tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN February 29, 2012 1:00pm-5:00pm EST
state water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy, local, state, or federal, our legitimate constitutional function of the federal government established under the 14th amendment and made essential by the terms of the state approved joint agreement of these intertwined water systems. . it also restores prabblingtcalt for the protection of endangered species. the greatest threats to these species are nonnative invasive predators like the striped bass. indeed it is common to find striped bass in the sacramento delta gorged with endangered salmon and delta smelt. this bill allows open season on these predators. and it encourages the use of fish hatcheries to assure the per pet situation of thriving native populations of salmon and smelt. it replaces the cost prohibitive provisions of the san joaquin river settlement act which
commonsense spending an estimated $1 billion to achieve the stated goal of establishing a population of 500 salmon below the dam. that comes to two million -- $2 million per individual fish. this bill replaces the absurd mandate of the year-round cold water fishery on the hot valley floor with a warm water fishery that actually acts in concert with the habitat. it removes disincentives in current law that discourage groundwater banking in wet years. it allows the recycling of environmental flows by communities once they've achieved their environmental purpose. mr. speaker, the movement for stronger environmental protections began over legitimate concerns to protect our vital natural resources. but like many movements, as it succeeded in its legitimate ends, it also attracted a self-interested constituency that is driven far past the borders of common sense and into the realms of political extremism and outright plunder. this bill replaces the cost
prohibitive and unachievable dictates that caused so much human suffering in california. with workable, affordable and realistic measures based on real science and not what one federal judge widely called the ideological zealotry of bureaucrats. this debate will determine if we're about to enter a new era, when common sense can be restored to our public policy and a sensible balance restored between environmental and human needs. i welcome that debate and i ask for adoption of the rule to bring it forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding. 174 days ago the president of the united states came to this floor, made a series of proposals to help small businesses and big businesses
create jobs for the american people. only one element of that jobs plan's been dealt with belatedly which is an extension of the middle class tax cut. there's been no vote on the bill to create construction jobs, rebuilding our libraries and schools. no vote on a bill to cut taxes for small businesses that create jobs. no vote on bills that would put our police officers and firefighters back on the job, our teachers back in the classroom. nothing. now, the bill that's before us today is very important. not just for california, for the country. it's something that needs to be taken up and i respect all views on all sides. but i think it's time that the house leadership respected the urgent economic problems of this country. now, since the president came here, there's been another increasingly urgent economic problem and that is the manipulation of gasoline prices by speculators. and americans have seen the consequence of this at the pump every day.
members on our side have some ideas to stop this speculation and stop the pillaging of the wallets of american consumers at the gas pumps every day. not surprisingly that's not coming up for a votee either. the priority -- vote either. the priorities of the house are miss aligned with the priorities of the american people -- misalined with the priorities of the american people. let's put on this floor legislation that creates jobs and gives relief to our people at the fuel pumps. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from new jersey's comments and would remind him also that the cbpa, the bill that started this problem, is actually authored by the senator from new jersey at the time. i appreciate that. this is one of those things we're trying to fix. i will yield gladly one minute to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. mr. terry: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. terry: mr. speaker, i rise dish first want to mention this to my friend from new jersey,
that we have several bills including keystone x.l. sitting over in the senate, that will create tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs. but yet harry reid does not seem that he would like to bring those to the floor. so we're doing our job here. now, this bill today is about creating really a new environment for job creation and recognizing the human suffrage that has occurred in the central valley. i've visited out there almost two years ago and it seemed the level of employment and the human impact of this federal mandate upon california under the endangered species act, what we've seen, and i don't know about the court case where it really raised some serious issues regarding the credibility behind the rule itself, but what i do know is this federal
impact, if i could have an additional 30 seconds. mr. bishop: yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: recognized. mr. terry: by adopting this bill today or passing this bill, we basically push the restart button so that entities that are hurt, environmentalists can work together for an appropriate balanced rule that protects' livelihoods as well -- protects people's livelihoods as well. this should be a bipartisan bill. it came oit of -- out of committee as a bipartisan bill. this is exactly the type of thing we should be working together and across the aisle. and i would encourage my friends on the democratic side of the aisle to join with us and pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i will yealed two minutes to the gentleman from -- i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. costa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. costa: i thank the gentleman from colorado. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the rule providing for the consideration of h.r.
1837. california's water system is broken. for too long the san joaquin valley, which many of us represent, has borne the brunt of the water challenges facing our state. we have a water system designed for 20 million people, we have 38 million people today living in california. by the year 2030 we could have 50 million people. my district was and is ground zero for the regulatory drought that occurred in 2009 and 2010. i was in the food lines where farm workers sadly had to find themselves in because there wasn't sufficient water to employ them. my constituents who rely on water for their livelihoods are looking for congress to see that we are listening and care to work on real solutions that impact their future. politics of water are not new in california, nor in the west. they've been there for decades. i hope that at some point we can
put the politics aside. this debate is too important. it has been put off for too long. for the farmers, the farm workers and the farm communities that i represent, i urge my colleagues to support this rule on a bipartisan basis. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. with gratitude to the last speaker, this may be about california water but it impacts all of us who eat and as you can tell, i'm one who does that very well. i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. mccotter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccotter: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. a bill which is a piece of bipartisan legislation, was introduced not to serve mere partisans but to serve real people. not to promote one's party but to promote everyone's prosperity. and i say this in the true
spirit of inclusion as someone who comes from a manufacturing state. one whose auto companies -- companies stared into the abyss of potential bankruptcy and it was a bipartisan coalition that helped to save it and a policy that was put forward by a republican president named bush and continued by a democratic president named obama. today we must come together in a similar bipartisan fashion, for there's a federally dictated drought in the san joaquin valley. one that devastates farmers and all of our fellow americans who live and if they can work there. to me, to someone who has watched and lived with my constituents through such an experience, i see no choice but for the federal government to rectify its legislately imposed drought and a-- legislatively imposed drought and allow the people of the san joaquin valley the same rights that we have to pursue our prosperity and continue to keep the fruits of our labor without the heavy hand
of government coming in and making it more difficult for us to pursue. and to create a better life for ourselves and for our children. and finally on a note, i know that these are very contentious times and one of the underlying issues regarding this bill is the endangered species act. but whether you are wholeheartedly for the endangered species act or wholeheartedly opposed, can we agree on one thing? the endangered species act exists to preserve wildlife, not to impoverish human life. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in opposition to the rule and i rise in opposition to the legislation.
there's going to be an argument today about science. this bill makes it very simple. it ends that argument. it simply says that we will use the science that was in effect in 1994. we use the science that's, what's, 18 years ago, that will be the science for the purposes of this legislation. you might as well tell the people in california to use the same telecommunications systems they had in 1994. no iphones, no blackberries, no advancement in knowledge skills or training in technology. it's pretty simplistic approach to science. you might say it's mineless. that the federal government's going to come in and tell the state of california that it cannot use its regulatory process or scientific process to determine what's best for its state. as the attorney general of our state says, the federal government simply, and the supreme court says the federal government simply cannot comman dear the legislators of the -- commandeer the legislatures of the states.
we have people here with credentials who are saying the federal government should preempt california law, preempt the california legislature, preempt the federal law and go back to 1994. where else should we take america back to 1994? in terms of imposing the will of the congress on the states? and that's why almost all of the western states, the water agencies, the executive offices, oppose this legislation. because this is the greatest preemption of state water rights in the history of this country. the people who are supporting this, the heavily subsidized farmers who have subsidies from the federal government to grow their crops are now insisting that the federal government take what is a contract right, it's a contract right, it's not -- that's it. they want to turn it into perpetuity, they want the water and perpetuity and the hello with the rest of the state of california -- and the hell with the rest of the state of
california. that's not acceptable to any member of this congress about their own state. why is it acceptable all of a sudden to do that to the state of california? you simply cannot do this. we have in place a process that is working today for the first time in 40 years. and that's why the resources director of the state of california, that's why both of our senators are opposed to this process. because this group of people have never come together in the last 40 years to work on california problems. the urban users, the ag interests, the manufacturing interests, the municipal interests, with the blessings of the state legislature that set out the guidelines, that set out the goals, that set out the purposes, that's going on today. every party to that agreement except for this select few of special interests. this party is the only party that says, blow it up. use the united states congress to blow up a process that for the first time has the possibility of solving the water
problems in this state and making it sustainable for agriculture, for the environment, for manufacturing and for municipal use in our state. yes, we have a tough problem. we have 30 million people. the drought that they talk about -- mr. polis: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. miller: that was a statewide drought. they lost some employment but in fact the agriculture employment, even through the drought, was pretty stable. the big employments in the central valley came because we were selling homes to people who couldn't pay for them. that was the crash. it was the first place in the longest crash that we have in this country in terms of mortgages and the loss of the people who were working in those trades. but that drought was felt across the state. thousands of people lost their jobs in tourism in northern california, in commercial fisheries, in recreational fisheries, in the bait shops, the support services, all across our state. that drought was was an equal destroyer of -- was an equal destroyer of this economy, norts
from south. -- from north to south. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule that we'll bring up h.r. 964, the federal price gouging prevention act. mr. andrews mentioned that rather than discussing this, why aren't we tackling the big issues of the day such as gas prices? my colleague from new york, mr. bishop, has a proposal to do just that. to talk about his proposal. i'll yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask the house to defeat the previous question so we can forward my bill that would an immediate impact on gas prices. leap day happens more than a republican plan. the republican leadership wouldn't help americans fight
rising gas prices i introduced a bill that this motion is modeled after to crack down on speculation which forces prices up artificially. this legislation makes it illegal to sell gasoline at excessive prices and prevents big oil from taking advantage of consumers by manipulating prices. this is real help for consumers in a tough economy. domestic oil output is the highest it's been for eight years. in fact, we've become an net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all we produce, and it's clear speculators are behind the spiking prices. they will never take delivery of oil but they make up 64% of the market. when spick lators place their bets that prices will rise, it follows that actual prices will rise. they have for 21 straight days. in that time the average price per gallon went up 60 cents in my district. still, the republican leadership has yet to address market manipulation or turn off the spigot of subsidies for big oil which made a record high $137 billion in profits last
year and that's up 75% from the profits they realized in 2010. we could invest in an energy plan that further expands domestic production, develops renewable sources and forges a long-term strategy that weens us off middle eastern oil and protects consumers from rising gas prices over the long run. mr. speaker, let's make a leap to support american families by striking at the heart of rising gas prices. to that end i urge my colleagues to support this motion. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. speaker. i want to talk about two issues here one of which was discussed by my colleague from california which is the bill that will be up later this afternoon. while the rule allows for amendments, some of the amendments are not -- that were proposed are not going to be
before us. specifically this bill is a blatant attempt to do two things. one, steal 800,000 acre-feet of water and transfer it to heavily subsidized farmers on the west side of the san joaquin valley and secondly, completely overrule and override state law. and that's why i suppose states such as colorado, montana and new mexico, oregon, wyoming and the western states' water council, which is composed of the representatives of the governors of 16 western states are all opposed to this bill. this is a terrible precedent. if you care about your state's ability to control their own destiny insofar as water is concerned, you do not want this bill to pass because it is a blatant attempt by the west side farmers to simply grab water and take total control of the california water system.
