because of that hard work.
  When we see the struggle and when someone claims to tell me or to 
tell us on our side what those struggles are really like and how this 
piece of legislation has an impact only for the largest of the large, 
when you raise the cost of water because you restrict the amount of 
water that we have delivered to the Valley, it hurts the smallest guy 
the most.
  Those people I represent, that 80 percent minority district, are 
seeing unemployment numbers as high as 50 percent because those farmers 
are not getting that water. Those food lines are starting to grow, 
lines that I stood in, where I helped serve food. It is food that was 
grown in other countries because we can no longer grow it in the 
Valley.
  These are all people that my friends across the aisle claim to 
represent, but they don't, because they don't have that background and 
they didn't have that opportunity to be there to work with them and to 
grow up in that life where they had to work before and after school 
like I did--drive a tractor, feed calves, and do all that different 
type of stuff--because that is what the American Dream is all about: 
working, saving your money, and having that opportunity.
  It is also about having government at their backs. But, right now 
government is making it more and more difficult for that little guy. 
Water has gotten so expensive because you have the large cities coming 
in and spending a bunch of money so that water is going right through 
the Valley to the southern portion.
  All we are asking for in this piece of legislation is for some common 
sense, common sense that says: ``Let's look at what science we are 
using.'' If we are going to protect a species, show me the evidence 
that meets and actually delivers the protection of species.
  We have lived through two decades of this, and now we are seeing that 
the endangered species they claim to want to protect is on the verge of 
annihilation, almost gone, extinct, after delivering almost no water.
  We have gotten an allocation over these past few years of zero 
percent. We are not asking for a lot of water. We are not asking to be 
taught how to conserve water. We have done that. We have reached that 
point.
  We are at zero. We have got zero water, and we have got high 
unemployment numbers. We have got people standing in line, asking for 
food and begging for help, when all they want to do is work an honest 
living and provide for their families and for their neighbors.
  We have seen too much suffering. It is getting old. We need to pass 
legislation. We need people who are sincere in this conversation to 
show up and show some courage and vote for this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When the gentleman speaks of growing up in that area, my father grew 
up in Griffin, Georgia, on a farm. My first job was on a farm. I picked 
beans, I stripped celery, and I cut chicory. So I don't need lectures 
about not understanding farming. I picked beans in Pahokee, Florida, 
which I am proud to represent now as their Congressperson.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch), my good friend.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, America needs a long-term, sustainably funded surface 
transportation bill. You know it. I know it. The Governors in all of 
our States know it. We need it to repair our roads and bridges and to 
fix our crumbling infrastructure.
  Every single one of the 435 Members in this body has needs in his 
district. Speaker Boehner has 136 deficient bridges in his district. 
Leader Pelosi has 29. In my State of Vermont, we have 252 structurally 
deficient bridges. A photo of one of them is right here. It is 
disgraceful and it is unnecessary.
  Yet, instead of facing up to this problem that we all share and doing 
something that a proud and confident country would do--invest in its 
future--with reckless irresponsibility, we are acting, once again, to 
dodge our duty with yet another short-term extension of our highway 
bill.
  This time, the plan is a bold extension for 5 months, through 
December 18. Can our transportation agencies really plan a bridge 
replacement or a major repair in the next 5 months?
  By the way, how is it paid for? It is not by asking users to pay, 
which has traditionally been the way we have funded our roads and 
bridges, but by, in this case, among other dubious devices.
  We are asking airline passengers 10 years from now to pay a few 
billion dollars to fix our highways tomorrow. Think about it. Airline 
passengers in 10 years--2025--will pay for road repairs we make 
tomorrow.
  By the way, this resort to gimmicks is not new. It has become a 
habit. This is the 35th short-term extension in the past 6 years. The 
last one in July of 2014 was paid for by the gimmick of all gimmicks, 
pension smoothing. We created a pothole in somebody's pension in the 
future to fix a pothole in his highway today.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a long-term plan. We need it first to restore 
some semblance of duty and responsibility to this House of 
Representatives that has failed to do its job.

