[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9736-9750]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING COORDINATION ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gosar). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 392 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1654.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over 
the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1440


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1654) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate 
Federal and State permitting processes related to the construction of 
new surface water storage

[[Page 9737]]

projects on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the Bureau 
of Reclamation as the lead agency for permit processing, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, the House meets for the second day in a row to consider 
another infrastructure bill that has come from the House Natural 
Resources Committee and its Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans, 
of which I have the honor of chairing. My subcommittee has a strong 
infrastructure agenda, already hearing testimony on a number of bills 
aimed at improving our Nation's infrastructure and advancing an all-of-
the-above energy and water strategy.
  Many of our bills, including H.R. 1654, which we are considering 
today, apply simple solutions to expedite maintenance or construction 
of water and power infrastructure throughout the Nation. It is vital to 
rebuild our Nation's infrastructure, and one of the biggest roadblocks 
is the excess of regulatory red tape that applicants have to wade 
through before they can even move one shovel of dirt.
  In Colorado, where I live, a water project was recently completed 
where water owned by the city of Colorado Springs was taken from a 
reservoir 60 miles to the south to the city of Colorado Springs for 
treatment and distribution. The project took 6 years to build. But 
before that could happen, there were over 200 permits and applications 
that had to be granted, any one of which could have stopped the whole 
thing, and that cost $160 million in application fees, lawyers' time, 
and mitigation. That took 8 years. That took longer than the project 
itself.
  Congressman Tom McClintock's Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act 
seeks to cut regulatory red tape by creating a one-stop-shop permitting 
process to the Bureau of Reclamation in order to streamline the current 
multiagency permitting processes for new or expanded non-Federal 
surface storage facilities.
  However, this bill is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Mr. 
McClintock's bill allows water storage project sponsors the flexibility 
to opt out of this process and, instead, choose the agency and process 
that works best for them.
  While the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act will allow for 
much-needed relief in the sponsor's State of California, this bill will 
benefit States throughout the West, including my own State of Colorado.
  Mr. McClintock's bill goes hand-in-hand with language in the WIIN 
Act, which was signed into law last year, that supports additional 
water storage capacity across the West.
  I commend my colleague, Mr. McClintock, for bringing up this 
commonsense piece of legislation that simply looks to cut regulatory 
red tape for water storage projects that are essential to survival in 
the West.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my House colleagues to support this bill, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are debating today what is being called an 
infrastructure bill. I wish that were actually the case. Our country 
certainly needs Congress to take action to address our country's 
infrastructure needs, yet this Congress is spending its time today 
debating another sham infrastructure bill that won't actually provide a 
single cent for real infrastructure.
  Our Nation currently spends less on infrastructure as a percentage of 
our GDP than at any time during the past 20 years, and it shows. Far 
too many areas around the country have infrastructure that is crumbling 
before our eyes. We have seen this occur with the recent tragedy and 
the situation for water at the Oroville Dam in California, and this 
bill offers no solutions for these issues. In truth, this bill is 
simply an environmental deregulation bill disguised as an 
infrastructure bill.
  Now, the bill's proponents have claimed that environmental laws, and 
specifically NEPA, are blocking new dam construction. This claim, Mr. 
Chairman, simply put, is bunk. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, 
not a single dam has been denied construction because of a lack of 
coordination between Reclamation and other agencies or because of 
delays associated with environmental review or permitting.
  So why do we not see all sorts of new dams sprouting up around the 
West like we did for years and years in the previous century?
  Because there is no new water to be captured, and because, frankly, 
all the best dam locations around the West were taken in the previous 
century when we had a heck of a dam-building spree.
  New dams don't get built because they don't yield enough water to 
justify their multibillion-dollar price tags. You can ask the CRS if 
you don't believe other experts. In 2012, the Congressional Research 
Service found that the most likely causes of delay for major 
infrastructure projects are a lack of funding and State permitting 
issues, not environmental laws.
  Now, new surface storage may be appropriate in some cases. The fact 
is, however, that much of the United States is already saturated with 
dams because of that dam-building spree we had in the previous century. 
The United States built tens of thousands of dams in the 20th century. 
California alone built 1,400 major dams. The best dam sites are already 
taken. Other than extraordinarily wet years like this one, thankfully, 
in California we are having a hard time even filling up the reservoirs 
that we already built.
  Despite these facts, my Republican colleagues continue to peddle this 
fiction that we have to gut our Nation's environmental laws to build 
new dams and other infrastructure. I guess we should not be surprised 
because this crusade against our Nation's environmental laws is being 
led by a President whose relationship with the truth is complicated at 
best.
  A couple of weeks ago, President Trump claimed that projects like the 
Hoover Dam were built in 5 years because they didn't have to go through 
years of permitting and regulation that current infrastructure projects 
are subjected to.
  Well, the independent fact checkers at The Washington Post evaluated 
this claim and they awarded the President's claim, as you can see to my 
right, three Pinocchios, which is the rating for statements that 
include ``significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.''
  Now, the fact checkers noted that, according to the U.S. GAO, 95 
percent of public infrastructure projects are actually excluded from 
environmental reviews under current law. They further pointed out that 
the President ignored the many years of planning, permitting, 
negotiating, and preparing that was required to make sure that projects 
like the Hoover Dam were financially feasible and actually had public 
support.
  In fact, dam planning on the Colorado River began in 1902, yet the 
Hoover Dam was not completed until 1937. Not completed, I might add, 
until the Roosevelt administration put actual public infrastructure 
dollars on the table to get that project financed and moving. The 
project took many years because, even despite the absence of modern 
environmental laws, big complicated projects take time to plan and 
finance, and they always have.
  I am sorry that my Republican colleagues refuse to let such facts get 
in the way of their decades-long crusade against our country's bedrock 
environmental laws, but I hope we will eventually move on from this 
debate and get on to addressing real problems affecting our 
infrastructure, and that real problem is investment.

[[Page 9738]]

  In terms of water infrastructure, our Nation is still not making 
necessary investments like water reuse projects and recycling projects. 
These are 21st century infrastructure projects that can provide us with 
water supplies that don't depend on the whims of an increasingly 
unpredictable hydrology. Given our changing climate, we can no longer 
rely exclusively on our 20th century infrastructure projects like dams.
  Despite this, we have barely scratched the surface on building modern 
water infrastructure projects like reuse, recycling, desalination, 
groundwater storage, storm water capture, and water-use efficiency 
projects. Our country currently reuses less than 10 percent of our 
Nation's wastewater. Climate change will require us to do better. As 
George W. Bush's Reclamation Commissioner once said, the reuse of 
wastewater and recycled water could actually be the next river for the 
Western United States to tap for critical water supply.
  This Congress should be working across the aisle to fully tap that 
next great river for the 21st century.
  Reoperating existing facilities, modernizing those operations, is 
another example of something we should be working together on across 
the aisle.
  All around the West we are dealing with dams and reservoirs that are 
being operated with the best technology from decades ago. The flood 
control manual at Oroville Dam, for example, hasn't been updated since 
1970, which actually makes it cutting edge when compared to many of the 
reservoirs that are operating on 1950s flood control manuals. We are 
using slide rules instead of computers, with meteorological predictions 
that are based on historic data, backward-looking data, instead of 
looking up at the sky and using the data from modern satellite 
technology.
  At Folsom Dam, we are watching a long overdue update to operations as 
part of a new auxiliary spillway. Forecast-informed operations, which 
is something that I have long advocated as part of comprehensive water 
legislation, is something we could work on together, and it would 
provide significant increases in water supply.
  If my Republican friends are interested in expediting environmental 
reviews for infrastructure projects, then there is another thing that 
we can work on together, and that is we can end the slashing of budgets 
in Federal agencies that are in charge of environmental reviews for 
infrastructure projects. Budget cuts do nothing but hamper the ability 
of these agencies to participate in the review process and to protect 
our other Nation's fisheries and other natural resources.
  This bill before us today compounds the problem by further 
undercutting the important role these agencies play to protect our 
natural resources. That is why several conservation and fishing 
industry groups have warned that this Congress should reject this bill, 
that it threatens tens of thousands of jobs in the fishing industry 
across the Pacific Coast.
  Many of our Nation's iconic fisheries are already on the brink of 
extinction. We have heard firsthand in our committee from the fishermen 
struggling to pay their mortgages, boats being scrapped because owners 
can't pay mooring fees, homes being repossessed, and restaurants, 
hotels, and other retail and service businesses struggling just to 
scrape by. Let's not add to these struggles by passing an ill-conceived 
bill that does nothing to actually improve our infrastructure.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. Members are advised and reminded not to engage in 
personalities toward the President.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. McCarthy), our 
majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his work on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I always get excited when I hear people speak on the 
floor, especially when they come from California. Mr. Chairman, it is 
always interesting when people want to tell us what is the best way to 
make things happen.
  It is interesting, in California, when the legislature was controlled 
by Democrats, they did waive CEQA, but it wasn't for a dam. It wasn't 
to prepare for a drought we were going through. But they waived it 
twice, all for sports. One was in San Francisco, and one was in L.A. It 
seems odd, but sometimes people have their priorities, I guess, not in 
the right place.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, California and the West recently endured the worst 
drought in our century. Though it was the worst drought, this was not 
our first. We have faced droughts for generations, and each time the 
rain and snow came back and delivered the water that we needed to 
survive.
  Just like previous years, this past winter was a godsend to 
Californians; the wettest on record. Living in the naturally dry region 
that we do, you would think it would be common practice to prepare for 
inevitable times of drought by capturing water when Mother Nature 
blesses us with the rain and snow. But the fact is that we aren't doing 
enough to store the water we do get for the times we don't get it.
  So what can we do now? What would help the people in our district and 
across California and across the West to prepare for future droughts 
that we know are coming?
  We should start by building more dams and reservoirs.
  So what is stopping us?
  Well, some is a ridiculous permitting process that forces us to wait 
and wait and wait when actually we should be acting.
  Just look at history. Take the High Savery Dam in Wyoming. It took 14 
years to permit the project but only 2 years to build it. It was 
finished in 2004. Think about how much the world has changed in those 
14 years of time.
  In 1990, somewhere around 5 million people had cell phones and only 
about 15 percent of Americans owned a computer. By 2004, when the dam 
was finished, about 180 million people had cell phones and 62 percent 
of Americans owned a computer. In 1990, the most popular movie was 
Total Recall. By 2004, we were already on to Shrek 2.
  Looking forward to my home State, we can't wait 14 years after 
starting the permitting process to finish our projects. The Temperance 
Flat Reservoir, once fully operational, can provide enough water to 
meet the needs of 172,000 households for an entire year. Finishing the 
Sites Reservoir proposal could provide 2 million California homes with 
enough water for a year. That is an astounding number. But, Mr. 
Chairman, I am sure on this floor we will hear those 2 million should 
actually wait. But I guess for a baseball stadium, no need to wait.
  So fixing the process isn't just about saving some headaches or a few 
hours of time. This is about making sure millions of people in 
California and across America have the water they need and deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Tom McClintock for this 
legislation. Fixing this permitting process for water storage is more 
than just common sense. It is about making us a nation of doers again 
to get the American what they actually need.
  Mr. Chairman, Mr. McClintock has worked. He has tried to work with 
both sides of the aisle. He has been through this process.
  But you know what?
  Mr. McClintock has been home. He has been listening to his 
constituents on both sides of the aisle that don't have water. We have 
been through these droughts. We know these droughts will come again, 
and they have only been worse in the last couple of years.
  Why?
  Because of what has been imposed by the Federal Government. Even in 
the years where we have more than 170 percent of snowpack, we don't 
keep the guarantee of 100 percent of the water.
  So as the environmental laws continue to take water away and put it 
out to the ocean instead of providing for the fruits to be grown and 
the fiber across our country and provide the water for the citizens of 
California, we should build more dams, and they should not have to wait 
14 years with