all of the environmental laws of the state of california, and it overrides the state's constitution. i cannot think of a worst policy for everyone to be supporting if you care anything at all about sfates' rights. in addition to that, the bill total low destroys the efforts that jb under way to solve the -- efforts that have been under way to solve the problem. there is 600,000 acre-feet stolen and delivered to the water contracts. for that it should be defeated. about accomplish on's attempt to have his bill heard on this floor, not a bad idea. and consider for a moment there are 26 million gallons of gasoline exported from the united states every day. something's wrong when that's occurring at the same time we're finding higher and higher gas prices. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado continues to reserve. the gentleman from utah is recognized.
mr. bishop: thank you. i'd remind the body once again that nine out of the 10 amendments that were presented were made in order. the one not made in order was a question as to the germaneness. i yield to the gentleman from california who has a germane amendment that will be debated later on the floor, the gentleman from california, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you. appreciate the opportunity to talk on this. not only in support of the rule but in support of the bill. this is something we've went through in committee with very great debate. mr. denham: we debated this in the state of california for many, many years if not decades now. but to have members from california come down to the floor and say this is mindless, this is anything but mindless. these are jobs. you know, when you go down to dennis cardoza's district and see 30% unemployment, down to jim costa's area to see 20%,
30% unemployment, in fire fall or over in mendoda, mindless? come down and talk to the people in our district and tell them their jobs are mindless, that their homes are mindless, that their cars they are having to give up are mindless. these are farm workers, these are individuals, these are farmers that are -- we're seeing their families destroyed right now. not mindless. and they're certainly not special interests. come down to these districts. we invite the president on a bipartisan basis. come see the central valley and the challenges that we have. see how when the water is shut off how we see our farms destroyed. absolutely this has impact to the rest of the nation. if you want -- you want a reliable food supply. make sure we have reliable water delivery and that's simply all this does. you know, anytime that we talk about water throughout the
nation or certainly throughout california, it becomes a battle. you know, a lot is talked about pre-1994 when a deal was a deal. that deal hasn't been changed by the farmers. that deal has been changed by members of congress that have preempted states' water rights. we want a deal. we want a deal every year. we wanted an agreement that says if you're going to have a contract for 100% of your water you actually get 100% of your water, but this year, because we had a lack of storage last year on the wettest of water years in california, this year we're going to have a 30% water allocation. we're still going to pay 100% of the costs of the contract, but have 30% of the water, which means once again we will see 30% unemployment in jim costa's district, in dennis cardoza's district, in my district and many of the districts throughout the central valley. so before you start to ignore many of our agriculture acres and many of the jobs that go with it, let's come together in
a bipartisan fashion as we've done at the committee level, as we've done elsewhere within the state by making sure that republicans and democrats are working together, but more importantly that the house and senate are working together. now, i give a great deal of praise to the author of the bill, congressman nunes, for getting a reasonable perspective from this, getting north and south and central california to actually work together. that is a tremendous accomplishment. but the bigger accomplishment is actually getting the senate and the house to work together. mr. bishop: additional 30 seconds. mr. denham: it's time we come up to a solution that avoids further costs, that avoids further delay, that avoids us having to continue to cut jobs in the central valley and in california. it's time to come to an agreement that will actually save the central valley and our farming industry and making sure we have certainty in water year in and year out. this bill will show the
priority of the house. if the senate has a different priority, let them show that, but the california public expects the house and the senate to work together just as we've come together in a bipartisan fashion on this bill, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker and members, you know, i think it was einstein said if you start with the wrong numbers in your equation you can never get to the correct solution. and what we just heard was a textbook perfect example of that. the idea that there's 30,000 to 60,000 lost jobs as a result of what's happening south of the delta, i don't know where those numbers came from. you -- you're certainly welcome to your own opinion but you are not welcomed to your own facts, and the facts tell a whole different story. if you look at what u.s.-davis
did, if you look at what the university of the pacific did, u.c.-berkeley, all those point to a loss associated with certain things. a loss of jobs associated with the drought. a loss of jobs associated with the endangered species, but these are in the hundreds or in the single digit thousands, not anywhere close to 30,000 or 60,000. we need to get this thing right and my friend from california was absolutely correct when he called for us to work together and that's exactly what we've been trying to do, to work together. this bill was crafted not with the stakeholders at the table. this bill was crafted in the per verbial back room with -- perverbial back room. none of us that had a legitimate dog in this fight were included in this. if this bill passes there will be thousands of jobs lost. there will be north of the delta.
there will be farming jobs, there will be fishery jobs, there will be all kinds of jobs associated with the economy north of the delta. you can't come forward that has winners and losers in the marketplace without bringing everybody to the table to work on that. that's what this bill does, it creates winners and losers and chooses south of the delta in expense to jobs north of the delta. i urge this be defeated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i it's hard to measure jobs when you are thirsty. if one job is cost because of bad federal behavior that is one job too many. i'd be happy to yield to my friend from florida, mr. diaz-balart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. diaz-balart: i am glad you mixed that. it's not maybe x thousands of
jobs that will be lost. it will be x hundreds of jobs that will be lost. did i hear that? i just did. rarely do you hear such a reckless and immoral disregard for american families, for american farmers, for american farm workers, for hardworking people than we have what bill is trying to solve in a bipartisan way because this does have bipartisan support. i keep hearing about all this, you know, these horrors, but wait a second. take a step back, mr. speaker. these are farmers who have been farming that very land for generations, for generations. this is not like they're trying to do something new. they've been doing this for generations. can you imagine the circumstances that the federal government steps in and says, no, we are going to cut off your water. you are not going to be able to farm and forget about those jobs, go do something else just because some bureaucrat someplace decides that he found a fish, all of a sudden, after these farmers have been there
for generations. you know, sometimes a little common sense has to prevail and sometimes a little moral sense has to prevail. let's stand up for the farmers who have been there for generations. let's stand up for the farm workers, the poorest, hardest working individuals who have been there for generations. let's say no to a federal government that thinks that, oh, just a few less jobs won't hurt, won't matter. this is grotesque. this is immoral. let's stand up together in a bipartisan way to stand up for american families, for american farmers like they deserve this congress to do for them. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire of the gentleman how many speakers he has remaining. mr. bishop: to be honest, i don't know. i know i have a speech and i may have another one coming down. mr. polis: i reserve the
balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: let me give myself a few minutes to be recognized. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: we met the farmers living in this particular area. i heard their anguish. i understand their anger. their ability to make a living was being prohibited while we in congress simply talked about unrealistic concepts. they were living in pain while we continued to talk and actually our actions and talking were causing that particular pain. this bill is about trying to help people. this is time to put people in the forefront and put our ideology behind so we can solve a problem that has been caused by us. actually, mr. speaker, i'll yield -- i'll take what time i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. this effort is to put forward legislation that creates harms that are inflicted by extreme, completely unbalanced federal regulations which too often seem to favor a narrow special
interest group constituency as compared to a balanced approach to protect our environment while considering jobs and the needs of real human people. as many have been said already, our colleagues put together a program which unfortunately is causing massive unemployment in the san joaquin valley, causing thousands of acres of which were the most productive farmland to go fallow and risk turning this productive area turning into a dust bowl, causing erosion. these are environmental and economic impacts that were not considered in the federal government's original decision but ought to have been and should be considered now. the unfortunate reality the california central valley is one place where our actions and other regulations have had a negative impact on the country leaving those farmers in danger but also affecting all of us. if you are an artichoke lover, which i am not, 98% of those that sold in the supermarket are raised in the san joaquin
valley area of california. for those that enjoy wal nuts or almonds and garlic, 90% of that comes from the central valley of california. nectarines is raised in the central valley of california. manmade's drought does not only affect central california, it touches us each and every way. when we go to the grocery store and take a look at where those products are coming, there's a pretty good chance it's coming from california's central valley. you can have a complete food group coming out of the 10 square mile area in the central valley of california. as prices continue to rise for fresh produce of all kinds, you can be assured that some of the main drivers of those increased costs come from a combination of skyrocketing fuel costs under this administration's poor domestic energy production policies as well as less
domestic food caused by this water diversion. sadly in recent years, since the federal water takings, more and more produce has found its way from other foreign sources to replace what should have been produced in our particular country. this bill addresses that problem. in a positive way. by reinstates water rights to farmers, from water that was unjustly taken away by federal regulations. that, mr. speaker, i -- with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i inquire of the gentleman if any additional speakers have shown, presented themselves on that side? mr. bishop: i think i'm the last one. mr. polis: ok. then i'm prepared to close. and i will yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the previous question into the record, along with extraneous material.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: thank you. my colleagues, mr. bishop has brought forth something that i think is an important national issue, that my constituents have certainly been calling me about and i know that there has been concern from across the country about rising gas prices and if we defeat the rule and the previous question, we will be able to immediately bring forth mr. bishop's bill and a discussion about price gouging in gas prices. mr. speaker, this bill sets a dangerous precedent for preempting state water rights, leaving other states vulnerable to federal interference. this bill is opposed by the state of california, california's two senators, the leaders of both legislative houses, commercial and recreational fishing associations, water districts, local government in the california -- and the california bay delta farmers. this override as bipartisan
local settlement to restore the san joaquin river that ended 18 years of costly litigation and uncertainty. this bill guts the review process for water projects in california's central valley and eliminates science-based protections for many species required unt both california law and -- required under both the california law and the federal species act. there's no reason to support legislation that has a myriad of unintended consequences, is an attack on certainty and on issues that should be decided frankly by states and stakeholders. h.r. 1837 would eliminate desperately needed protections for fisheries, threatening thousands of fishing jobs and millions of dollars in income that sustains families. as evidenced by the impacts seen during the first ever closures of california fisheries in 2008 and dwine due to collapsing runs. this -- 2009 due to collapsing
runs. this bill is an attack on a century of state leadership on water law. and a dismissal of the consensus agreement that the people of california have reached without the needless meddling of this body. without those from other states being called upon to settle a california matter of water. mr. speaker, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. a bill theands up creating more problems for -- that ends up creating more problems for people. simply put, this bill is caughting off the nose to spite the face. my state alone with 17 others stand to get harmed over in the process, particularly by the dangerous precedent of federal second guessing of local water rights. if this were really about the delta smelt, then it should be drafted more narrowly. if this bill were really about jobs, taking into account the jobs of the salmon industry which the bill would designate. take those concerns to local stake hold -- decimate. take those concerns to local stakeholders and work out a solution that's in the best interests of californias.