                              {time}  1315

  We need to have those 600,000 good-paying jobs start digging dirt and 
fixing those roads and bridges, and we need it to make America more 
competitive.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I urge you to join me in voting ``no'' 
to this joke of a short-term plan. No more Band-Aids, no more patches, 
no more smoke and mirrors, no more gimmicks.
  American contractors and workers are ready to do their job. It is 
time for Congress to do its job and pass a long-term highway 
transportation bill.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I was just handed a Statement of 
Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President, a 
statement of his policy position on H.R. 3038. It says:

       The administration supports passage of H.R. 3038 to give 
     the House and Senate the necessary time to work on a long-
     term bill this year that increases investment to meet the 
     needs of the Nation's infrastructure.

  I just wanted to add that to the Record.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Hardy), a fellow freshman, a gentleman from the scenic Virgin Valley of 
Nevada.
  Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding me time to speak on the rule of this vital 
piece of legislation, H.R. 2898, the Western Water and American Food 
Security Act.

[[Page 11626]]

  Coming from Nevada, the Nation's most arid State, we continue to 
battle a drought in all 17 counties. At no time in recent memory has 
the significance and proactivity of managing our water resources across 
the West been more important.
  I can sympathize with my colleagues from across the neighboring State 
of California, who are also facing the fourth consecutive year of 
drought. We obviously cannot afford to keep this status quo.
  As the only Member of Nevada's House delegation on the Committee on 
Natural Resources, I take a great deal of pride in speaking up for my 
constituents and the people of my State on important issues facing our 
communities. Those communities are affected by the droughts currently 
affecting California's Central Valley, the source of so much of our 
Nation's food.
  For those in my district and around the country who are still 
battling to get this economic recovery, they can ill afford to pay more 
of their hard-earned income at the supermarket to feed their families.
  As the son of farmer-ranchers from southeastern Nevada, I feel for 
the hard-working farmers whose suffering is being made worse by 
burdensome environmental laws and the failure of our elected leaders to 
provide adequate water infrastructure to meet the ever-growing demands 
of the 21st century. Though long overdue, we have a real opportunity to 
provide some commonsense solutions to this very dire situation.
  Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me some time. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a 
``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to advise how 
much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn), my good friend.
  Ms. HAHN. I thank my colleague from Florida for allowing me these few 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain why I am voting against this 
rule today. As has been said, California is now in the fourth year of a 
record drought. In response, our State and local governments have 
implemented mandatory conservation measures, but we also need to think 
about how we will increase our water supply.
  The bill that the House will consider today does not do that. It just 
moves water from one need to another. That is why I attempted to offer 
an amendment to address present and current water needs. However, my 
amendment was not made in order by the Committee on Rules.
  My father, who was Los Angeles County Supervisor Kenny Hahn, had an 
idea in the 1970s to build a water pipeline from Alaska to California. 
The idea was never completely investigated but continues to have merit; 
therefore, I believe that the Department of the Interior should study 
the feasibility of a water pipeline network, linking our Nation's 
Federal reservoirs to transport water from wet regions to the dry 
regions in this country. That is what I thought my amendment would 
accomplish.
  My proposal, I thought, was a first step in building pipelines from 
regions that have more than enough water to regions that do not. If we 
can transport oil via pipeline, we should be able to do the same thing 
with water. I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not find 
this amendment in order. It was a study to determine if this idea is 
feasible.
  I believe a water pipeline and other creative ideas to increase our 
water supply should be studied. I would think Mr. Valadao, my fellow 
Californian, would support an idea like this that we could consider.
  To ensure that California and other States have enough water for our 
residents and other needs, even during periods of drought now and in 
the future, I think Congress should encourage and support efforts 
leading to these kinds of creative solutions.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Nunes), a young man from the San Joaquin Valley to add 
to the California voice.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the fine gentleman from Washington 
from the Committee on Rules and, of course, Chairman Sessions for, 
again, bringing a water bill to the floor of the House.
  Five years ago, we passed a water bill very similar to this. It was 
in a year where we had abundant rainfall. Unfortunately, that rain was 
not captured. The water flowed right out to the ocean and was wasted. 
We have continued to dump water out to the ocean over the last 4 years. 
Even today, we are continuing to dump water out to the ocean.
  When I hear my colleagues talk about drought, yes, we are in the 
third year of a drought, a very bad drought; but, in fact, the founding 
fathers of our State built the water systems to withstand 5 years of 
drought.
  Back from 1987 to 1992--it is a drought that I still remember and 
many of my constituents remember--we really didn't have harsh problems 
until that fifth year of the drought. Since that time, places down in 
Los Angeles have built big water storage projects--in our area, no new 
water storage projects, only taking water away.
  You go to 1992; they pass the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
that took a million acre feet away and dumped it out to the ocean. In 
2009, the San Joaquin River Act took another 250,000 acre feet and 
wasted it. In addition to that, you have had lawsuits brought forth by 
the Endangered Species Act by radical environmental groups that have 
taken the rest of the water away.
  The reason we don't have any water is not because of drought; it is 
because we didn't hold the water when we had a chance to hold the water 
and keep the water and use it and spread it throughout the State of 
California.
  In fact, it is unfortunate to say because I don't wish ill on the 
people in San Francisco or the Silicon Valley, but they get their water 
from our area that they actually pipe over, instead of contributing to 
the environment.
  Now, I don't want the people of San Francisco to lose their water, 
but at the same time, the people of San Francisco shouldn't be willing 
to forfeit and give up our water that we rightfully own while they are 
taking some of ours and not contributing to the fish populations that, 
no matter how much water we put down, down the river and out to the 
ocean, the fish continue to die.
  At some point, you would think that people would step back and say: 
Well, if flushing water out to the ocean doesn't work and hasn't helped 
the fish populations, then we should stop doing that.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) to add further perspective 
from California.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2898. California is 
in the fourth year of a devastating drought, and what is on the House 
floor today does nothing to address the crisis, but, rather, it sets 
California back by fanning the flames of century-old water wars.
  The story of California and the West's drought is known across the 
country because it is unprecedented. Not only has our annual rainfall 
plummeted, but for the first time in our history, California has no 
snowpack--none. The snow in the Sierras once sustained us through the 
dry summers and replenished our streams with cold water, but not this 
year.
  Folsom Reservoir, just upstream from the city of Sacramento, is 
projected to be at the lowest it has been by the end of September, less 
than 15 percent of capacity. This is not due to government 
mismanagement or environmental restrictions; it is due to the lack of 
rain.
  We need real solutions to this crisis, short- and long-term 
solutions. There