[[Page 9739]]

only 2 years to build it. We can do better, we should do better, and we 
will do better when we pass this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I was in the California Legislature for at least one of the those 
environmental waiver bills that the majority leader referenced 
involving an NFL stadium, and I am glad to hear him criticize that 
because I, too, criticized it. It was a bipartisan mistake. I voted 
against it.
  There was a bit of vindication because at least one of those stadiums 
ended up not getting built anyway, despite the environmental waiver, 
and it sort of exposed the fact that these environmental laws are often 
put forward as scapegoats. We are often told that if you just clear 
away the environmental permitting, we can do these things.
  There were many other reasons why that stadium didn't get built, 
complicated issues involving NFL franchises and financing, which is 
usually the real scapegoat when these projects aren't moving forward. 
So it is a worthy example to talk about in the context of this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership on the Water, Power, and Oceans Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, droughts are nature's fault; they happen. But water 
shortages are our fault. Water shortages are a choice that we made a 
generation ago when we stopped building new reservoirs to meet the 
needs of a growing population.
  The unvarnished truth is we will not solve our water shortages until 
we build more reservoirs, and we cannot build new reservoirs until we 
overhaul the laws that have made their construction endlessly time-
consuming and, ultimately, cost-prohibitive.
  For years, the Natural Resources Committee has heard testimony from 
frustrated water districts unable to navigate the Byzantine maze of 
regulations and the phalanx of competing, overlapping, duplicative, and 
often contradictory Federal agencies.
  After years spent trying to satisfy one agency, another suddenly pops 
up to claim jurisdiction with an entirely new set of demands in an 
often endless permitting process, despite the fact they are studying 
the same project in the same location with the same data. The burden 
this places on our ability to deliver water for the next generation is 
crushing.
  The leader mentioned the High Savery Dam in Wyoming--14 years to 
permit, only 2 years to actually build. The Federal Government has 
literally studied four storage projects in California nearly to death. 
One project, the Sites Reservoir, had over 50 alternative locations 
studied, and there is no end in sight for the feasibility process on 
that potential reservoir. Similar delays have prevented the expansion 
of the Shasta reservoir for 39 years.
  Mr. Huffman tells us that no dam permits have been denied because of 
this. The problem is very few dam permits have been approved because of 
this. And the costs are caused by cost-prohibitive delays in time that 
run up millions and millions of dollars in costs until the agencies 
simply throw up their hands and give up.
  H.R. 1654 will bring order from this bureaucratic chaos. It 
establishes a framework in which Federal agencies with permitting 
responsibilities for the construction of new reservoirs must work 
together, coordinate their schedules, share data and technical 
materials, and make their findings publicly available. The end result 
will be fewer delays, more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and, 
ultimately, more abundant water supplies.
  It is modeled on the Obama administration's approach to constructing 
new electric transmission lines to accommodate its reliance on wind and 
solar generation. There is nothing new in this process. In October of 
2009, the administration formed the Interagency Rapid Response Team for 
Transmission, a consortium of nine Federal agencies to coordinate a 
single unified environmental review document for each project analysis.
  It is also modeled on provisions sponsored by House Democrats that 
expedited improvements on the Hetch Hetchy dam serving the San 
Francisco region. This bill simply says, if there is a potential 
project on Interior or Agriculture Department lands, then the Bureau of 
Reclamation will be the coordinating agency for the permits. That is a 
one-stop permitting agency.
  It will call together all of the agencies, the local and State 
jurisdictions and tribal governments of our Indian nations, establish a 
timeframe for studying decisionmaking, and then coordinate all the 
reviews and analyses and opinions and statements and permits or 
licenses and other Federal approvals required under Federal law.
  It also requires transparency, assuring that all data is available to 
the public online so the science guiding these decisions can be 
rigorously scrutinized by all interested parties.
  It also allows water agencies to fund the review process if Federal 
funding isn't provided, removing one of the excuses that Federal 
agencies have made in slow-walking or stalling project reviews.
  I want to make this very clear: It does not bypass or alter or waive 
any environmental or safety laws. It doesn't waive CEQ or ESA or NEPA 
or any other law. It simply says the process needs to be more 
efficient, and the government agencies should coordinate and cooperate 
with each other rather than talking past each other as isolated and 
often inscrutable fiefdoms.
  Five years of drought in California brought entire cities within 
months of exhausting their water supplies. The epic drought has now 
been followed with the wettest year on record, and we have helplessly 
watched our dams spilling millions of acre-feet of water to the ocean 
because we have no place to store the excess for the next drought.
  Perhaps that is nature's way of reminding us that, if we didn't store 
water in wet years, we won't have it during dry ones, and the economic 
and social devastation have been immense.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, if you want to misuse our environmental 
laws to block any new water storage, well, then you should vote against 
this bill. We will continue to see increasingly severe water shortages 
and spiralling water and electricity bills.
  But if you want to preserve our environmental laws, you ought to be 
supporting this bill because it places those laws back within a 
workable and practical framework, and it places our society back on the 
road to an era of abundance where our children can enjoy green lawns 
and gardens, brightly lit homes, and abundant and affordable groceries 
from America's agricultural cornucopia.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, the State of California is being mentioned quite a bit in 
this conversation.
  It bears noting that the State of California is not asking for this 
legislation; and, in fact, the State of California has consistently 
opposed the rolling back of environmental standards and is busy passing 
bill after bill in this State legislative session to try to backfill 
for anticipated rollbacks in Federal environmental standards. So, 
certainly, if we are talking about the State of California and what it 
wants and it needs, its elected leaders are taking a very different 
direction than posing the false choice between environmental standards 
and infrastructure.
  Again, the United States Bureau of Reclamation has emphasized that 
there are other factors, that it is not environmental review that has 
stopped any water projects in the West. The Congressional Research 
Service has reached the same conclusion.
  And I just heard from my friend, Mr. McClintock, that we can't build 
new reservoirs until we change these laws. Well, I have got to point 
out that California has built new reservoirs under

[[Page 9740]]

current law. You can ask the folks in Contra Costa County about Los 
Vaqueros Reservoir.
  They didn't need any environmental waivers or special legislation. 
They built their dam. And in fact, they are getting ready to move 
forward with an expansion of that surface storage project. It should be 
broadly supported, and they are not asking for any special tweaks to 
the environmental laws. The same would apply to Diamond Valley 
Reservoir in southern California.
  And, in fact, we have actually added nearly 6 million acre-feet of 
new surface and groundwater storage over the past few decades in 
California, all while honoring bedrock environmental protections like 
ESA and NEPA.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
the Centennial State of Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague, 
Representative McClintock, for putting forward a very sensible piece of 
legislation.
  The Colorado Water Congress, who supports this bill, stated in their 
letter:

       The economic viability of the State of Colorado is 
     dependent on safe and reliable water supply. In recent years, 
     the ability of water managers to meet growth demand and to 
     create water storage has become more challenging.