-- california citizens. this bill is about scoring political points and sound bites. i urge my colleagues to join me on a no vote on the rule and the underlying bill and defeat the previous question. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. in addition to restoring agricultural productivity in this area, what has been referred to as america's salad bowel, this bill is a -- bowl, this bill is a comprehensive piece of legislation which would reduce federal spending by $300 million, by allowing certain water users presently obligated to repay federal loans on water projects in this area to repay thoy those loans early on a penalty-free basis. this is a bill that in addition, as we are facing unprecedented debt, this bill would stop wasteful spending, terminates over $1 billion in unproven and unnecessary federal spending projects, and it codifies the
historic, previously agreed upon bipartisan state and federal agreement known as the bay delta accord. it's pro-environment. by restoring warm water fish habitats. it also protects northern california water foul habitat and still helps those who are trying to make a leving -- fowl habitat and still helps those who are trying to make a living as farmers in this area. we always use comparatives at the drop of the hat or any other cliche you wish to use. if a bird flies over this capitol we will talk about it in sue per latives. we often do that. we talk about bills being so important. this case, i think they are appropriate. this is, this is -- this is a significant bill that is life and death for these farmers and it is unique, even though it deals with california, there is no other state that has this particular problem, but we are not setting any precedent for
anywhere else and i yield the balance of the time to the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the speaker of the house. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. i don't often come to the floor and speak on bills. but as i saw this bill coming up today, i thought to myself, here is a perfect example of government getting in the way. you know, i never thought in my wildest dreams i'd ever run for public office. ever seek the to come here to congress. but as a small businessman i was concerned about the ever-growing size of the federal government, the ever-growing reach of the federal government. i saw it in my own business, saw it with my suppliers and my customers. and out of that frustration i came here. because i thought government was too big, spent too much and was far too intrusive into our economy and frankly our set.
-- society. you look at this bill and it's a perfect example of the overreach of government. we've got a group of people in california who don't like production agriculture. i think that using water to grow crops, to feed the world is environmentally dangerous. and they're using a law for the endangered species law for what i would describe as an unintended purpose. they're using the law to shut down production of agriculture that they don't like and abusing a law that was created by this congress. it is wrong and it should not stand. secondly here we are in a country where the american people are asking, where are the jobs? the president says, he's doing everything he can to help create more jobs in america. well, here's the situation where we've got tens of thousands of
farmers and those who work on those farms in the central valley of california being denied the use of their own land , being denied the labor to feed their own families because someone is abusing the law. this is a good bill and let it pass. mr. bishop: reclaiming my time. i move the previous question and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it the resolution is adopted. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous
question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting the resolution if ordered and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241. the nays are 178. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. the gentleman from florida. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida requests a recorded vote. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 245. the nays are 117. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreag to the speaker's approval of the journal. -- agreeing to the spoferse -- speaker's approval of the journal. the aye vs. it. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.
this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 283. the nays are 127. two voting present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 1837. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
pursuant to house resolution 566 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1837. the chair appoints the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1837 and which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to address certain water-related concerns on the san joaquin river and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the
rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from california, mrs. napolitano, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of h.r. 1837, the san francisco-san joaquin aurora reliability act. my central washington district is heavily dependent on irgaited water to support my agriculture industry. i understand the importance of
having a stable, reliable water supply. i witness how government regulations and environmental lawsuits can create conflicts where people and jobs are the losers. however, mr. chairman, i have never seen anything like the economic devastation that california's san joaquin valley has -- has experienced as a result of policies that restrict water supplies and hurt this man-made drought. in 2009 federal relations to protect our endangered species tree inch fish led to the deliberate diversion -- mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: will the gentleman suspend? the house -- the committee is not in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. hastings: thank you very
much, mr. chairman. let me repeat. in 2009, federal regulations to protect the endangered tree inch fish led to the deliberate diversion of over 300 billion -- mr. chairman, 300 billion gallons of water away from the san joaquin valley farmers. this caused hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile farmland to dry up. it put thousands of people out of work and it caused unemployment to reach 40% in some communities. last april, the natural resources committee traveled to fresno for a field hearing where we heard directly from farm workers and valley growers who have been devastated and seen their livelihoods pushed to the brink by this man-made drought. we heard stories of farm workers who normally feed the nation be enforced to stand in food bank lines to receive handouts of carrots. carrots from china. mother nature temporarily rescued this region with historic prescription last year, but another man-made
drought is just around the corner if we do nothing. rain and snow levels have declined and just last week the federal government announced that the san joaquin valley farmers would receive only 30% of the initial water allocation for this year. this is unacceptable and if congress doesn't act now we'll once again see farm workers having to abandon the fields and return to the food lines. families and communities in california have waited far too long for congress to act. in 2009, mr. chairman, and in 2010, mr. chairman, while this man-made drought was devastating california, the obama administration and a democrat-led congress did nothing. republicans are ready to act today on a bipartisan legislation that will end this man-made drought and protect up to 330,000 jobs. this comprehensive solution would restore water deliveries that have been cut off due to federal regulations and environmental lawsuits. it will ensure a reliable water
supply for people and for fish and will secure waterways just generally and it will save taxpayer money by ending unnecessary and dubious government projects. i want to stress, mr. chairman, that this man-made drought just does not impact california but has rippling effects across the entire nation. california's san joaquin valley is the salad bowl for the world and provides a significant share of fruits and vegetables for our country. the inability of these farmers to do their job would lead negatively to increase reliance on foreign food sources. why, mr. chairman, would we want to do that? also, according to an official analysis by the nonpartisan c.b.o., this bill will repeal and reduce nearly $300 million in federal spending over the next 10 years while also generating nearly 250 million dollars in revenue. to repeat, this bill cuts
spending by $300 million and it increases revenue by a quarter of a billion dollars. this bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to end future machine has made droughts and to protect jobs and the economic livelihood of farm workers, and their families. i ask my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. chairman. i really applaud my colleague, doc hastings, with some of the statistics he was quoting, some of the farmers in the valley. there were misrepresentations which we'll clarify of the figures that were affected. unfortunately they were very far apart. that's just for the record. i'll be glad to give, mr. speaker, anybody that wants some later, but h.r. 1837, the
san joaquin valley water reliability act is anything but. it repeals existing state law as written for the use of the water, from the san joaquin river in the central valley. it is municipals, fisheries and environmental uses. if enacted, this would -- bill was emotionally aimed at california. believe me, mostly california. but it would set precedent as an unprecedented standard of state preemption, environmental disregard, privatization of a public resource for the benefit of a select few. and it could be, in my estimation, be named the barister employment act. state legislature said it best, this is the california state
legislature, 1837 has a complete disregard for the willful subrogation of the state of california for the whims of federal election. and may i point out, in the past my colleagues on the other side have asked for less intrusion of federal government, less federal government control, let the locals handle it. this would do it in the reverse. it would put it in the hands of the federal government to have them not re-- despite amendments by the majority, it still acts to have sweeping negative changes for states' ability to manage water in the west. it amends the state constitution and undermines california's ability to manage its own resources. . it would repeal or overturn 20 yearsnd the cdpia and endangered species act which is normally on the attack from my friends on the other side. it repeals san joaquin restoration settlement act, a compromise widely supported by
all stakeholders. it also completely eliminates, quote, equal goals of protecting environment and allowing for water delivery. it puts jobs of fishermen at risk and the pacific fisheries management council has raised concerns on the impact of fishery and fishing communities. the fisheries were closed in 2008 and 2009 and parts of 2010. they had no fishing. the industry was lost to them. the water power received over 34 letters with nearly 300 stakeholders opposing this legislation. and that includes the western states water council, seven states, colorado, new mexico, wyoming, and others, the department of entirors and the statement of the administration policy. it is also senior senator and junior senator of california oppose this and the list goes on. elected officials, environmental groups, state legislature,
attorney generals offices, governors offices and letters from different state commissions, nonpartisan, 18 governor appointed western states water council. the scope of the provisions in this legislation is matched only by the number of necessary provisions left out. severity of the legislation, which benefits only a small group, not benefiting all of california. through a series of amendments my colleagues seek to address the glaring issues associated with the legislation. the subsidies reform, construction facilities, and at best -- use of best available science. mr. speaker, this is a bad bill and i urge a no vote. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that developed this legislation on the natural resources committee, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i compliment the gentlelady from california on stating the opposite of this bill with