[[Page 11627]]

are no silver bullet solutions. It is an all-of-the-above approach, and 
it should certainly not be the fear-mongering legislation like H.R. 
2898.
  For the short term, our State has used the flexibility it already has 
to move the water and make timely deliveries to make the best of this 
very, very bad situation. We also need to continue our conservation 
efforts and fix our infrastructure where there are leaks and wastes, 
but that is just for the short term.
  In the long term, we need to be investing in wastewater recycling, 
above- and below-ground water storage, and new technologies to help us 
monitor our water use on demand.
  I have introduced a sensible bill that will allow wastewater 
recycling projects to move forward much more quickly with Federal 
support. We should be debating solutions like that and not wasting 
time, yet again, on a bill that does not solve the real problem.
  As the daughter of a Central Valley farmer and the granddaughter of 
another, I grew up on a farm, and I deeply understand the value of and 
the controversy over water. In northern California, we have done our 
best to balance our watershed to provide water for our farms, our 
cities, and the environment.
  To say that this bill will help the drought is grossly misleading 
and, frankly, irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, even if we pump as much water 
south as possible, it still wouldn't be enough.
  The problem is a lack of rain. There is simply no more water to pump 
from the delta. This bill only further divides our State. My district, 
the city of Sacramento, the Sacramento region, and northern California 
as a whole strongly opposes this bill.
  Some of the concerns that have been raised include the loss of the 
State's right to manage its own water; the decimation of environmental 
protections for our Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; the ability to manage 
Folsom Reservoir for the benefit of the Sacramento metropolitan area; 
and, most importantly, the overall instability that this bill will 
create in California.
  We cannot afford to give up California's right to control its own 
water future. The stakes are too high. I urge my colleagues to strongly 
reject this legislation.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a fellow member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend on the Committee on Rules 
for yielding and appreciate what he is doing down here today.
  Mr. Speaker, you serve on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, as I do; you know how important it is that we get to 
these infrastructure questions. I see colleague after colleague after 
colleague coming and saying we need long-term solutions to 
infrastructure. What I don't see is any colleague coming and saying 
that those long-term solutions are available to us, as we stand here 
today.
  I don't have to get everything I want in this institution, Mr. 
Speaker, but I do have to move the ball forward. Three yards and a 
cloud of dust is what I tell constituents back home is the way we are 
going to get what we all want for this country; and if the answer is to 
sit on your hands and do nothing for this thing that has been so vexing 
to this institution, we are looking at 34, 35 extensions.
  We have an opportunity to put a stop to it. The Senate, in its 
wildest imaginations, says maybe we can get a 4-year deal; most likely, 
it will be an 18-month deal. When I turn to the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means here in the House, when I turn to the 
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the 
House, they say: Colleagues, give me 5 months, and we can do it right.
  Colleagues, give me 5 months, and we will do what no other Congress 
has been able to do for nearly a decade. Give us 5 months, and we will 
deliver on not just the promises, but the expectations that every 
single American has.