  In Colorado, the Windy Gap Project, whose formal environmental 
permitting process began in 2003, won't see construction start until at 
least 2019, with water storage ready by 2022--16 years to permit, 3 
years to build.
  For too long, Federal agencies have failed to properly coordinate and 
time their reviews of water supply project applications, resulting in 
missed opportunities for increased water storage during our wetter 
seasons.
  Water is the lifeblood of Western communities. Without it, most 
communities in the Western United States could not survive, so it only 
makes sense to store as much of it as we reasonably can during those 
wetter years. Yet the Federal Government presents roadblock after 
roadblock that prevents a timely and cost-effective completion to many 
of these projects.
  This legislation will streamline the permitting process and increase 
agency accountability by placing the Bureau of Reclamation at the 
center of the process and ensuring all other agencies are required to 
report to it in a timely fashion.
  It is an effective piece of legislation, an effective approach to a 
problem that should not exist. I urge my colleagues to support this 
measure.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, this is an issue that is, I think, one of most 
important long-term issues that we deal with not only in California and 
Western States but, really, in the world, because the fact is that 
water is a crucial element of the sustainability of all of us, and it 
always has been.
  With the planet clicking 7 billion people a couple of years ago, soon 
to be 9 billion people by the middle of this century, with climate 
change clearly impacting our ability to manage our water supplies, we 
must look at the long-term needs of using all the water tools in our 
water toolbox. And this is one effort to, in fact, look at how we can 
provide additional storage capacity not only in California, but 
elsewhere, so that when we have these periodic times--and we measure 
water on 10-year averages.
  We have had near-record rainfall and snow in the snow-packed 
mountains of California, which we were blessed with the last 4 months. 
And after five of the most extremely dry periods of time, to have this 
rain and snow is wonderful.
  But we know that you have got to plan for the future. And so in cases 
like California where it is either feast or famine, having an 
additional water reservoir supply is one of the important water 
management tools in our water toolbox, along with conservation, along 
with better irrigation technologies which we are implementing, along 
with conservation of all sorts of kinds, desalinization. All of these 
matter, as does storage.
  This year, millions and millions of acre-feet of water have gone 
unused because of the lack of storage. This measure will help, but 
there are other things that we have to do to fix the broken water 
system in California, in the West, and, really, we can be a template if 
we better manage our water resources for the entire planet in the light 
of climate change.
  I ask that we support this legislation. It is helpful, and we must do 
much more.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
the California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from California for 
supporting this very important legislation.
  We all, all of us in California, have experienced what happens when 
you have radical environmentalist nonsense determining policy. We have 
just gone through one of the worst droughts in our history, yet during 
that drought, those wonderful California environmental planners saw to 
it that billions of gallons of freshwater were dumped into the ocean 
instead of being redirected towards producing food crops in our Central 
Valley area or providing water to drink or providing water so that 
people could afford to have water throughout our State. Instead, it was 
dumped into the ocean.
  Now, what we needed and what we need now that the drought is over is 
more water storage because we are in favor of people, not some 
grandiose concepts of what a better view counts--now, without people in 
it, that is, of course.
  Now we need to think about what our policies will impact on average 
people. And what we have in this radical environmental approach is 
opposition to storing water, now that we have some extra water, right 
after a drought.
  Now, whose side are you on?
  You can't tell me you are on the side of ordinary people, because 
when water prices go up and there is not enough water for the crops, 
the price of food goes up and the price of water goes up.
  Who is the worst hurt?
  America's lowest income people are the ones who are hurt the most, 
the ones who can't afford to pay the little extra for food that it 
costs when it costs more money to grow crops in the middle of a 
drought.

                              {time}  1515

  So with that said, I dramatically support doing something for the 
people, not some environmental theory--nonsensical theories in most 
cases--that we are facing doom if we store water.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If we store water, that is going to be bad for the 
environment? I mean, I am sorry. That makes no sense to me.
  And it doesn't make sense to ordinary people either that after a 
drought, that in some way it is against the environment to make it 
easier for us to store water so we don't have to have the same 
destruction and the same lowering of the standard of living of our 
poorer people when the next drought comes around.
  This act by Mr. Tom McClintock, H.R. 1654, will make it easier and 
quicker for us to build these dams. By the way, if we don't do this, 
many of those dams will probably be built, only we are talking about 
the evaporation not of water, but of money. After you have to go 
through years and years of paperwork, what evaporates is the money that 
should be going into education and transportation programs.
  No. It is wrong all the way around not to permit people to go as fast 
as we can rationally and engineeringwise to build storage for our water 
supply today so when the next drought comes around, ordinary people 
won't be hurt.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague from Orange County for those comments. I have 
been to Orange County and I have seen the cutting-edge water management 
work taking place in Mr. Rohrabacher's district. Among other

[[Page 9741]]

things, they are doing amazing groundwater recharge and water-use 
efficiency, water recycling. In fact, they have got one of the most 
cutting-edge potable reuse systems in the country. It is their reliance 
on those 21st century water management tools instead of large 
reservoirs--that, for the most part, were running dry during this 
drought we just went through--that enabled them to get through the most 
critical drought any of us have ever seen in much better shape than any 
communities around the State.
  So kudos to the forward-looking water managers in Orange County. But 
if the gentleman is concerned about low-income people being impacted by 
water shortage and water management issues, I really hope he will pay a 
visit to my district, because on the north coast of California, you get 
the other end of this water management challenge.
  The fishing communities of the north coast have been hammered by the 
fact that our iconic salmon runs are teetering on the brink of 
extinction. We have left very little flow in the rivers, and this 
drought only exacerbated the problem.
  So I am representing people that are deeply impacted by water 
shortage and water management decisions that need to be part of this 
consideration instead of trivialized when we talk about water wasting 
out through the estuary. This is water that sustains these fishery runs 
that have been the lifeblood of the communities in my district for many 
years.
  Now, just to inject a couple of facts into what has been called a 
radical environmental agenda that caused the waste of all of this water 
during the drought--in fact, that didn't happen. In 2014, the fact is 
only 4 percent of all the runoff in the entire Bay Delta Watershed 
flowed to San Francisco Bay solely for environmental protection. In 
2015, it was even less. Two percent of the runoff for the entire 
watershed made it all the way out to San Francisco Bay solely for 
environmental purposes. The rest of that flow that made it through was 
to control salinity in the delta so that you could continue to serve 
municipal and industrial and other water-use needs. Most of that water 
was diverted and used.
  We need to remember the facts in what can sometimes be a hyperbolic 
discussion of California water.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is also a subcommittee chairman on the 
Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1654, 
legislation sponsored by my good friend and colleague, Tom McClintock.
  For centuries, Western States have fought over scarce water supplies. 
We even have an expression in the West that says whiskey is for 
drinking and water is for fighting over.
  The water scarcity in the West led our visionary forefathers to build 
Federal water storage projects throughout to provide water, hydropower, 
recreation, flood control, and environmental benefits while adhering to 
State water rights. These were nonpartisan endeavors, as evidenced by 
President John F. Kennedy dedicating the San Luis Dam in California.
  Now, while the Central Arizona Project came after President Kennedy, 
it continues to bring prosperity to Arizona's cities, tribal 
communities, and ranches almost 50 years from its inception.
  The Glen Canyon Dam and other projects affiliated with the Colorado 
River Storage Project provided the backbone of a regional economy that 
produced year-round water and emissions-free hydropower.
  Lake Powell, the reservoir behind Glen Canyon, allows for millions of 
dollars' worth of recreational boating annually and even provided the 
scenery for the astronaut crash landing in the 1968 science fiction 
classic, ``The Planet of the Apes.''
  For generations, these projects provided benefits to a growing 
society, but what the Federal Government helped give, it has been 
taking away.
  The current regulatory process for constructing new surface water 
storage is a bureaucratic maze that requires numerous permits and 
approvals from a multitude of different Federal, State, and local 
agencies. Conflicting requirements continue to cause unnecessary 
delays, kill jobs, and result in us failing to capture precious water 
supplies. Ranchers, agricultural and municipal water providers and 
other stakeholders in the West need a clear process without the 
bureaucracy.
  H.R. 1654 establishes such a process by creating a one-stop-shop 
permitting shop, with the Bureau of Reclamation in charge of the 
permitting process for these important water storage projects in 17 
Western States. This makes a lot of sense, as the Bureau of 
Reclamation's multipurpose water projects made the West what it is 
today. Generations of our prior leaders focused on the need to capture 
water and deliver it to cities and fields.
  Our communities always need water, and with the projected population 
increases, we are going to need a lot more of it in the near future.
  Let's build on the good work of previous generations. Get the 
bureaucracy out of the way and pass H.R. 1654 so we have a clear 
process moving forward for preserving worthwhile water infrastructure 
projects.
  There is an old adage: save for a rainy day. In this case, it should 
be: save on a rainy day.
  This act facilitates that very concept.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for sponsoring 
such needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of 
this commonsense bill.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It has been a good conversation, but I hope one thing is clear: this 
is not an infrastructure bill. This is an environmental deregulation 
bill that is masquerading behind the issue of infrastructure.
  Environmental laws, environmental reviews are not the reason new dams 
have not been built and it is not the reason new dams will not be 
built. All of the serious analyses point to other factors, the big one 
being they don't generate enough water to justify the huge price tags 
that go along with these projects. They are just rarely financeable, 
rarely do they make economic sense. So let's not scapegoat the 
environmental laws to try to address that problem.
  Now, if my colleagues across the aisle are interested in an honest 
infrastructure bill, including a water infrastructure bill, they will 
find a lot of willing partners across the aisle, including myself. We 
have put forth all sorts of ideas. We want to see water infrastructure. 
Surface storage and new dams can be part of that, but we have got to 
put real dollars on the table. We have got to do what prior generations 
did when they got serious about building infrastructure, and not hide 
behind this ulterior agenda of gutting our environmental laws, 
repackaging that, and representing that as being responsive to our 
Nation's critical need for new infrastructure. This bill simply doesn't 
meet that test.
  I request that my colleagues vote ``no,'' and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As I close, I do want to point out a bit of circular reasoning that 
my friend from California is using. He says that it is not the 
environmental regulations or the red tape that slows down the 
construction of dams, it is the high cost. But what he doesn't 
recognize or is not willing to admit is that the high cost is caused by 
all the red tape and environmental regulations. So that is arguing in 
circles, and I don't accept that.
  Again, I commend the bill's sponsor for this bill that looks to 
promote additional and much-needed water storage throughout the West.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of the bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the

[[Page 9742]]

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Natural Resources, printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1654

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Water Supply Permitting 
     Coordination Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of 
     Reclamation.
       (2) Cooperating agencies.--The term ``cooperating agency'' 
     means a Federal agency with jurisdiction over a review, 
     analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or other 
     approval or decision required for a qualifying project under 
     applicable Federal laws and regulations, or a State agency 
     subject to section 3(c).
       (3) Qualifying projects.--The term ``qualifying projects'' 
     means new surface water storage projects in the States 
     covered under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 
     1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) constructed on lands administered by 
     the Department of the Interior or the Department of 
     Agriculture, exclusive of any easement, right-of-way, lease, 
     or any private holding, unless the project applicant elects 
     not to participate in the process authorized by this Act.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF LEAD AGENCY AND COOPERATING 
                   AGENCIES.