remarkable precision. it cost not repeal 20 years of california water law. it restores it by restoring the allocation that was agreed to by a broad bipartisan coalition in the bay delta accords of 1994. in fact at the time the democratic interior secretary, bruce babbitt, assured all parties this agreement would be honored by the state and federal governments. his promise was broken first by his own department and most recently when a federal court deemed the delta smelt to be more important than the livelihoods of thousands of central vally farm workers. hundred -- valley farm workers. hundreds of billions of gallons of water that she's communities had already paid for and depended upon were simply expropriated and blissfully dumped into the pacific ocean turning much of california's fertile central valley into a dust bowl. this bill redeems the promise
made to the people of california and restores the allocations that were agreed to. that was then, this is now, and the science has changed. what they are referring to is not science, it is ideology masquerading as science. in 2010 their claims were thrown out of the federal court which cited ideological zealots who had attempted to, in the words of the court, quote, mislead and deceive the court into accepting what is not only not the best science, it's not science. the science is this. the northwest fishery science center determined specific oscillation as a principal factor in the migration. ocean currents. the california department of water resources determined that pumps which deliver water to the central valley had a negligible influence on salmon and delta smelt migration. the national academy of science has reported nonnative and
invasive predators like stripped bass are a far more -- have a for more influence. the second thing this bill does is replace the ideological zealotry that created this human disaster with practical and fact-based solutions to support native delta smelt and salmon populations. it's common to find stripped bass in the delta gorge with salmon solets and delta smelt. this bill allows open season on these destruct yuff, invasive, and non-- destructive, invasive, and nonnative predators. fish hatcheries produces millions of smoltz each year, but these fish are not allowed to be counted. this bill counts them assuring hatcheries will produce populations of salmon and delta smelts and other species considered endangered. the san joaquin river settlement act envisions an absurdly
impatriot act particularal year-round cold water salmon fishery on the hot valley floor at an estimated cost of $2 million per individual fish. that act was adopted by the democrats two years ago when they controlled this house. it is so expensive because it attempts to establish something that only existed sporadically in nature. instead, this bill establishes a year-round warm water fishery that acts in concert with the habitat at a fraction of the cost. third, the bill removes disincentives in current law that discourage farmers from purchasing surplus water in wet years to recharge ground water banks. it removes prohibited regulatory restrictions on water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers which once had efficiently distributed water throughout that system from areas of surplus to areas of shortage. it allows environmental flows to be recycled and used by human communities once those flows have achieved their environmental purposes.
fourth, it brings the full force of federal law to invoke and protect state water rights and forbid their violation by any bureaucracy, local, state, or federal. in fact, this provision specifically addressed concerns raised by the opponents to the original bill who feared that because of the unique joint operating agreement between the state and federal governments that changes in federal allocations could lead to raids on senior water rights holders by the state government. this provision fully addresses those concerns through the federal government's legitimate constitutional authority in the 14th amendment to protect the property rights of its citizens against encroachment by any government bureaucracy. this is the preemption issue that the opponents are raising. they are some of the same opponents who attacked the original bill for not protecting those rights. this bill doesn't preempt those rights, it specifically invokes
them and protects them. it brings to an end the predation on the working people of california. places senior water rights holders in a safe and secure position and treats our water as the precious resource it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: i yield to mr. garamendi of california. four minutes. mr. garamendi: i thank you. one hardly knows where to start when you take california water law and push it aside and preempt it with federal water law, really running over the top of the state of california and then you steal 800,000 acre-feet and transfer it to your buddies. yes, you are going to come up with a lot of reasons why it makes sense, but the reality is quite different. let us understand very clearly here that 150 years of california water law is thrope out -- thrown out and a new
federal law is put in place that preempts california water law. the 1994 cal fed agreement was an interim agreement. it was never, ever intended to be a permanent statutory agreement on how water would be delivered in california. in addition to that, let me understand, yes, i see your little chart over there that you're going to throw up, that was 1994 and it said precisely what we ought to do today. and that is today we ought to be working together to solve the problems of california water. guess what? california is. but with this law in place it won't happen. the ability of california to work together to solve its problems are thrown out. what sense does that make unless you want to steal 800,000 acre-feet of water and take an agreement that was forced over 20 years to solve a problem on the san joaquin river that is not for year-round salmon flows
but only for the spring salmon flows, why would you want to do that except you want to take somebody's water. the water is the water of the fishermen as well as the farmers. by the way, facts are ugly little things. there was no 30,000 people that lost their job. no 60,000 people that lost their jobs. the university of california berkley, university of california-davis, and university of pacific all say that the losses were less than 7,000, which almost equal the losses -- >> would the gentleman yield on that point? mr. garamendi: not yet. at the end of this. when we get to the end of the story it will be a story for the rest of the nation. if you happen to be a western state, midwestern state that has a federal water project from the bureau of reclamation, beware, beware because this is the first ever attempt to throw aside 100 years of reclamation law in which deference is given to the states. over the power of their water
rights and their water laws. yes, you can say -- no, it does not deal with the totality of california water law. the bill destroys that totality. western states are owe posed to this. the -- opposed to this. the list has been given. other states, watch out. this is a power grab. this is a water grab. this is an imposition of the federal authority over the states and specifically over california. and, yes, mr. chairman, excuse me, if i might through the chair, you said that there is 100% water. no water district except those that preceded the federal project have 100% allocation. every other water district has shortage provisions in those water contracts. and by the way whatever power we may have, we don't have the power to overcome a natural drought. which is precisely what is
happening in california today and happened during the period that this bill speaks to. it was a natural drought. yes, there were restrictions placed on the pumps. restriction that is were necessary to protect an endangered species. by the way the judge you cited, the day after with 45 days after he quit, he took a job with the water contractor that is supporting this bill. figure it out yourself. figure out what's going on here. this is a theft of 800,000 acre-feet of environmental water. this is an overturning of california water law. and we ought not do it. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair would remind members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, before i yield to my -- the sponsor of this legislation, i yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out that the statistics i used as it relates to unemployment comes from fresno county. that is a county that is --
where all of this was impacted. the statistics that were cited by my friends across the aisle were from outside that area. the second point i want to make, i have letters here from 14 senators and 18 members of the california legislature and at the appropriate time i'll insert their letters in the record. at this time i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, and a gentleman who has been an absolute leader on bringing this to the national attention, mr. nunes from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. nunes: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to remind the gentleman from california facts are funny things. and the deputy undersecretary approved this bipartisan agreement in 1994. i remind the gentleman also i defended his rights, in the rules committee, i defended the right of the democrats to have all their amendments made in order. mr. speaker, when the federal government began to pass state
preemptions to take their water away, you can see here, mr. speaker, that right around this time up until this time we had full water allotment throughout california. yes, when there is a drought there are a few years where we didn't have water. look at the chaos that has erupted since. this is an important point. so the congress by using state preemptions has managed to take water away from cities, communities, and families. now, they claim the opponents of this bill claim that somehow that the salmon population is decreasing. but we can see here in this graph at the bottom, i know it may be hard for some folks to see, but the water exports are here. the green represents total water that flowed into the delta throughout the last 25 years. the red line indicates salmon populations. and lo and behold there's no
correlation between the water inflowing the delta and salmon population, but i will agree that the salmon population has declined, and this bill begins to fix that problem. why? because the delta smelt and salmon are being eaten by predator fish that are nonnative to the delta. . again, strike that. nonnative to the delta. this is scientific evidence to show that the vast population has decreased, the smelt population has declined. and this bill rectifies this. this bill allows fishermen to fish, to fish for the nonnative species. so what this is about, we are shutting off -- off the water of californians and into their
families because of the delta smelt right here. and they talk a lot about these dangerous pumps that are pumping this water, these engineering projects that allow this valley to bloom, that have improved the environment over the time. less than 2% of the juvenile salmon is negligible in the pumps, but instead of looking for ways to stop this negligible impact, we allow the predator fish, the striped bass, to eat 65% to 90% -- say that again, 65% to 90% of the juvenile salmon are being eaten by this bass. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman one additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> and here we have evidence of this. you can see the bass, and i know it's gruesome for some folks at home, but here you have the smelt. inside the -- inside the bass.