                              {time}  1330

  My colleagues, we have gotten in the business of telling the American 
people that they can have their roads for free, and that is not true. 
If you want better roads to drive on, you have got to provide the money 
to make that happen.
  For years, our solution has been to transfer general fund revenues 
into the user fee-funded transportation account. User fees mean that 
people who benefit from it pay for it.
  I have never bumped into an American who didn't believe they ought to 
pay for what they use. I have never bumped into an American who didn't 
believe that paying their fair share was at the fabric of who we are as 
a nation.
  This rule gives us the best chance we have, and the best chance we 
have had in a decade, to make transportation certainty a reality for 
this country. It means better roads. It means more savings of taxpayer 
dollars. It means better efficiency. It means more accountability.
  I am grateful to my friend on the Rules Committee for bringing this 
rule forward and giving me an opportunity to cast my ``yes'' vote on 
this rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill. Five months to a 
better solution for America.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I will keep my good friend from Georgia's 
statement for him on December 18, and remind him of what he said.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my good friend.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I listened to my friend from Georgia talking about 5 
months and we will be able to finally fix this. I actually have in my 
hand my speech from 1 year ago today speaking on the rule where we 
dodged the bullet again, and I said at that time I could pull out some 
of my other speeches. All this does is let people off the hook.
  Why didn't we fix it last fall or this spring? My good friend from 
Washington used to serve in the State legislature. His State 
legislature just passed a 15-cent gas tax increase, joining a list of 
six States, all Republican States, that have raised the gas tax this 
year.
  My friend from Georgia says he has never met anybody that doesn't 
really want to pay for their infrastructure. Well, he ought to take a 
hard look at his leadership. They have denied an opportunity to move 
forward with something championed by Ronald Reagan in 1982, when the 
gas tax, at his direction, under his leadership, was raised 125 
percent.
  There is no excuse to keep torturing people at the State and local 
government level to stop enabling people to avoid their responsibility 
here.
  My good friend, Mr. DeFazio, is on the floor. In 2 months, he and 
Bill Shuster, the chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, could give us a 6-year bill, but Congress has to give them a 
number.
  Does anybody in their right mind think that we are going to go into 
2016, with half the people in the other body running for President, 
holidays, treaties? Think again. It is a fool's errand. We ought to 
step up, follow Ronald Reagan's lead, replenish the gas tax, and get on 
with work.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Washington 
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3064, a comprehensive, 
6-year surface transportation bill that is partially paid for by 
restricting U.S. companies from using so-called inversion to shirk 
their tax obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my good friend and the ranking member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, who will discuss our 
proposal.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As we have heard, a year ago today, the House passed a temporary 
extension of 1 year. Chairman Ryan of the Ways and Means Committee, who 
was