       (a) Establishment of Lead Agency.--The Bureau is 
     established as the lead agency for purposes of coordinating 
     all reviews, analyses, opinions, statements, permits, 
     licenses, or other approvals or decisions required under 
     Federal law to construct qualifying projects.
       (b) Identification and Establishment of Cooperating 
     Agencies.--The Commissioner of the Bureau shall--
       (1) identify, as early as practicable upon receipt of an 
     application for a qualifying project, any Federal agency that 
     may have jurisdiction over a review, analysis, opinion, 
     statement, permit, license, approval, or decision required 
     for a qualifying project under applicable Federal laws and 
     regulations; and
       (2) notify any such agency, within a reasonable timeframe, 
     that the agency has been designated as a cooperating agency 
     in regards to the qualifying project unless that agency 
     responds to the Bureau in writing, within a timeframe set 
     forth by the Bureau, notifying the Bureau that the agency--
       (A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 
     qualifying project;
       (B) has no expertise or information relevant to the 
     qualifying project or any review, analysis, opinion, 
     statement, permit, license, or other approval or decision 
     associated therewith; or
       (C) does not intend to submit comments on the qualifying 
     project or conduct any review of such a project or make any 
     decision with respect to such project in a manner other than 
     in cooperation with the Bureau.
       (c) State Authority.--A State in which a qualifying project 
     is being considered may choose, consistent with State law--
       (1) to participate as a cooperating agency; and
       (2) to make subject to the processes of this Act all State 
     agencies that--
       (A) have jurisdiction over the qualifying project;
       (B) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or 
     opinion for the qualifying project; or
       (C) are required to make a determination on issuing a 
     permit, license, or approval for the qualifying project.

     SEC. 4. BUREAU RESPONSIBILITIES.

       (a) In General.--The principal responsibilities of the 
     Bureau under this Act are--
       (1) to serve as the point of contact for applicants, State 
     agencies, Indian tribes, and others regarding proposed 
     qualifying projects;
       (2) to coordinate preparation of unified environmental 
     documentation that will serve as the basis for all Federal 
     decisions necessary to authorize the use of Federal lands for 
     qualifying projects; and
       (3) to coordinate all Federal agency reviews necessary for 
     project development and construction of qualifying projects.
       (b) Coordination Process.--The Bureau shall have the 
     following coordination responsibilities:
       (1) Preapplication coordination.--Notify cooperating 
     agencies of proposed qualifying projects not later than 30 
     days after receipt of a proposal and facilitate a 
     preapplication meeting for prospective applicants, relevant 
     Federal and State agencies, and Indian tribes--
       (A) to explain applicable processes, data requirements, and 
     applicant submissions necessary to complete the required 
     Federal agency reviews within the timeframe established; and
       (B) to establish the schedule for the qualifying project.
       (2) Consultation with cooperating agencies.--Consult with 
     the cooperating agencies throughout the Federal agency review 
     process, identify and obtain relevant data in a timely 
     manner, and set necessary deadlines for cooperating agencies.
       (3) Schedule.--Work with the qualifying project applicant 
     and cooperating agencies to establish a project schedule. In 
     establishing the schedule, the Bureau shall consider, among 
     other factors--
       (A) the responsibilities of cooperating agencies under 
     applicable laws and regulations;
       (B) the resources available to the cooperating agencies and 
     the non-Federal qualifying project sponsor, as applicable;
       (C) the overall size and complexity of the qualifying 
     project;
       (D) the overall schedule for and cost of the qualifying 
     project; and
       (E) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources 
     that may be affected by the qualifying project.
       (4) Environmental compliance.--Prepare a unified 
     environmental review document for each qualifying project 
     application, incorporating a single environmental record on 
     which all cooperating agencies with authority to issue 
     approvals for a given qualifying project shall base project 
     approval decisions. Help ensure that cooperating agencies 
     make necessary decisions, within their respective 
     authorities, regarding Federal approvals in accordance with 
     the following timelines:
       (A) Not later than 1 year after acceptance of a completed 
     project application when an environmental assessment and 
     finding of no significant impact is determined to be the 
     appropriate level of review under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (B) Not later than 1 year and 30 days after the close of 
     the public comment period for a draft environmental impact 
     statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), when an environmental impact 
     statement is required under the same.
       (5) Consolidated administrative record.--Maintain a 
     consolidated administrative record of the information 
     assembled and used by the cooperating agencies as the basis 
     for agency decisions.
       (6) Project data records.--To the extent practicable and 
     consistent with Federal law, ensure that all project data is 
     submitted and maintained in generally accessible electronic 
     format, compile, and where authorized under existing law, 
     make available such project data to cooperating agencies, the 
     qualifying project applicant, and to the public.
       (7) Project manager.--Appoint a project manager for each 
     qualifying project. The project manager shall have authority 
     to oversee the project and to facilitate the issuance of the 
     relevant final authorizing documents, and shall be 
     responsible for ensuring fulfillment of all Bureau 
     responsibilities set forth in this section and all 
     cooperating agency responsibilities under section 5.

     SEC. 5. COOPERATING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.

       (a) Adherence to Bureau Schedule.--
       (1) Timeframes.--On notification of an application for a 
     qualifying project, the head of each cooperating agency shall 
     submit to the Bureau a timeframe under which the cooperating 
     agency reasonably will be able to complete the authorizing 
     responsibilities of the cooperating agency.
       (2) Schedule.--
       (A) Use of timeframes.--The Bureau shall use the timeframes 
     submitted under this subsection to establish the project 
     schedule under section 4.
       (B) Adherence.--Each cooperating agency shall adhere to the 
     project schedule established by the Bureau under subparagraph 
     (A).
       (b) Environmental Record.--The head of each cooperating 
     agency shall submit to the Bureau all environmental review 
     material produced or compiled in the course of carrying out 
     activities required under Federal law, consistent with the 
     project schedule established by the Bureau under subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (c) Data Submission.--To the extent practicable and 
     consistent with Federal law, the head of each cooperating 
     agency shall submit all relevant project data to the Bureau 
     in a generally accessible electronic format, subject to the 
     project schedule established by the Bureau under subsection 
     (a)(2).

     SEC. 6. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, after public notice in 
     accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of 
     title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     ``Administrative Procedure Act''), may accept and expend 
     funds contributed by a non-Federal public entity to expedite 
     the evaluation of a permit of that entity related to a 
     qualifying project.
       (b) Effect on Permitting.--
       (1) Evaluation of permits.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation of permits 
     carried out using funds accepted under this section shall--
       (A) be reviewed by the Regional Director of the Bureau of 
     the region in which the qualifying project or activity is 
     located (or a designee); and
       (B) use the same procedures for decisions that would 
     otherwise be required for the evaluation of permits for 
     similar projects or activities not carried out using funds 
     authorized under this section.
       (2) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary and the head of each cooperating 
     agency receiving funds under this section for a qualifying 
     project shall ensure that the use of the funds accepted under 
     this section for the qualifying project shall not--

[[Page 9743]]

