[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9318-9319]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FARM CREDIT SYSTEM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise, first, to recognize the 100th 
anniversary of the Farm Credit System in America.
  The Farm Credit System in America was set 100 years ago to provide 
lending opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, dairymen--those 
who tilled the soil, those who put food on America's dinner table every 
night. Through the success of the Farm Credit organizations throughout 
this country, we celebrate now 100 years of that successful ability to 
make loans to those who are young, who are older farmers, who are 
starting out, who have been farming for generations--to those who in 
every region of America do best, which is to produce the healthiest, 
the most nutritious, the most bountiful crops anywhere grown in the 
world so that American consumers and their families can enjoy those 
food products at the lowest cost value possible.
  Clearly, we know that the success of American agriculture is, in 
large part, due to the success of the Farm Credit organizations across 
this country. We commend them for their efforts and celebrate 100 years 
of making America the most productive agricultural country in the 
world.


                   Terror Attack in Orlando, Florida

  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise, sadly, to address the terror attack 
that occurred last Sunday in Orlando, Florida.
  Today, the President and the Vice President are journeying to Orlando 
to mourn with those families and friends who felt this terrible tragedy 
that has reverberated across America.
  As we mourn the loss of those lives, we stand with the LGBT community 
and decry all crimes of hate against all people in America and 
throughout the world.
  Sadly, in my district, there have been multiple instances of hate 
crimes committed, in part, against the Sikh community and against other 
communities. In the wake of the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, 
issues like hate crimes, access to weapons, and the threat of terrorism 
are at the forefront of Americans' thoughts.
  As Members of Congress, we have to ask ourselves: At what point are 
we going to have an honest discussion about the continuation of hate 
crimes that happen throughout our country? When is enough enough? If 
now is not the time, then when is the time?
  The deadly shootings that took place in Orlando, we know, could have 
happened anywhere in the United States. The reality is that we do not 
have a consensus here in this House on the appropriate policies that 
are needed to prevent it from happening again. It is time that we stop 
playing politics if we are ever going to have an honest discussion, a 
conversation, about preventing hate crimes in America. Sound bites and 
blaming others do not translate into improving policies that make 
Americans safer. It simply doesn't.
  I urge my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to thoughtfully discuss 
and to hold hearings on these very important issues so that we can pass 
meaningful legislation. Yes, if we pass meaningful legislation, it will 
have to be, by its very nature, bipartisan. Pass it, and send it to the 
President's desk so that it can be signed into law. Hopefully, we will 
point back to a time when we won't have to stand for a moment of 
silence for a tragedy that occurred in some part of America. Americans, 
I believe, want us to do better, and we owe them that.


                       California's Water System

  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, finally, I rise, as I have on a regular 
basis, to update Members of the House on the situation that faces 
California's water system--the devastating drought that now has gone 
beyond 4 years.
  Today, the Shasta Lake and Folsom Lake, which are part of the Central 
Valley's project--two major reservoirs in the Sacramento River 
watershed--have enough water to supply 100 percent water allocations to 
farmers in the Sacramento Valley and to the San Joaquin River Exchange 
Contractors, along with wildlife refuges in the San Joaquin Valley. We 
had hoped for an El Nino year. We didn't get it, but we did get between 
80 and 95 percent of our normal supply, which is much better than the 5 
percent of snow and rain that we received the year before.
  Notwithstanding that fact, the United States National Marine 
Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are now proposing 
new efforts in recent weeks to recover species, which will impact 
Reclamation's ability to deliver the water that they had previously 
allocated. In the spring, the way the Federal and State water projects 
work, is that, in April, the snow depths are measured--that is about 
the end of our snow in California--as is the precipitation during our 
rain time period of the year, and they measure how much water is 
available to be allocated for all of the water contractors, both in the 
Federal service areas and in the State service areas.
  Yet, if the action that is being proposed 2 months later by the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service and by NMFS--as a part of the NOAA Federal 
agency--is taken, it would be unprecedented that 2 months after 
allocations have been made, based upon what we believe the snow to be 
in the mountains and the rain we receive this winter, the allocations 
somehow would be taken back or dramatically cut back.
  Despite an abundance of water in the Shasta Reservoir--it is almost 
full--the National Marine Fisheries Service is considering a 
temperature control plan that would limit releases of only

[[Page 9319]]