[[Page 11628]]

supposed to figure out how to pay for this, said we will use this year 
to put the transportation highway trust fund on a sustainable path so 
we can avoid stopgap legislation in the future.
  Well, that didn't happen, but they were occupied with much more 
important things. For instance, they said that estates worth more than 
$10 million shouldn't pay a penny in taxes--none, zero. That cost $289 
billion. If we had dedicated that to surface transportation, we could 
have basically doubled spending over 10 years.
  So today, the Democrats are here to offer a real, 6-year, long-term 
increase in investment in America's failing infrastructure.
  There are 140,000 bridges that need repair or replacement on the 
National Highway System. Forty percent of the pavement is at the point 
where you have to dig up the underlayment and rebuild the whole road.
  We have an $84 billion backlog just bringing our existing transit 
systems up to a state of good repair. It is so bad that people are 
dying on Metro here in Washington, D.C., because of the decrepit 
condition of the system.
  With the Buy America rules, we would create a phenomenal number of 
jobs. In fact, under our funding proposal in our bill, we would create 
an additional 300,000 jobs a year. And we need those jobs here in 
America, and they are good-paying jobs. They are not just construction 
jobs. They are engineering, they are technical, they are small 
business, and they are minority business enterprises. They are a whole 
host of things that would lift the whole economy--make us more energy 
efficient, make Americans save money getting out of congestion, not 
driving their cars through giant potholes and incurring costs--but the 
Republicans can't figure out how to get there.
  Well, we are offering an alternative--a good, solid, 6-year bill. 
Yes, we haven't figure out the 6-year funding yet because you guys are 
totally opposed to user fees, despite Ronald Reagan and Dwight 
Eisenhower and the history of the Republican Party on user fees, and 
also former chairman of the committee, Bud Shuster, who joined with the 
Democrats in 1993, the last time when we raised the Federal gas tax to 
18.3 cents a gallon.
  We would fund 2 years of this bill by prohibiting corporate 
inversions; i.e., Benedict Arnold corporations that continue to have 
all of their operations in America but go overseas and buy some minor 
entity and claim that is their international headquarters, like a 
corner drug store somewhere in London for a pharmaceutical company. It 
is an outrageous practice. While they enjoy all the benefits of America 
and all the protections of our law and our military and all those 
costs, they don't want to pay, and they don't want to pay for 
transportation either.
  So we are offering an alternative today. If we defeat the previous 
question, we would go into an open rule, something that never happens 
much around here, where both sides of the aisle, any Member of 
Congress, could offer an amendment to increase spending, decrease 
spending, target one or another part of the infrastructure that they 
feel needs more investment.
  So I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, move to an open rule, 
something we were promised when the Republicans took over, and fund a 
6-year bill. We will give you 2 years of funding, and we can figure out 
the rest over the next 2 years.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), my good 
friend and the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
and congratulate Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Blumenauer on all their work on 
trying to modernize our national infrastructure. They know what every 
American out there knows, which is that we have an embarrassing state 
of affairs when it comes to our roads, our bridges, and our 
transitways.
  It is not just them. We also know from the American Society of Civil 
Engineers, who are the nonpartisan pros, that they have concluded we 
have failing infrastructure. They gave our infrastructure system a 
grade of D-plus, a grade we should all be embarrassed by. But what is 
even worse is this Congress should get a grade of F for its refusal to 
actually do something about it.
  So we are about to see an expiration of the authorization in a few 
weeks. Funding will dry out in a few weeks. And so what is the proposal 
from our Republican colleagues? Let's do 5 more months, through 
December, at a level they know is inadequate to help modernize our 
infrastructure. That is their proposal.
  As my colleagues have said, we have been here before, and we are 
tired of Band-Aids. Who can plan to modernize their infrastructure with 
just a 5-month time period?
  These are major investments our States are making, major investments 
we are making on behalf of our country, and to not have any kind of 
certainty that the funds are going to be there after the end of 
December is something that is embarrassing for a country like the 
United States of America.
  So we are proposing today to do the 6-year plan. Mr. DeFazio has put 
that forward. The President has put forward the 6-year plan, the Grow 
America plan, to modernize our infrastructure and grow more jobs in the 
process, and we fund the first 2-year installment. How do we fund it? 
We fund through a mechanism that I will bet you virtually every 
American will support, which is to close these pernicious tax loopholes 
that are allowing American companies simply to move their mailing 
address overseas in order to dodge their obligations to the American 
people.
  These companies are not moving their employees. They are not moving 
their management. They are not moving their factories or anything else. 
They are just changing their mailing address by acquiring a small 
overseas company. It is called inversion. By doing that, they are 
escaping their responsibilities to their own country.
  That is why my colleague called them Benedict Arnold corporations, 
because they are still benefiting from everything this country has to 
offer--educating their employees, the infrastructure that we do have, 
and all the other support structures they get--but they don't want to 
pay for it. And when they don't pay for it, guess who pays for it. The 
American people. Their taxes go up, or we have to borrow more on our 
credit card to pay for it.
  So what we are saying is let's stop these inversions. Let's use that 
$41 billion to fund the first 2-year installment of a robust 
infrastructure plan. And we can do it now.
  We have introduced the bill, H.R. 3064, introduced by Mr. DeFazio, 
myself, Mr. Israel, Mr. Levin, Ms. Holmes Norton. The next vote we 
have, the next vote we cast, will allow this body to take up that 
legislation.
  So we don't have to kick the can down the road for just 5 months with 
all that uncertainty. We can vote to do a robust 6-year plan, have a 
modernized infrastructure, and pay for it by shutting down these 
loopholes that corporations are abusing.
  Let's take that money that is right now going into the pockets of 
people who are dodging our tax laws and invest in infrastructure. Let's 
get the job done today, not 5 months from now or a year from now. Let's 
get it done today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and defeat the 
previous question so we can take it up.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Denham).
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is an important and critical time for the 
State of California. We are facing an unprecedented drought that is 
affecting farms, families, and communities that are just being shut off 
from water, communities that are not only rationing, but now having to 
have water trucked in.
  This has been an ongoing battle. This battle has been going on for 
years. Some would say this is all due to climate change. But shouldn't 
we as a