       (A) substantively or procedurally impact impartial 
     decisionmaking with respect to the issuance of permits; or
       (B) diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or 
     regulatory authorities of the cooperating agency.
       (c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds accepted 
     under this section shall be used to carry out a review of the 
     evaluation of permits required under subsection (b)(1)(A).
       (d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     all final permit decisions carried out using funds authorized 
     under this section are made available to the public, 
     including on the Internet.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 115-186. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 115-186.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 4, line 2, after the period insert ``Such term shall 
     also include State-led projects (as defined in section 
     4007(a)(2) of the WIIN Act) for new surface water storage 
     projects in the States covered under the Act of June 17, 1902 
     (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and 
     amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) constructed on 
     lands administered by the Department of the Interior or the 
     Department of Agriculture, exclusive of any easement, right-
     of-way, lease, or any private holding, unless the project 
     applicant elects not to participate in the process authorized 
     by this Act.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank my subcommittee 
chairman, Mr. Lamborn, for his leadership on this, and Mr. McClintock 
for bringing the bill in chief forward here that I am asking to amend 
today.
  This amendment ensures that State-led projects can also enjoy the 
coordination that the bill itself will do, State-led surface storage 
projects such as Sites Reservoir. These will be defined in the WIIN Act 
and they will be eligible under H.R. 1654's permitting.
  Doing so enables States to direct their own resources towards 
infrastructure needs at lower cost and improves States' ability to 
partner with the Federal Government on projects that provide both State 
and Federal benefits.
  Adopting this amendment to include State-led projects will allow the 
development of more water infrastructure more rapidly and at no 
additional cost to the Federal Government. For example, in my home 
State of California, the voters have approved billions of dollars 
toward infrastructure projects such as Sites Reservoir--not too far 
from my neighborhood--which will include enough water storage for 
millions more people in our State.
  Now, if you know the saga of Sites Reservoir, the locals there will 
tell you they have been talking about it, studying it, poking it, 
prodding it for about 40 years. Bureaucracy plays a major role in that.
  So the bill in chief is not looking to change environmental laws or 
get rid of environmental laws. Indeed, my colleague on the other side 
of the aisle talked about having an honest discussion in this area. 
Well, an honest discussion would show that the bill in chief is one 
that is merely coordinating. It is not changing the Water Quality Act. 
It is not changing NEPA, CEQA, or anything else, other than getting 
these people all in one room to coordinate at one time.
  Yes, we, indeed, have costs involved, because people give up, whether 
it is private sector money or the people that pass bonds as State 
voters give up after a while because they don't think their dollars are 
actually getting to the projects, when they hear needless, endless 
delays, when we have this game of bureaucratic badminton being played 
by various agencies knocking one idea to another, taking years of time 
and additional costs, especially those surprise ones at the last 
minute.
  Lake Oroville is in my own backyard. Now, what we have seen there 
since the crisis happened with the breakage of the spillway is that 
coordination under an emergency, where, even though there are some 
trying to throw roadblocks in there, people recognized coordination was 
needed, because when 188,000 people have to evacuate an area due to 
some unknown factors with how the infrastructure is holding up, then 
they saw the need to fix it.

                              {time}  1530

  And the spillway at Lake Oroville is going to be fixed pretty rapidly 
over a 2-year period and made usable in this short amount of time. So 
that is how coordination can work to get a needed project done when it 
can be an emergency.
  What we need to quit doing is waiting for emergencies like this and 
on levee projects when we know for years and years that levee 
projects--highways, bridges, other infrastructure that have this 
bureaucratic badminton played when people are trying to get these 
projects done--need to be coordinated. That is what this bill does.
  My amendment adds to it, again, an important ability for State 
dollars under State-led infrastructure projects to be included in that. 
So I think it makes a heck of a lot of sense and will help our voters 
like in California and others around the country to be able to enjoy 
that coordination.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. We support the amendment. It improves the bill by 
expanding opportunities for increased water storage across the West. I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Marin for 
yielding me 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this amendment offered by my 
colleague, Congressman LaMalfa. As I said earlier, we need to fix the 
broken water system in California because reliability is key.
  We have a water system that was designed for 20 million people. 
Today, we have 40 million people living in California. By the year 
2030, we are going to have 50 million people living in California.
  The simple truth is that in the San Joaquin Valley, where I live, 
which has been ground zero for the impact of an unreliable water supply 
because of this broken system, we have felt the devastation of the 
drought. This lack of reliability is due to many factors that have 
intensified as a result of climate change, impact on regulations, and 
other factors.
  Luckily this year, as I noted earlier, it has been a deluge of rain 
and snow, and for that we are thankful. But we know in California that 
it is either feast or famine, and so, sadly, we must plan for the 
future, and that means including surface storage and using subsurface 
replenishment of our ground water and all the other water tools that 
are part of this water toolbox that is critical for the long term.
  We need more storage. We need the underlying legislation that this 
provides. While not completely fixing or resolving our challenges, it 
is a small step, and, as was noted before, this does not amend NEPA or 
CEQA, but it simply provides a timeline, and a timeline is a good 
thing.
  This collaboration that this legislation envisions is not too 
different from the collaboration that the Governor is working with the 
Department of the Interior on, the proposal to fix the plumbing system 
in the delta. They

[[Page 9744]]

have a record of decision that has a timeline.
  So if surface storage water is going to receive funding and support 
under the WIIN Act that we passed in December, matching State funds, 
along with this effort to provide the timeline, will be helpful.
  Let me finally say that sustainability of our agricultural economy, 
sustainability of putting food and fiber on America's dinner table 
every night, and helping feed other parts of the world is really what 
we are talking about here. Reliability is key to making sure that we 
are sustainable under the adverse impacts of a lack of a fixed water 
system. We need to address this.
  This legislation is a small step in providing timelines for certainty 
for this collaboration for this process to work better. I urge support 
of this amendment.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Costa, for 
his bipartisan support and effort in ensuring we have a proactive way 
of doing things in California on water infrastructure. I appreciate 
that a lot.
  So for anybody to say that the amount of effort it takes to get past 
the bureaucratic process, to simply get the existing permits under 
existing laws, is not burdensome is naive. Indeed, whether we are 
talking highway projects, levee projects, bridge projects, and, more 
particularly, this bill, water storage projects, we need this 
coordination.
  So the coordination will mean more for the American people, more for 
the people of my own State, with less dollars, less delay, and they can 
start enjoying the fruits of this project, the fruit of their tax 
dollars.
  So my amendment simply adds to that, State-led efforts, whether it 
has been a bond passed by a State or other State funding in California 
and other States, that they, too, can enjoy that coordination that this 
bill would provide.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I, unfortunately, must oppose this 
amendment. I am not sure if it was the intent of my friend, Mr. 
LaMalfa, but it appears that this amendment would prioritize permitting 
surface storage projects under the WIIN Act and not groundwater storage 
WIIN Act projects.
  The WIIN Act, of course, authorized money for both surface and 
groundwater storage projects. These projects are yet to be named and 
prioritized. That still needs to happen.
  Yet this amendment applies this bill's streamlining provisions to 
WIIN's ``State-led projects for new surface water storage projects.''
  Now, providing surface storage above all other types of water 
infrastructure projects certainly is in keeping with some of the 
obsession with new dams that we have heard from my colleagues across 
the aisle. But the truth is, there are all sorts of other worthy 
projects that are needed if we are going to get serious about water 
infrastructure in California; and to put a thumb on the scale for one 
particular kind is not the right way to go.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request a ``no'' vote, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 115-186.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 7. CONDITION ON APPLICABILITY.

       This Act shall not apply to any project that the Secretary 
     determines could cause harm to commercial fisheries.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I, like many of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, am concerned about the long-term prospects for 
water infrastructure and storage in the West.
  As the western climate continues to get hotter, we are going to have 
more hot, dry, drought years. That is why many States and communities, 
including the cities that I represent, are doing all that they can to 
make their water infrastructure more resilient, to reduce unneeded 
runoff, to recycle water, and to store as much ground water as 
possible.
  To support these critical activities, Congress needs to invest in our 
country's water infrastructure. The bill before us today does not do 
any of these things. It does not authorize new or additional funding 
for water projects. It is not an infrastructure bill.
  Instead, the bill before us today makes many Americans nervous 
because it loosens key environmental safeguards and imposes arbitrary 
deadlines for the approval of dams on our rivers and streams. This bill 
threatens the health of our streams, our rivers, and coastlines, which 
could harm fish populations important to commercial fisheries.
  Therefore, I am offering a straightforward amendment. It simply 
requires proposed new dams to go through the normal project review 
process if they are likely to harm commercial fisheries.
  The construction of poorly permitted dams has been a major cause of 
mortality for California's fisheries. In California's Central Valley, 
they currently block Chinook salmon and steelhead from more than 90 
percent of the historical spawning habitat.
  My amendment will help protect my State's economically important 
fisheries from further harm. Commercial fisheries from my home State 
sustain thousands of jobs across California and the West Coast, and, 
currently, we have what can only be described as a fisheries crisis.
  Many fisheries are at record-low population levels. According to some 
estimates, 78 percent of California's native salmon will be extinct or 
disappear within the next century if current trends continue.
  Simply put, many West Coast fishermen and fisherwomen who depend on 
California's fish runs are hanging on by a thread. The thousands of 
fishermen and fisherwomen, and other employees of restaurants, hotels, 
and other businesses that depend on healthy fish runs, have been 
struggling mightily.
  Even now, many fishermen and fisherwomen are still recovering from 
the total closure of the ocean salmon fishery along the West Coast in 
2008 and 2009, because of poor California salmon returns. The closure 
devastated the Pacific Coast fishing industry and, ultimately, required 
millions of dollars in disaster aid from Congress.
  In recent years, fishery managers have also had to severely restrict 
commercial fishing season because of low population levels. My 
amendment will help prevent future harm to people who are already 
struggling just to get by.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, first I would point out to my friend 
from California, if the climate continues to warm, we are not going to 
be able to store as much water in our mountains as snow, and we are 
going to need much more surface water storage reservoirs than the laws 
have allowed us to build because of the delays they have imposed in 
planning and construction.
  The gentleman's amendment gives the Secretary of the Interior the 
ability to ignore this streamlining law if he determines it could 
``cause harm to commercial fisheries.''
  Well, now, remember, this bill makes no changes to any of our 
existing laws or regulations. It makes no changes to the licenses and 
permits required for a project or the criteria for obtaining those 
licenses and permits. It makes no changes to any law or regulation that