but yet this government is allowing this nonnative species to eat the thing that they so love, the delta smelt. mr. nunes: so what's been the result, mr. speaker? food lines. food lines. in the breadbasket of the world , they used to grow the nation's carrots. we now import carrots from china to feed the people in the food lines. this is what this is about, mr. speaker. this is what this is about. these are children in a food line eating carrots imported from china. does this congress have a moral compass to do the right thing?
and i ask the chairman for an additional one minute. mr. hastings: recognize the gentleman for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nunes: children in food lines eating carrots imported from china. so, mr. speaker, we don't need a new fancy speeches here today. six grader from elementary school in my district -- and i won't read the whole thing -- but i will say this. he sent this letter. "not only does this problem affect the farming industry, it also affects the farmers, families and their livelihoods. i am sure you have heard this complaint, but before, as the future generations, it is a great concern to me. please do what you can to get the water to the farmers once again. then, we can use the fertile soil that people of this valley have been blessed with." this sixth grader is correct. this congress should do the right thing. we need democrats and republicans to come together today, as the speaker of the
house stated earlier, this is to right a wrong. and i urge passage of this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker, and i can't believe how many of these people that wrote letters and the stakeholders, including 105 fishing agencies be so wrong. i yield three minutes to mr. chairman markey. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. now, while this bill directly affects the state of california even though the state of california opposes the legislation, it is also opposed by representatives of the other western water interests -- the state of montana, the state of new mexico, the state of oregon, the state of wyoming, the state of colorado all join california in saying they don't want this bill. and why are they all saying that? well, they're saying it because
of the precedence that it will set in upsetting settled water rights in the west. now, to address that issue, the republicans have inserted in the bill language that says this bill does not set a precedent in upsetting all the water rights in the west as it upsets all the water rights in california. so what's that like? well, in 1929, the belgian surrealist painter, renee mc greet drew a tobacco pipe. and under the pipe he wrote "this is not a pipe," but, of course, it was a pipe, at least a painting of a pipe. and this bill has a similar surrealistic quality to it. the bill states that the violence of this bill in
upsetting water rights is not a precedent. nothing that happens in california will be a precedent for any other state. which is why because other states are opposing the bill because of the press presence in this bill others in the west who may wish to restructure water rights elsewhere in the west will look to it as a precedent. so i would say to the majority, nice job, but no cigar. clearly this bill does set a bad precedent, and we can't get around that fact just by putting in the bill that it does not set a precedent. you are for all intents and purposes taking all of those arrangements set up over generations and in one bill opposed by all those states upsetting the apple cart and setting a brand new era, and you cannot get around it by
saying in the bill this does not set a precedent. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i am very pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from northern california, an individual who unfortunately is leaving congress after this but has been a leader on property rights in that part of his state of california, mr. herger, 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i originally voted -- voiced strong concerns when this legislation was first introduced last year negatively impacting northern california's water supplies and undermine our senior water rights. but under chairman hastings' leadership, it has come a very, very long way. we have amends the bill so it not only protects northern california northern and power users i represent but in many
respects put them in a materially better position. as such, i intend to strongly support it. it contains important reforms to the cvia, a law like so many others have gone awry, including greater certainty for agriculture, improve financial accountability and a cap on the amount of ratepayers will pay. i put in must pay for the restoration fund. more importantly, a new title 4 contains an explicit federal recognition of california water rights priorities system, an area of origin protections. going forward, it will also ensure water users in our area are not harmed by efforts to address environmental and water quality challenges in
california. we have created an important baseline for any water legislation to ensure northern california's water needs will be met first. there is broad support for these provisions including from the tehema canal authority representing 17 water districts, the northern california water association, eight absolute priority settlement contractors, the city of reding, reding electric utility and the family water alliance, a group representing sacramento valley landowners. in short, the bill seeks to solve another tragic e.s.a. cause water shortage facing our family farmers in california, and it does so while fully protecting senior water right holders in my district and in many ways enhancing their positions.
i urge a strong support, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 3 1/2 minutes to mr. costa from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. costa: i thank the gentlewoman. mr. speaker, i rise to discuss a man of great importance to my -- matter of great importance to the future of northern california. it's our water supply. an important part of the world's food supply. h.r. 1837 is not perfect. it has issues. i -- it has issues i think the authors should consider. i am supporting this today because of the number of important provisions it contains. title 1 aims to address the biggest challenges the water supply in california. in 2009 and 2010, valley communities suffered through a hydrological and regulatory drought that was insufferable. this year we are again faced
with below-average snow pack in the mountains and may see as much as a 30% allocation for water in our area. my congressional district is the most impacted in california by this shortfall. farmers, farm workers and farm communities that live in my district is what i'm talking about. our water system is broken in california. but while we're trying to fix it we need operational flexibility. while we continue to work on the long-term issues of the bay-delta conservation plan. we should be discussing more constructive ways we can work together. title 2 of this measure repeals and replaces the san joaquin river restoration act. well, after 18 years of litigation, the parties involved decided to reach an out-of-court settlement agreement. we can all dispute that, but it was those 22 districts, local governments, that we were expected them to codify their out-of-court settlement agreement. i know the water district
authority continues to oppose title 2 of the bill. as do many of the districts who were involved with the writing and the negotiation of the settlement agreement. now, we do have problems with the implementation of the program. congressman cardoza and i will tell you to the fulfillment of the water management goal which is critical to the water users, these issues need to be addressed. but simply repealing the settlement agreements will not solve these problems, in my view. i think they will be back in court the next day and that's not solving the problem. we have had a long history of working in a bipartisan basis in california and in the san joaquin valley among our representatives on water. it frustrates me to see the division on the house floor that has politicized this situation and arguably does nothing for the people that i represent. i have always been willing to work on both sides of the aisle, with the senate, with the administration to get
things done for our valley, and i have done it throughout my career. but unless we are willing to work with senator feinstein and i know is going to be helpful, i suspect this will never be heard in the united states senate. therefore, we will never bring an additional single drop of water to a region that desperately needs more water. i think we can do better for our constituents by working together in a bipartisan basis with both houses to develop and implement solutions both in the long term and the short term. these are the efforts that really will increase our water supply which all californians need and deserve to have. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, how much time on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 5 -- 12 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentlelady from california has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington.
mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield three minutes to a new member from california who represents part of this area that has been devastated and who's helped implement this, mr. denham. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. denham: a lot has been said about our area of the rate, where you have 30%, 40% unemployment in some areas. it's not a republican issue, it's not a democrat issue. it's an american issue. they say it's a dusty, dirty way to earn a living. yeah. it is dusty. it is dirty. i am a farmer. without water you not only shut down my farms, you shut off farms throughout the valley, you shut off our food supply, you shut off those jobs that desperately rely on water. people say a deal is a deal. back in 1994 we had this grand deal, and that took cvpia
water, took water. the deal was that water was supposed to be replaced. the department of interior never did that. 800,000 acre-feet of water. we have to make sure our valley farmers are held whole. let me talk a different of issues in this bill. this is about our priorities as the house. the senate may or may not agree with them. but we'll never know if we don't have the debate. shouldn't the senate at least have an opportunity to look at this bill and vote on the bill and debate the bill? if they don't like the bill, present us your own. but don't just ignore the valley farmers. don't just ignore the amount of jobs that we're losing as a state. you don't like it, have a bill and we'll debate on that. but we're going to express our priority. and our priority is about the jocks in the central valley, we're going -- jobs in the central valley. we're going to send you a bill
that deals with greater water certainty but also deals with duplicative regulation. whether it's the resources committee on the transportation committee, when you have a higher environmental law, like california does, why go through these same environmental policies twice? why not streamline nepa so you don't have that duplicative regulation that shuts down our water projects? and while we're at it, we can fight all we want on where the water that we currently have is delivered or who wins and who loses. but we lose as a state, we lose as a country until we get more water storage. we put an amendment in this bill in committee that will authorize new water storage, whether it's in my area. but we have to have more offstream storage. and an area in congressman garamendi's own district, in his own backyard, we can have water storage today without any cost to the federal taxpayers.
we've got users that are willing to pay for more water storage and the water's desperately needed. why wouldn't we approve those projects? that's authorized in this bill. this bill deals with certainty. this does deal with a number of years of a problem and it certainly deals with drought years as well as certainty in wet years. but it also deals with greater water storage. so if you want to end this debate once and for all, let's make sure we keep up with the population growth of california, let's have greater water storage and let's solve this problem so that we don't have the double-digit unemployment in the central valley. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i must mention that california agriculture had the biggest year in that period. in the billions more than they had in prior years during this drought. so with that i'd like to yield three minutes to mr. mcnerney from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, someone needs to stand up and defend the delta.