[[Page 11629]]

country, shouldn't we as a State be focused on infrastructure that will 
actually capture water so that we can save the water for years like 
this rather than seeing huge unemployment levels?
  Rather than seeing people waiting in lines to receive free food 
because they can't get a job, shouldn't we be making the simple fixes 
to actually store and capture our water?
  The amendments that we heard earlier talk about desalinization. Sure, 
I am fine with desalinization. I think we ought to use every 
opportunity that we have. But rather than pushing all of our clean 
water out into the ocean only to desalinate the salt water to bring it 
back into clean water, shouldn't we first start by saving the precious 
resources that we have?
  So, sure, desalinization is a good idea, but it ought to be mixed in 
with everything else that we do. We ought to have greater water 
storage. We ought to be actually protecting the fish that we talk about 
protecting. Let's actually address the predator fish that eat 95 to 98 
percent of the fish that we are trying to save, spending millions of 
dollars not only trying to save them, but pushing out thousands of 
acre-feet of freshwater that would go to our communities, which would 
create thousands of jobs rather than seeing this huge population that 
begins to see unemployment levels at record levels.

                              {time}  1345

  We ought to do the restoration to the environment. We have a number 
of different tributaries that we entered into agreement on, bipartisan 
agreements, to actually address the restoration of that area.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DENHAM. Rather than restore the riverbeds themselves, we truck 
the fish around the river. That doesn't help the environment; it 
doesn't help the fish, and it certainly does not help the communities 
of California.
  What the rest of the country needs to worry about is this shortage of 
food, the scarcity of food that we will see across the country not only 
being sent from California, but the high prices that go with it.
  You are affecting the American family; you are affecting the jobs in 
California, and it is time to fix this water situation on the West 
Coast and in the United States and in California and to do it now.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have one more good gentleman from 
California I would like to hear from.
  I yield 2 minutes to the young man from Richvale, California (Mr. 
LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 2898, is the product of 
bipartisan, bicameral negotiations and will protect State water rights, 
store more water during winter storms, address invasive fish that my 
colleague Mr. Denham was talking about that have decimated endangered 
species, and advance new water infrastructure to prepare for future 
droughts.
  One project alone--Sites Reservoir, in my region--would reduce the 
State's need for rationing by 60 percent with that project.
  My northern California district is a source of a vast amount of the 
State's usable water supply and its largest reservoirs; yet even my 
constituents are facing water rationing. Fields across my district are 
fallow because Federal agencies haven't adapted to drought conditions.
  While some in the minority party would prefer to simply hand out 
borrowed money, doing so only ensures that this crisis will be repeated 
again and again. Our conditions in our lakes are already desperate. 
Folsom Lake, for example, will soon be a dead pool, and that is an 
important water source for Sacramento, due to the attempts to try to 
keep water under salmon down there.
  This bill increases access to water for all Californians, without 
benefiting one region at the expense of another.
  Mr. Speaker, California and the Nation cannot wait any longer. We 
need H.R. 2898 to move forward in the bipartisan effort we have had so 
far. The answer to this crisis isn't billions again and more borrowed 
dollars or more environmental restrictions. It is action to move on 
California's drought and add to California's water supply.
  I urge your support for H.R. 2898. Let's get California back moving 
again.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, there is too little time left on the 
legislative calendar for this body to be considering partisan 
legislation that we have been assured will not become law.
  Furthermore, the future of our Nation's highways and transportation 
systems are far too important to continue to fund using short-term 
Band-Aid patches. Our constituents, this great country, deserves 
better.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, the issues we have considered here today are critical to 
the stability of our transportation infrastructure and the health of 
our rural western communities, as well as the economic well-being of 