[[Page 9745]]

could affect commercial fisheries or, for that matter, anything else.
  It simply says that the agencies and jurisdictions involved with 
these projects have to cooperate and coordinate and communicate with 
each other, and it requires the science guiding these decisions to be 
available to the public to review and scrutinize.
  So why the amendment? Well, for one reason and one reason only, I 
think, because for the last 8 years, we have had an administration that 
was actively hostile to constructing new reservoirs. That 
administration has used the fragmented nature of the approval process 
as a way to delay projects indefinitely. That is what this proposal 
corrects.
  Mr. Lowenthal's amendment would allow any administration so inclined 
to make a specious finding as an excuse to ignore this law. Project 
applicants would not know from one election to the next whether their 
millions of dollars of studies and investments would suddenly come to 
naught, and projects already well along in the planning and approval 
process could find their efforts coming to a screeching halt.
  For our laws to work, they must be predictable and fair. Mr. 
Lowenthal's amendment is a poison pill to render this law unpredictable 
and capricious.
  The irony is this: the gentleman's constituents in southern 
California have the most to lose from his amendment because southern 
California depends on surplus water from northern California. And let 
me make this very clear to the gentleman and his constituents: northern 
California has first claim on northern California water.
  If we can't store the extra water in the north, there is no surplus 
for the south, and the gentleman's constituents can look forward to 
dead lawns and gardens, brown parks, empty swimming pools, astronomical 
water and electricity prices, spiraling grocery prices, and a future 
where they will have to ration and stretch every drop of water and 
every watt of electricity in their parched and sweltering homes. They 
might want to ask him about that some day.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
northern California (Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in support of this amendment.
  My colleague across the aisle just asked the rhetorical question: Why 
is this amendment needed?
  It is needed because fishing jobs matter. The people whom I represent 
on the north coast of California and also other fishing communities up 
and down the Pacific Coast, including Oregon and Washington, their jobs 
matter, and their limited opportunity to have their interests 
considered when a dam project is moving forward is what is shortened by 
the streamlining in this bill.
  Their interests are already subordinated oftentimes, but they get 
subordinated even further by the streamlining in this case, which 
places the Bureau of Reclamation, the proponent of the new dam, in 
charge of the administrative record, which places the fish agencies--
which often advance the interests of protecting fisheries--in a 
subordinate role to the Bureau of Reclamation that controls the 
administrative record, which imposes shortened timelines to make it 
even harder for their interests to be considered.
  Fishing jobs matter. And the truth is, right now, in my district and 
in many other fishing communities, people are hurting because they have 
been damaged by poorly operated and poorly permitted dams.
  Let's not make things worse. This amendment is absolutely necessary, 
and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would first point out that commercial 
fisheries are controlled and regulated by the Secretary of Commerce, 
not the Secretary of the Interior, and yet it is the Secretary of the 
Interior to whom the gentleman would give the power to ignore this 
streamlining law and impose endless, repetitive, and duplicative delays 
in the consideration of these projects.
  I would again point out that all of the considerations that are given 
to fisheries, that are given to environmental laws, that are given to 
engineering laws, everything that goes into the planning process in our 
dams under our laws and regulations is fully respected under this 
measure.
  All that it does is say that the agency, that the Bureau of 
Reclamation, when an application is provided, will pull these agencies 
together, and all of the jurisdictions and all of the affected parties 
establish a timetable according to their best judgment of what is 
necessary, have them talk with each other, and then stick to that plan.
  That is what the bill does, and that is why it is so desperately 
needed in a State that has not built a major reservoir of over a 
million acre-fee of storage since the New Melones was completed in 
1979.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record three letters, 
including one from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
Associations, which is the largest organization of commercial fishing 
families on the West Coast, collectively representing thousands of 
family-wage jobs and the West Coast commercial fishing industry that 
contributes billions of dollars to the U.S. economy, strongly opposing 
this bill, H.R. 1654, and supporting the amendment.

                                          Pacific Coast Federation


                                  of Fishermen's Associations,

                                                    June 12, 2017.
       Dear Representative: The Pacific Coast Federation of 
     Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) is the largest organization 
     of commercial fishing families on the West Coast, 
     representing the interests of hundreds of family-owned 
     commercial fishing operations who harvest and deliver fresh 
     seafood to American consumers and for export. Collectively, 
     we represent many thousands of family wage jobs and a West 
     Coast commercial fishing industry that contributes billions 
     of dollars to the U.S. economy.
       On behalf of the hundreds of hard working commercial 
     fishermen we represent, we are OPPOSED to H.R. 1654 for many 
     reasons, among them the following:
       While the concept of streamlining permitting for federal 
     water projects is attractive on its face, our primary problem 
     in the arid west is not a lack of water storage projects, but 
     lack of funds for maintaining and repairing the many existing 
     projects that are already in place. Hundreds of existing 
     water projects are badly in need of repair, with many 
     dangerously close to failing. And as we recently witnessed 
     with the catastrophic failure of the Oroville Dam, an 
     ``expedited review process'' like what is envisioned in H.R. 
     1654 could lead to poor or rushed impacts analyses 
     potentially resulting in further catastrophe or economic 
     disruption. It is now apparent that the Oroville Dam's 2017 
     emergency spillway failure was predicted--but the warning 
     signs were ignored--in its expedited environmental impacts 
     review process.
       H.R. 1654 is simply the wrong approach. It would undermine 
     existing laws protecting both the public and public resources 
     by making the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) the 
     lead agency for all environmental reviews, in effect leaving 
     Reclamation in control of the entire environmental review 
     process. However, Reclamation has neither the expertise nor 
     the capacity of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service to inform the development 
     of major infrastructure projects to reduce their impact on 
     valuable wildlife and fisheries. Under H.R. 1654, these 
     agencies would be stripped of their authority and duties to 
     oversee and authorize water storage projects, to the 
     detriment of the people of the West and the American 
     taxpayer.
       H.R. 1654 also implements overly restricted and burdensome 
     project review timelines, including provisions that would 
     require expedited review under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act (NEPA)--timelines that may be inappropriate for 
     very complex projects like the damming of streams and rivers. 
     These fast-tracking provisions interfere with the ability of 
     agencies and the public to meaningfully analyze proposed 
     complex projects, and could also limit the public's ability 
     to weigh in on infrastructure developments that could affect 
     communities for decades. Further, the bill permits non-
     federal public entities to contribute funds to expedite 
     project permitting, raising serious conflicts of interest 
     questions about the fairness and impartiality of the federal 
     review process.
       H.R. 1654 also establishes perverse incentives for western 
     states to cede their independent authority. Under the new 
     regulatory scheme, state agencies could be compelled to

[[Page 9746]]

     adhere to the bill's procedures, thereby requiring those 
     state agencies to cede control to Reclamation and comply with 
     its timelines. This weakens the essential and independent 
     role that states play in reviewing proposed water 
     infrastructure projects within their borders.
       We sincerely request that you vote NO on H.R. 1654. This 
     bill will not solve the problems it purports to address, and 
     it would have widespread consequences far beyond water 
     deliveries and water storage, including adverse effects to 
     regional and local fishing industry economies and the jobs 
     and communities those economies support.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Noah Oppenheim,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                              American Rivers,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2017.
     U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of the U.S. House Committee on Natural 
     Resources: I am writing on behalf of American Rivers and our 
     200,000 members to oppose H.R. 1654, the Water Supply 
     Permitting Coordination Act, which is before the Committee on 
     April 26, 2017. We understand that new surface storage 
     projects are a consideration as part of a multi-faceted 
     portfolio aimed at addressing long term drought in the 
     Western United States. We also share Congress' view that 
     long-term, balanced solutions to drought and water supply 
     security that support and protect local economies, the 
     viability of agriculture, municipal water supplies, 
     recreation, and the riparian environment are critical to the 
     future of Western communities. H.R. 1654, however, fails to 
     provide a long-term, balanced solution, and goes far beyond 
     the scope of authorities vested in the Bureau of Reclamation 
     (the ``Bureau'') while undermining the critical role other 
     federal agencies, tribes, and states play in the permitting 
     of water supply projects in the West. We remain concerned 
     about the potential harmful impacts to management authorities 
     designed to protect streams and conserve watersheds. In light 
     of these concerns, we ask you to oppose H.R. 1654.
       This legislation amends the Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C. 371, 
     et seq., in a way that undermines the management authorities 
     of other federal agencies, tribes, and states. H.R. 1654 
     allows the Bureau to preempt state laws and procedural 
     requirements for agency decision-making by dictating 
     unreasonable deadlines. It also weakens authorities under 
     Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, as well as other 
     federal laws, by subordinating all other State and federal 
     agencies to the Bureau's sense of how much time those 
     administering agencies should have to do their jobs.
       Specifically, H.R. 1654:
       Designates the Bureau as the lead agency and allows the 
     Bureau to set the schedule for all federal authorizations, 
     including those issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), 
     the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act (FLPMA), the Coastal Zone Management Act 
     (CZMA), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), and other 
     federal authorizations, even where those authorizations have 
     been delegated or devolved to the states or Native American 
     tribes.
       Forces all other federal, state, and tribal agencies to 
     comply with the Bureau's schedule and to defer to the 
     Bureau's proposed scope of environmental review.
       Effectively waives the Endangered Species Act or the Clean 
     Water Act if a state, tribe, or federal agency cannot meet 
     the Bureau's schedule or misses a deadline. The Bureau and 
     the project applicant may simply proceed with the proposed 
     action and the authorization is waived. There are no similar 
     remedies or penalties if the Bureau or the project applicant 
     fails to meet a deadline, or if delay caused by Bureau or the 
     project applicant results in an agency missing a deadline. 
     The end result of this and the following provisions could be 
     that states and tribes may be forced to deny certification 
     for new projects in order to avoid potential legal liability.
       It is important that federal natural resource agencies 
     retain the authority and responsibility to condition 
     operations of surface storage projects so as to protect 
     streams and other public resources. A key part of protecting 
     watersheds, especially in the arid West, is maintaining 
     healthy flows in streams. For years, American Rivers has 
     worked with the federal land management agencies, tribes, 
     states and other stakeholders to protect healthy river flows 
     on public lands. Federal land managers, states, tribes and 
     the public have an important role to play in protecting 
     streams--based on the Property Clause of the Constitution, 
     Section 505 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 
     and other authorities--and they also have a responsibility to 
     work with their stakeholders to do it right. Provisions of 
     H.R. 1654 would harm the ability of federal land managers, 
     states, and tribes to use these authorities to protect 
     streams, rivers, and vital fisheries.
       We oppose H.R. 1654, and urge Congress to carefully 
     consider the impacts of the legislation on federal, tribal 
     and state authority before proceeding further and determine 
     if legislation is needed.
           Sincerely,

                                            Matthew Niemerski,

                                         Director, Federal Policy,
     American Rivers.
                                  ____



                               Golden Gate Salmon Association,

                                      Petaluma, CA, June 12, 2017.
     Re H.R. 1654 (McClintock)--OPPOSE.

       Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: The 
     Golden Gate Salmon Association is a coalition of salmon 
     fishermen and women, both sport and commercial, and related 
     businesses. As a business-oriented advocacy organization 
     focused on conservation and restoration of Central Valley 
     salmon stocks, with members throughout California, we write 
     to offer our strong opposition to H.R. 1654 (McClintock), the 
     ``Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.'' This 
     legislation threatens tens of thousands of fishing related 
     jobs and could result in severe impacts to a salmon fishing 
     industry that is highly vulnerable today.


        Surface Storage and California's Salmon Fishing Industry

       Surface storage projects have been the leading cause of the 
     decline of California's historic salmon fishery. In the past 
     decade, surface storage projects contributed to the first 
     ever, historic closure of the California salmon fishery in 
     2008 and 2009. A fishery worth an estimated $1.4 billion in 
     annual economic activity to California in a normal season was 
     shattered. This had devastating impacts on the 23,000 men and 
     women whose livelihoods depend on the commercial and 
     recreational salmon fishery.
       In significant part as a result of dam projects, the health 
     of our coastal fishing communities has decreased. We've seen 
     a decline in the number of commercial salmon boats registered 
     to fish from almost 5,000 in the late 1980's to just over 
     1,000 today. Once bustling salmon ports, like Fort Bragg and 
     Eureka are lined with crumbling docks and pier pilings. In 
     some places there aren't enough fish crossing the docks to 
     maintain basic infrastructure like boat repair yards, fuel 
     docks and ice making machines. Where once proud freshly 
     painted houses beamed pride of fisherman ownership, too many 
     are sadly in need of repair. Go to any California harbor with 
     commercial fishing activity and inspect the deck hardware and 
     rigging on boats and you'll see what deferred maintenance 
     looks like for people who struggle to keep a roof over their 
     family's heads and pay the bills.
       Because of low populations of adult salmon in 2017, salmon 
     fishing for much of Northern California has been closed 
     entirely this year. For the remainder of the California 
     coast, the commercial fishing fleet has lost approximately 
     two thirds of their traditional fishing season. These low 
     population numbers are the result of the drought and the 
     impacts of existing surface storage projects.
       Decision-makers should respond to this crisis by 
     strengthening efforts to restore salmon runs. However, H.R. 
     1654 could increase the impacts of dam projects on salmon, 
     with potentially devastating consequences.


                           Specific Concerns

       This legislation threatens to weaken analysis and 
     permitting for surface storage projects, with significant 
     potential impacts on salmon. GGSA offers the following 
     specific concerns.
       Interfering With The Use of the Best Available Science: The 
     bill would allow the Bureau of Reclamation to control the 
     administrative record used by all federal agencies in 
     reviewing surface storage projects. At best, the Bureau lacks 
     the environmental expertise of the regulatory agencies on a 
     range of issues, including salmon. In addition, as a 
     potential applicant for surface storage projects, the Bureau 
     would have a clear conflict of interest, were they to be 
     given control of the record used by all federal agencies. 
     Further, the Bureau has a record of asserting dubious 
     environmental benefits from surface storage projects and 
     working to suppress analysis by federal agencies. As a 
     result, it is highly inappropriate for the Bureau to be given 
     control of a single administrative record to be used by all 
     federal agencies.
       Interfering with Agency Review: The bill would give the 
     Bureau authority to establish a binding schedule for all 
     federal agency environmental review and permitting. For the 
     same reasons cited above, this is inappropriate. In addition, 
     this requirement would produce unnecessary, costly and time 
     consuming litigation, in the likely event that a schedule 
     adopted by the Bureau does not allow adequate time for review 
     by regulatory agencies.
       Undermining State Review of Projects: In cases where states 
     chose to opt in, the bill would give the Bureau control over 
     the administrative record and schedule for state agencies. In 
     such a case, the bill would allow the Bureau undue control 
     over state analysis and permitting. This is highly 
     inappropriate, given more than a century of traditional 
     federal deference to state law.
       Surface Storage Bias: Surface storage construction and 
     operation is among the water management activities with the 
     most severe impacts on salmon and salmon rivers. This 
     legislation inappropriately restricts analysis

[[Page 9747]]

     for the most environmentally destructive method of storing 
     water and generating new water supplies, but not for less 
     destructive activities.
       For the above reasons, we urge you to oppose this damaging 
     and unnecessary bill.
       Thank you for considering our comments.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John McManus,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, by that token, I will include in the 
Record the support of the United States Chamber of Commerce as well as 
the Family Farm Alliance and others in support of this bill and the 
jobs that will expand as a result of its adoption.

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 2017.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges you to approve H.R. 1654, the 
     ``Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act,'' which would 
     streamline the permitting process for new surface water 
     storage projects. The Chamber may consider including votes 
     on, or in relation to, H.R. 1654 in our annual How They Voted 
     scorecard.
       H.R. 1654 would establish the Bureau of Reclamation as the 
     lead agency for coordinating environmental reviews and 
     permitting new or expanded non-federal surface storage 
     facilities. The bill also would allow the Secretary of the 
     Interior to accept funds from non-federal public entities and 
     to use those funds to expedite the permitting process for 
     designated projects. This type of coordination and 
     streamlining is essential to the development and construction 
     of much-needed water storage projects.
       The structure of H.R. 1654 tracks the permit streamlining 
     provisions contained in Title 41 of the Fixing America's 
     Surface Transportation Act, which was passed during the 114th 
     Congress. The Chamber urges you to approve H.R. 1654.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Neil L. Bradley,
     Senior Vice President & Chief Policy Officer.
                                  ____



                                         Family Farm Alliance,

                                 Klamath Falls, OR, March 8, 2017.
     Hon. Tom McClintock,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McClintock: On behalf of the Family Farm 
     Alliance (Alliance), we write to express our support for your 
     ``Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act''. This important 
     legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
     coordinate Federal and State permitting processes related to 
     the construction of new surface water storage projects on 
     lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the Bureau 
     of Reclamation as the lead agency for permit processing, and 
     for other purposes.
       The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family 
     farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries 
     in 16 Western states. Several of our members are mutual ditch 
     and irrigation districts. The Alliance is focused on one 
     mission: To ensure the availability of reliable, affordable 
     irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers.
       The ``Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act'' provides a 
     critical first step towards addressing current regulatory and 
     bureaucratic challenges that many times will delay or even 
     halt the development of new water supply enhancement projects 
     in the Western United States. The recent drought has ramped 
     up much-needed Congressional interest to enact legislation 
     that will allow Western water providers to better manage and 
     prepare for future dry times. Now, the heaviest rain in a 
     decade has overwhelmed parts of the West Coast, underscoring 
     the critical importance of having modernized and enhanced 
     water storage infrastructure in place to optimize water 
     resources management for the future.
       Family Farm Alliance members rely on the traditional water 
     and power infrastructure built over the last century to 
     deliver irrigation water supplies vital to their farming 
     operations. Our membership has been advocating for new water 
     storage facilities for over twenty years, and we have 
     provided specific recommendations to Congress and the White 
     House on how to streamline restrictive federal regulations to 
     help make these projects happen.
       As you are aware, developing new water storage projects is 
     much easier said than done. For many reasons--political, 
     economic and social--the construction of traditional surface 
     water storage projects is undertaken on a much more limited 
     basis than in decades past. Even if federal authorization and 
     funding, or funding from non-federal sources, is secured for 
     a new storage project, the existing procedures for permitting 
     the development of additional water supplies can make project 
     approval incredibly burdensome.
       By the time project applicants approach federal agencies 
     for permits to construct multimillion dollar projects they 
     have already invested extensive resources toward analyzing 
     project alternatives to determine which project is best 
     suited to their budgetary constraints. However, current 
     procedure dictates that federal agencies formulate another 
     list of project alternatives which the applicant must assess, 
     comparing potential impacts with the preferred alternative. 
     These alternatives often conflict with state law or are 
     simply not implementable in the first place yet valuable 
     resources are required to be expended to further study these 
     additional alternatives in the federal permitting process.
       Thus, we strongly support your bill. We look forward to 
     working with you, the 115th Congress and other interested 
     parties to build a consensus for improving the federal 
     regulatory and permitting process. If we don't find a way to 
     restore water supply reliability for Western irrigated 
     agriculture through a combination of new water supply and 
     management infrastructure, other water supply enhancement 
     efforts and demand management--our country's ability to feed 
     and clothe itself and the world will be jeopardized.
       This bill takes an important step towards addressing this 
     critical need. I encourage you or your staff to contact Dan 
     Keppen if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
     Patrick O'Toole,
       President.
     Dan Keppen,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                         Association of California


                                               Water Agencies,

                                                    June 19, 2017.
     Re Support for H.R. 1654.