i'm standing to express my strong opposition to h.r. 1837. this legislation will do tremendous damage and harm to the san joaquin delta and the area that i'm honored to represent. the san joaquin delta is a treasure for california and the entire nation. the delta flows through five counties and sustains major cities, small towns and lush farmland. agriculture is the economic backbone of the delta, generating nearly 800 -- $8 mun approximately per year -- $800 million per year in revenue in 2009. unfortunately the delta ecosystem is now in decline due to excessive water shipments to the south. poor water quality is a threat to the region's entire agricultural economy and heritage. h.r. 1837 would even ship more water out of the delta, turning this precious aft wear into a -- astuary into a salty, stagnant marsh, crushing the local economy and costing the delta
region thousands and thousands of jobs. this bill is a blatant bill to help some communities at the expense of others. contrary to the conservative principles that this bill's proponents claim to cherish, h.r. 1837 uses the power of the federal government to undermine states' rights. dozens of local governments, businesses, agricultural advocates, environmental groups and others oppose h.r. 1837. i have letters from these groups and i request unanimous consent to enter them into the record. the chair: the gentleman's request will be considered under general leave. the gentleman may continue. mr. mcnerney: h.r. 1837 would devastate my entire region, but folks from other states should also oppose this bill. with little debate and complete disregard for the consequences, this bill sets a dangerous precedent so that the federal government can undermine state
water laws developed over decades. your state could be next. this bill is a shameful attempt to rewrite california water laws, to benefit a few selected water users, regardless of how much harm is done to other parts of the states. democrats and republicans should stand united in our desire to block this legislation from becoming law. i urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to oppose h.r. 1837. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, another member from the west, chairman of the western caucus, that knows this issue very well. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1837. the nation has s faced with trillion-dollar deficits, persistence unemployment above
8% and we continue to use the federal government to kill jobs and export them to china. you can take a look at what the president recently did regarding keystone pipeline. you can look at the export of the rare earth mineral mines to china. but this is the one that is most offensive, this exporting of our agricultural products. san joaquin valley used to place vegetables, safe vegetables grown in america, on store chevys across the country. today we import -- shelves across the country. today we import vegetables from countries that use pesticides that are disallowed here. we have an unsafe food supply, we have more people out of work and we have deficits because we don't have tax paying citizens. this bill simply is a commonsense bipartisan solution that puts people back to work, provides a safe food supply and makes america more sound. it's common sense, we should vote for it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california.
mrs. napolitano: i'm sorry, i lost track of this one. i'd like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to mr. thompson from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. thompson: mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this jobs killer act that ignores more than 20 years of established science. tens of thousands of people depend on the bay delta for their livelihoods. including many farmers, fishermen and sportsmen who contribute billions of dollars to our economy every year. sadly the sponsors of this bill are using the legislation to create winners and losers by preempting california state law. this bill would take water from folks in northern california for use in california's central valley. this means even less water to sports fishermen and to commercial fishermen, the basis of two thriving industries in our state. the pacific coast federation of fishermen's association strongly opposes the bill.
they estimate that over 25,000 jobs were lost in the salmon fishing industry due to the 2008 and 2009 closures. the american sports association shows that california's economy suffered $1.4 billion in loss each year that the salmon fishery season is closed. if this bill becomes law, these jobs will be lost forever and the economic losses would be permanent. appropriate amounts of water are also critical to support the economies for wildlife associated recreation. in california 7.4 million sportsmen contribute over $8 billion to the economy every year. without water, many of these hunting, fishing and wildlife watching activities will be lost. more than 200 sportsmen's organizations have written to express their opposition to this bill. these men and women recognize the extreme consequences of this measure. mr. speaker, i'd like to insert
this letter that i have signed by those over 200 organizations into the record. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. you may proceed. mr. thompson: that's 200, that's more than the 12 or 14 members of the state legislature that wrote you a letter. in the end, h.r. 1837 is nothing more than an attempt by well-funded water contractors to steal water from other users with no regard for the fishers, sportsmen, the farmers north of the delta, the families and the businesses who depend on their delta for their livelihood. it guts environmental protections and kills local jobs. it should be rejected and solutions to california's water challenges should be based on strong and sound science and it should be done with all of the stakeholders at the table, not in the backroom. so please join me in over -- and
over 100 outdoor and fishing organizations and the western states water council to protect northern california. i ask for 30 more seconds. mrs. napolitano: 15 more seconds. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. thompson: thank you. the western states water council to protect northern california from political agendas that harm our economy, wildlife and the people. vote no on this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, before i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, here are a number of organizations that have written in support of this legislation on both sides of these pages. and at the appropriate time i too will insert them in the record to show that there is broad, broad support for this legislation and i now am pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. royce. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i must say, for those of us that have seen this with our own eyes, that saw the devastation
in the central valley, we know for a fact that when the ac we duct pumps in california -- that when the pumps in california were slowed, when that water came to a halt because of the orders and opinions issued by the -- partly by the obama administration, what we saw was devastation. and we saw the worst of it in 2010. over a million acres of water were lost. tens of thousands of jobs were destroyed. in our state. the unemployment rate, my friends, in some of these central valley towns reached 40%. and those signs that i saw along the i-5 when i was going up to take a look at this, they told a certain story and these were written by farmers. no water equals no jobs. you go down the highway, food grows where water flows but there was no food growing -- the
devastation was incredible. my personal favorite, new dust bowl created by congress. this legislation would bring some sanity back to this process. by restoring water deliveries to the levels agreed upon in the 1994 bay delta accords between california and the federal government, this bill could bring back 30,000 jobs. and it would save millions of acre feet of water. we should have been -- which have been sent to the ocean. listen, my friends, this is a manmade problem, it's going to take legislation to fix. this bill will fix it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. and, yes, i too also toured the area and the devastation was very severe. and i wish some of the areas find another way to be able to find employment because this is a chronic unemployment circle, if you will, for years, for decades. it isn't just new.
i yield to mr. grijalva, the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 1837, the san joaquin valley water reliability act. this legislation repeals existing state law and frankly leave noes state safe. if enacted -- leaves no state safe. if enacted, this would set an unpress dentsed standard of state preemption -- unprecedented standard of state preemption. i'm concerned that the opposition to this legislation, over 300 stakeholders, over seven states, the nonpartisan western states water council, various attorney generals from new mexico to other states have voiced their concern about the preemption and the concern about the intrusion into what has traditionally been a state's right in terms of water
management. if enacted this unprecedented action would be a precedent that brings many states' water settlements into question. in my state, arizona, where a diverse set of stakeholders, water users, indian tribes, municipalities -- knew miss it pallets, the federal -- municipalities, the federal government were involved in lengthy years in reaching water agreements, to try to balance the use of water in our state. they were crafted, they were difficult, they were delicate, but agreement happened and now those are now being implemented throughout the state. it raises questions about that difficult process, particularly when you have tribal governments involved in these negotiations and are part of the settlement. issues of sovereignty, states' rights, preeminent in this question. i urge a vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield three
minutes to the distinguished majority whip, another gentleman for california who has seen the effects of what this man made drought has -- manmade drought has. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman hastings for his work in committee and i'd also like to thank the subcommittee chairman and the author of this bill for their work. in california there's a saying. whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting. and for too long we've been fighting about water. for too long this manmade drought in california has been ignored. we know today that stops. i am excited about it stopping today because you are going to hear a lot of arguments on both sides. that's why we're supposed to debate on the floor of the house. you know this saying we always yearn for, that we always taught our children, you keep
your bond, you come into a debate when you make your point, but when you come to an agreement you keep it. simply put, what does this bill do? this bill simply says an agreement is an agreement. when both sides sat down from the bay area delta accord. why was it name that? because people from the bay area and from the delta had discussions, had fights, had policy arguments and they finally came to an agreement. now, who was on what side? was it all just based upon a farmer or just based upon environmentalists? no. there was the clinton administration. there was the pete wilson in the state. he was governor at the time. there were farmers. there were environmentalists. mr. speaker, there was people in the administration and even members of this chamber today spoke in support of this. so if you made an agreement then, why do you want to break it?
and because what the man-made drought has done, if you ever examined the pain it has caused? i know people when they think of california, sure, you think of silicon valley. you think of hollywood. you think of san diego. well, you know what, there's this whole area in the valley and when you stop and talk about the area of the valley, you know what my district is? my district is from the grapes of wrath. caesar chavez is buried in my district. you know what i see from my district, 30%, 40% unemployment. i saw people standing in line. i am very proud of the district i represent. there are two families in my district that grow 80% of all the coyotes in the country. but because of this man-made drought where people are lined up to get food at the food bank, they were getting carrots, but were they getting carrots from america? no.
they were getting carrots from china. from china. the breadbasket of america. you know, that all ends today, and it ends with a bipartisan agreement that america craves for us to find. you know what, in the bay-delta accord, i didn't get everything that i would represent philosophically. the other side didn't as well. but you know the greatest thing about america is the rule of law. if we make an agreement we should stick to the agreement and simply put that's what this bill does and ends the man-made drought. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd love to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. cardoza. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from california has eight minutes remaining and the gentleman from washington has 3 3/4 minutes remaining. ms. knapp thank you. mr. cardoza.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cardoza: i rise in support of my legislation. this bill like so many others we vote on is far from perfect. however, i'll support this bill because of many provisions, important provisions for my valley within it. mr. chairman, water is absolutely critical to the economy in the san joaquin valley, the valley i love. without an adequate water supply, agricultural fields go fallow and entire communities can be laid to waist -- laid to waste. no one understands this more than my friend, mr. costa, my friend from the valley. we have both fought for water for our entire career for our people. in fact last year he and i introduced legislation to provide operational flexibility in the implementation of the endangered species act for water deliveries for the central valley project. unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle haven't felt the importance of holding a hearing on that bill. titles 1 and 3 of this legislation aim to address the flawed regulations that have
reduced our vital water deliveries to my friends and neighbors throughout the valley. i have no reservations in supporting those provisions and recommend to my colleagues a yes vote on these provisions and on the other side, i commend them for introducing these provisions. when it comes to title 2 of this bill, which calls for the repeal and replaces the san joaquin river restoration act, i'd like to mention this was a locally requested and locally championed piece of legislation to end an 18-year lawsuit. and although i had serious reservations when this bill was first introduced, i supported the solution when it was -- came through this house and i will say now that the implementation of this act, as it's been done by the administration, has left a lot to be desired. i have significant further reservations with the san joaquin restoration program and it is recently become clear
that those views that i expressed during its formation are coming to pass. the restoration is far too costly, and its schedule is advancing in a way that landowners adjacent to the new flows are being damaged. despite this, just simply saying to remove the agreement that's been put in place is not the answer. we don't need to repeal it. we need to repair it. particularly when the only thing that repeal accomplishes is a continuation of a lawsuit that prompted the legislation in the first place. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'll reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from northern california, mr. miller. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: i thank the
gentlewoman for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to this legislation. let us understand what's faking place here. in california for the first time in 40 years all of the various water parties have gotten together to try to work out these disagreements and to come up with a sustainable water policy that serves all the needs of all californians, agriculture, manufacturing, municipal uses, the environmental uses, all that together. it's blessed by the state legislature for the first time passed historic legislation empowering the negotiations to take place, to take care of the despair ate interest. there are those threatening to walk out of the room. they are going to walk out, walk out, walk out. they walked out and came back to washington, d.c. to cut a separate deal. these are among the largest water users in the state. these are among the most heavily subsidized users in the state. one of our conservative friends on the other side was complaining about the deficit when he started to talk on this bill.