8,000 cubic feet per second of water. Now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service is asking that we allow more water out, and, of course, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service is asking that we restrict water to 
reserve a cold water pool. The constraints, which are required by 
existing regulations, have the following implications if, in fact, 
these actions are taken:
  One, it would prevent farmers in the Sacramento Valley from diverting 
water already promised by Reclamation. Unheard of;
  It would limit Reclamation's ability to export water to meet its 
commitment to the Exchange Contractors and to senior water rights 
holders in the San Joaquin Valley. It has not happened before;
  It could lead to Reclamation's having to make releases from Friant 
Dam, which is in my service area, to meet other contractors' needs and 
reduce water previously promised to farmers in the Friant system, who, 
over the last 2 years, have received a zero water allocation. In April, 
Reclamation said they could get 35 percent of their normal water. Then, 
in May, it was increased by another 30 percent to 65 percent. Now they 
are talking about cutting it in half, maybe. Unacceptable;
  It would also be unlikely that Reclamation could supply the meager 5 
percent of allocation that was made for south-of-delta agricultural 
water service contractors. Let me tell you that these contractors, for 
over 2 years, have had a zero water allocation. Hundreds of thousands 
of acres, as a result of that, have gone unplanted--fallow.
  These are devastating impacts for farmers, farmworkers, and the farm 
communities that I represent that work so hard every day to put food on 
America's dinner table. That is the consequence. Reclamation would be 
required to, once again, drain the reserves in the Folsom Reservoir, 
the Folsom Dam. These consequences, in my view, are unacceptable and 
should not occur.
  While the National Marine Fisheries Service is proposing water to be 
held in Shasta through the summer and fall, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service is requesting additional outflow, during the summer, for 
increasing the habitat for delta smelt.

                              {time}  1430

  These conflicting requests make no sense. They make no sense to the 
person on the street. They make no sense if you try to explain it to 
people enjoying their dinner at their dinner table. And they certainly 
don't make any sense to the farmers, the farmworkers, and the farm 
communities.
  The request, I might add, is outside of the requirements of the 2008 
biological opinion--I called them the flawed biological opinions--under 
the Endangered Species Act, and it is in direct contradiction to the 
requests made by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
  Further, the Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to conduct the 
statutory analysis on the outflow request; and when they made the 
request, it was made without adequate scientific support under the 
environmental review process.
  If I sound frustrated, I have good reason to be frustrated.
  Additionally, the Fish and Wildlife Service is also failing to 
implement a comprehensive plan for species recovery. In testimony, the 
head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when I asked over a month 
ago if they had a recovery plan, said: Well, yes.
  I said: Well, what is it?
  He said: Well, it is 20 years old, so it is really out of date.
  I said: Well, then, you really don't have a plan.
  And they acknowledged that.
  Part of the comprehensive recovery plan does include provisions like 
those in legislation that we voted on yesterday in the Natural 
Resources Committee, the Save Our Salmon Act, of which I am a 
cosponsor. This act would begin to limit the impacts of predator 
species that are one of the principal causes of the decline of salmon 
and smelt in the delta. So the Save Our Salmon Act needs to be heard 
here on the floor, and I hope it will be passed and ultimately signed 
into law.
  So the requirements made by the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service are unprecedented, I say again; and the 
impacts, intended or not, are real. They will be severe throughout 
California, especially in the San Joaquin Valley that I represent a 
part of, affecting as much as 6 million acres of productive, prime 
agricultural land that produces half the Nation's fruits and 
vegetables. That is the number one citrus State in the Nation, the 
number one dairy State in the Nation, number one production in wine and 
grapes. The product lines, 300 commodities, go on and on and on. That 
is how devastating these decisions could be if, in fact, they were 
granted.
  So I urge the administration to reject these harmful actions. Common 
sense, at some time, must be applied. Let's prevent this train wreck 
from happening. Let's get to work on fixing a broken water system in 
California that was designed for 20 million people. Today we have 41 
million people living in California. It was designed for the 
agriculture we had in the sixties.
  Today, we are far more productive in our agricultural efforts, and it 
was never designed in a way to provide for environmental water as it is 
being requested today. So it is a broken water system because, when we 
have continuous dry years, it cannot serve all the demands that are 
placed upon it for our people, for our farms, and to ensure that we 
have the ability to maintain the environment for future generations to 
come.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________