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The 
     Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to 
     support H.R. 1654, the ``Water Supply Permitting Coordination 
     Act''. ACWA's 450 public water agency members supply over 90 
     percent of the water delivered in California for residential, 
     agricultural, and industrial uses.
       As demonstrated by California's recent historic drought, it 
     is important that Congress take actions now that help ensure 
     California has sufficient water supplies for the future. Had 
     the streamlining provisions contained in H.R. 1654 been in 
     effect prior to the drought, California's water 
     infrastructure and water supplies could have been improved to 
     help mitigate much of the current personal and economic 
     suffering that occurred.
       Moreover, H.R. 1654 is consistent with policy principles 
     ACWA has formally adopted embracing environmental and 
     economic sustainability as co-equal priorities for water 
     management in California.
       Thank you for this opportunity to express ACWA's support 
     for H.R. 1654.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David Reynolds,
     Director of Federal Relations.
                                  ____



                                              Voith Hydro Inc.

                                          York, PA, June 20, 2017.
     Hon. Tom McClintock,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McClintock: On behalf of Voith Hydro, I am 
     writing today to extend our strong support for H.R. 1654, the 
     Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act. Voith Hydro is a 
     manufacturer of hydroelectric equipment and technology based 
     in York, Pennsylvania. Additionally, we have Voith Hydro 
     Services facilities located in Chattanooga, Tennessee and 
     Springfield, Oregon. Voith Hydro currently employees 
     approximately 680 workers across the United States. Water 
     storage issues are critical to our ability to provide both 
     the energy and jobs that sustain a nation.
       As you are well aware, water provides multiple benefits to 
     communities across the country. Without an abundant supply of 
     water storage in the United States, hydropower production 
     cannot reach its full potential. These same communities have 
     been able to thrive in large part due to abundant water 
     supplies and the production of renewable hydropower, 
     especially in your home district in Northern California. 
     Increasing water storage throughout the country will allow 
     for better management during drought conditions, and thus 
     prevent power outages to communities reliant on 
     hydroelectricity.
       Streamlining the permitting process to expand and develop 
     new water storage throughout the United States is critical to 
     increasing and upgrading our Country's infrastructure. I am 
     pleased to see that Congress continues to consider bills 
     targeted to improve the permitting processes and hope that 
     other infrastructure permitting streamlining continues, 
     especially as it concerns hydropower development.
       I encourage the passage of the Water Supply Permitting Act 
     this week in the House of

[[Page 9748]]

     Representatives and look forward to working with you on 
     similar issues in the future. Thank you for your leadership 
     on water storage and other critical issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert J. Gallo,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                          Municipal Water District


                                             of Orange County,

                                Fountain Valley, CA, May 30, 2017.
     Hon. Tom McClintock,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McClintock: The Municipal Water District 
     of Orange County (MWDOC) is pleased to support your measure, 
     H.R. 1654--``The Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.'' 
     We applaud your efforts to streamline the permitting process 
     that relates to the construction of new surface water storage 
     projects on lands. This coordination is long overdue and will 
     ultimately benefit the entire state.
       The rains this past winter emphasized the critical need 
     California has for surface water storage. We cannot let this 
     resource slip out to the ocean due to lack of places to put 
     it. Allowing the Bureau of Reclamation to be the coordinating 
     agency for projects on Interior or Department of Agriculture 
     lands will make the process more efficient and speed up the 
     process for critical water infrastructure projects in our 
     state.
       The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), a 
     water agency serving the needs of more than two million 
     residents and 28 retail water agencies, voted unanimously to 
     support your legislation and to assist with its passage.
       On behalf of the MWDOC Board of Directors, we are pleased 
     to support H.R. 1654 and sincerely thank you for your efforts 
     to address the ongoing water infrastructure needs in 
     California.
       Should you have any questions regarding this matter, lease 
     feel free to contact either Jim Barker, our advocate in 
     Washington, or MWDOC General Manager, Rob Hunter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Wayne S. Osborne,
                                                  Board President.

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 232, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 318]

                               AYES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Castro (TX)
     Cummings
     Gabbard
     Gosar
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Larsen (WA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Long
     Meeks
     Napolitano
     Pelosi
     Rogers (AL)
     Scalise
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine

                              {time}  1612

  Messrs. YODER, REED, BUDD, CURBELO of Florida, CORREA, PITTENGER, 
MULLIN, WITTMAN, AND KATKO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ESPAILLAT, BLUMENAUER, and JOHNSON of Georgia changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). The question is on the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Poe 
of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Byrne, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1654) to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate Federal and State 
permitting processes related to the construction of new surface water 
storage projects on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the 
Bureau of Reclamation as the lead agency for permit processing, and for 
other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 392, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole.

[[Page 9749]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Barton was allowed to speak out of order.)


                      Congressional Baseball Game

  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, last Thursday evening, we 
played the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. This is 
normally the time when the losing manager has to congratulate the 
winning manager. Over the last 10 years, I have become fairly 
proficient at congratulating Mr. Doyle.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to tell a lot of jokes because, as 
we all know, at the Republican practice the Wednesday morning before, 
an individual opened fire on the Republican team and wounded the 
majority whip, Mr. Scalise; both Capitol Police officers who were part 
of Mr. Scalise's security detail; and two volunteers who were assisting 
us in our practice. So I don't have a lot of jokes today, Mr. Speaker.
  I do want to congratulate Mr. Doyle and his team. They played fair 
and square. They were extremely gracious before the game. We had a 
unity prayer. We had a unity introduction of the players. The night 
before, Mr. Doyle and his team invited the Republican team, believe it 
or not, to the Democratic political headquarters. I went with my two 
sons. The food was great, and the fellowship was even better.
  So I do sincerely want to congratulate him and his players for 
playing the best game. They deserved to win.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Republican team. We had 
approximately 25 of our Members at the practice. Every one of them 
exhibited courage and composure. They all looked out for their fellow 
teammates.
  We had an equivalent number of staff and volunteers. We had two of 
the best Capitol Hill police officers it is possible to have. They 
risked their lives.
  I want to say this, and then I will yield to my good friend, Mr. 
Doyle.
  The shooter that attacked the Republican baseball team, Mr. Speaker, 
was attacking democracy. When we are at full strength on this floor, 
there are 435 of us. Every one of us is a winner. We get here because 
we have won an election. We get here because we have got the faith of 
approximately 600,000 or 700,000 people who are depending on us to be 
their voice for democracy. We argue. We debate. But as I said in one of 
my interviews, before our names is United States Representative. 
United.
  Last Thursday, at the baseball game, we were united. I could not be 
prouder of being a Member of this body, Mr. Speaker. I could not be 
prouder of the Republican team, including our MVP, Ron DeSantis; our 
honorary MVP, Steve Scalise; and every member of the Republican team.
  Would the members of the Republican team stand and let's acknowledge 
their heroism.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael 
F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  This is different from the other years that we have stood up here. 
This trophy isn't for either team. This trophy is for Steve.
  I just want you all to know that when we got the news at our baseball 
practice about what was going on, the only thing we could think about 
is that we are a family. When we stood in the dugout and prayed that 
you were safe and that no one was hurt, we weren't thinking about 
Democrats and Republicans. We were thinking about our fellow Members.
  I was thinking about your son, Jack, and all the fun times I have had 
kidding him. I was thinking about Cedric Richmond's 3-year-old son, who 
was with us, and what would have happened if that shooter had come over 
to our dugout.
  If there is a silver lining to that terrible day, it was reflected in 
the outpouring of people who showed up at our game. We normally get a 
crowd of 9,000 to 10,000. We had 25,000 people come to that game.
  We normally raise about $500,000 for the three charities that the 
game supports. I have a check here that says we raised $1.5 million, 
but that is not correct. It is $1.7 million. Some worthwhile charities 
are going to get a check they weren't expecting.
  I want to reiterate what you said about our Capitol Police. To have 
someone shooting bullets at you, that is terrifying enough. To make the 
decision to put yourself out there and charge at that shooter to make 
sure that there wasn't a massacre takes a special kind of person.
  To see Crystal throw that ball out last night at the women's softball 
game brought a lot of joy to my heart. We owe a real debt of gratitude 
to the Capitol Police who protect us on these grounds.
  I want Joe to know that we continue to think about all of you. You 
are in our prayers, you are in our thoughts. Something terrible 
happened. For many of you, it might take days before it hits you. I 
would encourage anyone who is feeling that to talk to someone. Don't be 
bashful about that. This was a traumatic experience for your team, 
especially, but I want you to know that you are in our hearts and in 
our prayers.
  As we said before, Joe and I are going to walk this trophy over to 
Steve's office. When the hospital gives us clearance, we are going to 
go over to the hospital and present it to Steve personally. This is for 
him right now. We want him to know that the entire Congress thinks 
about him every day, prays for him and his family, and we hope to get 
him back here on the House floor as soon as possible.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment 
to the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 180, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer

[[Page 9750]]


     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Cummings
     Doggett
     Gabbard
     Gosar
     Granger
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Larsen (WA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Long
     Meeks
     Napolitano
     Pelosi
     Rogers (AL)
     Scalise
     Tiberi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine

                              {time}  1632

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 319 (passage of H.R. 1654), 
I did not cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' 
on this vote.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 
318 and No. 319 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Lowenthal Amendment. 
I would have voted ``nay'' on the Final Passage of H.R. 1654--Water 
Supply Permitting Coordination Act.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal conflict, I was unable to 
make votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 
No. 318 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 319.

                          ____________________