these are people that are getting $400 million interest-free loan from the taxpayers in this country. these are the people that get $400 million in subsidies every year from the taxpayers of this country. and what do they do? in this bill they have an earmark. you gave them 40 years and get at least $400 million a year from the taxpayers of this country. that's not on top of the crop subsidies. insurance payments, disaster payments. this is just in subsidized water that goes to these people who are crying poor and the largest users of this side want two negotiations. one in california and one in washington, and to do that they want to overturn the california law, the california legislature, the supreme court decisions and the science. we'll go back in time 18 years and say this science is good
enough, but the heart of this, more than water, is money and the money sits there and it flows with the water. every drop of water that goes to the st. louis unit and others is subsidized. and right now they only have a year-to-year contract. they have a 20-year contract possibly through this agreement. you give them 40 years and then 40 years in perpetuity, $400 million a year times perpetuity. you figure out what this earmark's worth. you figure out what this special team's worth. you want to know who's driving this process? it's those very, very special interests that are moving this process. and apparently they can move our friends on the other side to overturn supreme court decisions. they can overturn the state legislature. they can overturn these negotiations. you know there used to be saying a around here that says it takes some skill and talent to build a barn but any damn fool can kick it down. what these people decide is they are going to kick over those negotiations in california. those negotiations of people
who invested in a huge amount of time, talent from the legislature to the agencies to the farmers to the environmentalists to our cities, our counties, all of whom opposes this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: before i yield to the author of this legislation, i want to point out this bill came out of committee with bipartisan support and we had bipartisan debate for this bill. i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. denham: -- mr. nunes: i would say the gentleman from california, i hope he read the bill because he claims about the subsidies but in fact this bill gets rid of the subsidies. this bill returns almost $300 million to the treasury. we agree we want to get rid of the subsidies, we want to cut the deficit. that's what this bill does. and so i didn't quite understand what he was talking about about tearing down farms. but i would say that the
gentleman's legislation that was passed with a senator from new jersey and a congressman from california to preempt state law has been very successful at tearing apart farms and families. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. nunes: if i could get 15 more seconds, mr. chairman. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: as many will say, secretary of interior, bruce babbitt, made a deal with republican governor, pete wilson. a deal is a deal. the only problem was is there was some dishonest brokers at the table that never went to congress to get this implemented. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: may i inquire of the speaker how much time is left? the chair: the gentlelady from california has 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has 2 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: what?
mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am prepared to close when she has done -- mrs. napolitano: i have one more speaker. do you? mr. hastings: i am the last speaker. mrs. napolitano: reclaiming my time. i say i will take a moment and then turn it over to mr. dare mendy. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the gentlelady, counting herself, has two speakers? mrs. napolitano: correct. mr. hastings: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: mr. chairman, i'd like to introduce into the record a listing of local officials, newspapers, 18 water district, local government, 103 environmentalists, the list goes on, for the record. the chair: the gentlelady's request will be covered under general leave. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask my colleagues on both sides what this bill will do. i now yield the time to mr. garamendi for closing.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. speaker. if you know california water you know that we can get pretty wound up about it, and the solution for california water is not to be found in this particular piece of legislation. the facts are difficult things to deal with but they are facts. there has been no man-made drought. there was a very real drought. in response to that there were restrictions on the pumping. the principal advocates of this bill have the shortest straw. they came lost in line, and therefore, they're not first. they are last, and their contract provided for shortage provisions for a variety of reasons. among them, droughts and environmental restrictions. so they should have planned for that. apparently they did not. the losses to the agriculture community were significant, to be sure, but at the same time
the agricultural community in the central valley prospered. having the best years to any previous year that occurred during this drought period. certain farmers were shorted, no doubt about that, but they had a contract that called for those shortages. now, let us understand that this bill has profound implications on every state, some 21 states that have contracts with the bureau of reclamation. this bill, should it pass and become law, is a signal to every state that you cannot count on state law allocating the water within your district. instead, it will be congress that will allocate the water within your state. that is a profound change. 100 years of reclamation law are pushed aside by this piece of legislation. and for the state of california, it is a total preemption of state law, a total preemption of state law and state constitution is
pushed aside. there is within the california constitution a thing called the public trust. the legislature and the government of california holds in trust for the people of california the water of california and this legislation pushes that aside and gives that water to a very special group. the chair: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, am i correct to assume that all their time has expired? the chair: all time has expired for the gentlelady from california. mr. hastings: in that case, mr. chairman, i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: there is much discussion on the floor about preemption. in fact, the previous speaker emphasized that in his close. i am from a western state. i am from washington. if anybody that should be cautious about preemption it is certainly me. and i say that because i represent an area that has two over half a million acre -- half a million acre a year districts so i understand about
preemption and western water law. in the context of today's debate, the california water system is very unique. here we have a massive federal system, the central valley project, and a massive state water probably called the state water project and it separates as one -- operates as one combined unit. and this is what's very important, mr. chairman. the coordinated approach was requested by the state and codified by the federal government in 1986. that's when water law was preempted. they asked for it in 1986. in 1992 it was further preempted by amendments to the law in the central valley project of 1992. so what we did in committee is that we offered an amendment that was adopted. and let me read the amendment, by two men. and it says, and i quote, congress finds and declares that, one, coordinator operations between the central
valley project and the state water project previously requested, like i said, and consented to by the state of california and the federal government require assertion of federal supremacy to existing water rights throughout the system. that's in california. and, two, these circumstances are unique to california, therefore nothing in this act shall serve as a precedent to any other state, end quote. when we offered that amendment everybody on our side of the aisle voted for it. only four on their side of the aisle, when they had an opportunity to make sure preemption wouldn't happen, they voted no. you can't have it both ways, mr. chairman. so with that i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate is expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee
print 112-15. that amendment in the nature of a substitute should be considered as he read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-405. each such amendment may be offered only in order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house rule 112-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 566, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr.
chairman. this amendment addresses two concerns that have been raised by opponents of the bill during the committee markup and here on the floor today. a great deal of time during that markup and more today was spent addressing concerns that the bill provides for 40-year contracts that can be renewed each year. the minority charged that this amounts to de facto privatization of a public resource. well, we have tried over and over to explain to them that 40-year successive renewal contracts are the rule in western water law and the 25-year provision for the central valley project was actually the exception. indeed, the c.b.p. used to operate with a 40-year provision until that was changed in 1992. this amendment makes it absolutely crystal clear, i certainly hope, that the contract provisions for the central valley project must be in conformity with the act of july 2, 1956, that amended the reclamation project's act of
1939. these provisions govern all reclamation projects throughout the western university -- united states and treats the c.b.p. contracts no differently. i hope that this provision settles this issue. the second substantive provision also included a deference to opponents of the measures arises from an amendment that attempts to expedite four surface water projects. it was charged that it would have interfered with authorization of the project. this amendment makes it crystal clear that these four projects, all authorized, -- are authorized as long as nonfederal financing is used. this clears the way for funds to be applied immediately to the construction of these facilities. the rest of the amendments are technical. they remove language, correct misspellings and correct an inadvertent omission and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. who seeks recognition in opposition to the amendment?
the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: actually, mr. speaker, i wish to speak on this issue. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. and as my colleague has said, his amendment makes technical changes to the legislation. but it leaves in question and very much in doubt all those -- doubt, although it says 40-year rule is standard, but is this in per fought to? i would like a re-- perpetuity? i would like a response on that if i may involve my colleague in a colloquy, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlelady from california? mrs. napolitano: i ask if i may -- i'll ask a response from my colleague in colloquy to a question. he's made a statement and i would like clarification. thank you, mr. speaker. is this a renewal of every 40 years or is it in perpetuity? mr. mcclintock: let me read directly from the act, governing all reclamation contracts, including those under this legislation. the secretary of the interior
shall include any -- mrs. napolitano: reclaiming my time, mr. speaker, i don't wish to know 1956, i wish to know what your amendment does. mr. mcclintock: this amendment applies the act that i was just reading to the central valley project. i'm specifically answering the gentlelady's question by quoting directly -- that this proposes. mrs. napolitano: i would ask again, is it in perpetuity? mr. mcclintock: no. it has to be negotiated. in fact, if i just read the text, i think this will answer the question. mrs. napolitano: thank you. reclaiming my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california controls the time. mrs. napolitano: thank you, sir. thank you to my colleague. the technical amendment also makes a standard correction into the language passed out in committee and while we were not consulted in the drafting of this amendment, we don't oppose the amendment as it does nothing substantial and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: thank you. mr. chairman, if i could now answer the question of the gentlelady that she didn't seem to want to hear, it is this. this act applies, the act of july 2, 1956, to all contracts in the c.b.p. under this legislation. that legislation states the secretary of the interior shall include in any long-term contract hereafter entered into, if the other contracting party so requests, for renewal thereof under stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the parties, and i repeat, under stated terms and conditions, mutely agreeable to the parties, unquote, this is not automatic renewal. this is negotiated anew between the government and the contractor. the only exception to that act under this bill is to accommodate the early repayment of federal loans which would be a boone to the cash-strapped federal treasury.