our country.
  This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3038, the Highway and 
Transportation Funding Act, as well as H.R. 2898, the Western Water and 
American Food Security Act, a comprehensive and bipartisan bill that 
aims at alleviating drought impacts in the short and long term.
  Water is not just a resource in the West; it is the lifeblood of 
farming and ranching all across the region, and we must act swiftly and 
decisively to mitigate the impacts of this crisis.
  California and many areas in the West are facing devastating drought 
conditions. This bill fixes the bureaucratic and regulatory mess that 
has prevented people from getting water they so desperately need. 
Failing to pass this bill would deal a devastating blow to farm 
families and the American economy.
  Many families, businesses, and ag producers are producing with some 
of the most dire drought conditions they have seen in decades; and a 
growing number of communities have been impacted by water shortages and 
rationing.
  However, most of the damaging effects of the drought are preventable, 
and this bill comes to the aid of the West by fixing the broken 
regulatory system and updating our water infrastructure for this coming 
century.
  While the root of the cause of this crisis is the drought, complex 
and inconsistent laws, misguided court decisions, and burdensome 
regulations have exacerbated an already devastating situation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses these policy failures and seeks to 
alleviate the drought's short- and long-term impacts. It will give 
immediate relief to millions of Americans who are facing mandatory 
water rationing and will invest in new water storage facilities to 
prepare for future droughts.
  While the Obama administration has issued a veto threat for this 
bill, people suffering in the West have little time for political 
theater, which is why I am urging my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this critical legislation.
  This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3038, the Highway 
and Transportation Funding Act, a bill that will extend the Federal 
surface transportation programs. This extension will provide the House 
and Senate with time to work out a long-term surface transportation 
reauthorization bill in a bicameral, bipartisan manner.
  This bill will also allow us to work towards a resolution of the 
highway trust fund, which is currently facing a $90 billion shortfall, 
as we have heard. If we fail to address the trust fund, its insolvency 
would have disastrous impacts on States across our country.

[[Page 11630]]

Many projects would grind to a halt. Workers would be furloughed, and 
existing infrastructure investments would be lost.
  While another short-term extension is not what any of us wanted, our 
States need certainty, and that certainty can only come from the long-
term reauthorization of these transportation programs, as well as a 
lasting solution for the trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for 
consideration of two important pieces of legislation that will help 
protect our rural, Western communities, while providing much relief 
from devastating water shortages and drought conditions.
  It will also ensure that many important transportation programs do 
not lapse and will extend the highway trust fund expenditure authority 
so that this vital fund remains solvent and available for projects 
across the country while we work towards a lasting solution.
  I appreciate the discussion we have had over the last hour. It has 
been great, very enlightening. Although we may have some differences of 
opinion, I believe this rule and the underlying bills are strong 
measures that are important to our country's future.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 362 and the 
underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 362 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       Strike section 2 and insert the following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3064) to authorize highway infrastructure and safety, 
     transit, motor carrier, rail, and other surface 
     transportation programs, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure and the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3064.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245, 
nays 182, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 438]

                               YEAS--245

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce

[[Page 11631]]


     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     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
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Beyer
     Cramer
     Engel
     Garamendi
     Keating
     Wagner

                          ____________________