mr. chairman, as we have repeatedly tried to explain to the minority, this measure simply applies the same standards to the c.d.p. as are applied to all other water contracts throughout the western united states. it was a punitive act by this congress in 1992 that reduced the amount of time in these contracts from 40 years to 25 years, exclusively for the c.b.p. this legislation sets that right and returns the c.b.p. to equal treatment with any other water project in the western united states. and i'll reserve the balance of my time unless the gentlelady has closed. the chair: the gentlelady from california, the chair wishes to clarify, is not in opposition to the amendment, but has yielded back the remainder of her time. mrs. napolitano: reclaiming my time, mr. speaker. the chair: is there objection to the unanimous con sent request to reclaim -- consent request to
reclaim her time? mrs. napolitano: i'd like to yield any additional time to mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. garamendi: there's always the rest of the story. and while this amendment deals with one of the parts of the legislation that would have been a perpetual contract, it does not deal with the remaining pieces of the central valley improvement act which dealt with the issue of how those contracts were to be renegotiated at the end of 40 years. in fact, those parts of the central valley improvement act had said, in the renegotiation process the federal government needed to take into account the issues of water availability, you know, maybe there's not much that -- that much water available and we need to down grade or maybe we need to increase the amount of water, take into account the environmental issues. so those very, very important
qualifications on how the contracts are being renegotiated disappeared in the underlying bill. they did deal with one of the problems and that's the perpetuity issue and we understand that. but nonetheless there's a very, very serious problem that remains in the negotiation or the renegotiation of the contracts and therefore the amendment, while dealing with one problem, allows the remaining problems to exist and those remaining problems are how and under what circumstances is the federal government to carry out the negotiations, that is, do we take into account environmental issues, fish in the river or not, availability of water or not? i think i'm out of time, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: to answer the gentlemen very specifically, the contract negotiations are conducted in precisely the same manner as every other contract in the western united states. i remind the gentleman and the
gentlelady who carried the legislation, this congress approved a 50-year contract for hoover power users and i would remind my friend, the gentleman from california, that during the markup these specifically -- he specifically said that he could probably live with 40 years. i hope that is still the case. i hope that these amendments assuage his concerns and with that i yield back the balance of my time. mr. garamendi: if the gentleman would yield i'd be happy -- the chair: the gentleman from california has yielded back. all time has expired. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-405 -- 405. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. thompson of
california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: the thompson-eshoo amendment states that nothing in this bill can go into effect if the secretary of interior determines that any agricultural, fishery or related jobs will be lost in northern california counties as a result of this bill. i represent a community with varied economic interests. agriculture, fisheries and tourism. our amendment would protect these jobs from this potentially -- from this politically driven legislation that would divert water to south of delta private agricultural interests. proponents of this bill claim that the bill protects jobs. the bill does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. it's a job killer bill. it creates economic winners and losers based on south of delta interests. the livelihoods and concerns of
individuals outside of this limited area are ignored in order to support well-healed agricultural interests south of the delta. in my home district, over two million acres of farm land support a greater than $1 billion market value of products. over 10% of these farms depend on irrigation. i do not believe that these farmers are less important than the south of delta farmers. their jobs, their income, their families should not be sacrificed. however, this is not simply a northern farmer versus southern farmer issue. fishermen on the north coast of california saw the result of politically driven water resources decisions in 2008 and 2009. and they paid the price in almost 5,000 jobs. and the economic loss of over $534 million. the thompson-eshoo amendment would prevent any provisions of this bill from going into effect , it will -- that will result in
the loss of jobs in northern california. join me in protecting jobs from this politically driven bill that prioritizes the agricultural economies south of the delta over all others. and i would now yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, congresswoman eshoo. ms. eshoo: i thank the gentleman. thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman and i rise in support of the amendment. why? because it states if any fishery-related or agricultural job is lost as a result of this act, the bill will not be enacted. and i think that that really sets down where we are. we need jobs in this country and not job killing legislation. now, this legislation will undo years of negotiation reached by the state of california, local farmers, ranchers and other users from the san joaquin river. it would set up a new round of
water wars which means more employment for lawyers but not much for anybody else. my congressional district, which includes silicon valley and the fishing community of half moon bay is not in the delta, but my constituents oppose this legislation because their communities, their livelihoods, their resources will also be negatively affected by this bill. now, listen to what the silicon valley leadership group says. over 350 major companies in silicon valley. we believe that h.r. 1837 would be-counter productive to the development of a comprehensive solution to the golden state water programs as it overrides many existing regulations and laws concerning the delta ecosystem and undermines years of collaboration and good will developed by a coalition of experts. this mention of broad coalition, it's why this bill
stinks, in plain english, because there's not a coalition. you have to build from the ground up with the stakeholders. that's why there's such a problem with it. listen to what the pacific coast of fishermen association says. it's the largest commercial fisherman's organization along the pacific coast. make no mistake, this bill will only preempt state law. it will destroy laws. one of the west coast's oldest industries is salmon -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise to seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. denham. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. many of the inconsistencies in the amendment itself, hear the
gentlelady is talking about san jose yet san jose is south of the area we are talking about and yet receives the silicon valley receives water exports from the delta. i represent stanislas county which is north of stockton. maybe we need to look at the county. it reaches up past the delta, past stockton, san joaquin county, sacramento, we are not included in this. you don't need to pit versus south. we are trying to use the resources in the best way possible. this amendment, you know, does it include forestry which resides under the curse diction of usda? are they not concerns about the devastating effects of the timber industry and how it suffered with the spotted owl? many inconsistencies here. pick your battle. i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california has one minute remaining. mr. thompson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield to mr. nunes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: the gentleman made a good point. silicon valley gets their water from hetchee. it's dammed up. it's in yosemite. they pipe their water. if they care about the fish and the fishermen, tear down the dam, send their water out to the delta, but they don't want to do that. now, i have a lot of respect from my friend from northern california, mr. thompson. we worked together on many different issues. the salmon fishermen were bailed out. they were given $230 million in payments. i think there needs to be a g.a.o. study on where this money went to. because we don't know where this money went.
there's never been any report to show where this money went. $230 million. it was the federal government that told the fishermen not to fish, and i would hope that the gentleman actually support this legislation because what we have here is the fish that are killing the salmon or -- are the bass. the bass fish do that. so let's let the fishermen go fish, and here's the gruesome picture again. i know you don't like to see it. let's go get the bass that are eating the smelt that then the salmon don't have anything to eat. the bass is a nonnative species. so this bill allows fishermen to go back to work. and i would hope that the gentleman would support this bill because we need to get the fishermen back to work. i agree, we don't want to spend $230 million after the federal government tells the fishermen, no, you can't fish, and then
pays them not to fish. that is insanity. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. thompson thompson i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- mr. thompson: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. hastings: i understand i have the right to close and i have one speaker so i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. thompson: just a couple of comments on some of the previous speakers' remarks. i'm glad to add forestry in one of the areas if there's any jobs lost if the bill won't go into effect if that would garner my friends' support of this amendment. and as he mentioned, he said it himself, it creates winners and losers. that's not what we're about. we're about creating jobs, not moving jobs from one area to another. and my friend from california mentioned that there was no salmon fishing and it caused these problems. there's no salmon fishing because the last politically motivated water policy killed 80,000 spawning salmon.
it shut down the season. it shut it down. it cost people their boats. it cost people their jobs. motels, gas stations, bake shops, grocery stores, everybody was hurt tremendously by that motion -- by that matter and now we're back at it again trying once again to politically move water from one portion of the state to another. it's a job killer. it preempts state law. it's a bad bill and it ought to be killed and this amendment ought to be added to it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield the balance of the time to a member of the committee and somebody who's worked on this legislation, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this would allow the interior secretary to suspend this bill if he finds that one job is lost north of the delta. while this is the same interior secretary who appeared before the natural resources committee
in 2009. at the time thousands of farm workers were thrown into unemployment by the water diversions. hundreds of thousands of acres of productive farmland were turned into a dust bowl, and amidst the crisis, he admitted that as interior secretary he had the authority to stop the diversions and end the agony of the central valley but he chose not to do so because in his words, quote, it would be like admitting defeat, and this is the man that the gentleman from california would give the power upon finding a single lost job in northern california to plunge our state into another government-created dust bowl? i don't think so. mr. thompson: if the gentleman will yield. mr. mcclintock: no. the bill, if enacted, would provide an unprecedented federal statutory expressed
recognition, commitment to california state water rights priority system, an area of origin protections. this is important for the region to provide sustainable water splice for productive farm lands, wildlife refuges and manage wetlands, cities, rural communities, meandering rivers that support important fisheries, unquote. so speaks northern california. mr. thompson: will the gentleman yield? mr. mccolin ton: no. fewer americans are working today than the day this administration took office. we will not put in the hands of that administration the power to destroy still more jobs which this amendment singcally seeks to do. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman from california's extired. the time of the gentleman from washington has expired. all time having expired, the question is on adoption of the amendment. all those in favor signify so by saying yige. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. thompson: i'd like a
recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. speaker. amendment at the desk. -- i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. mcnerney from california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 566, the gentleman from california, mr. income american -- mcnerney, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. income northwesterny: mr. speaker. -- mr. income americanny: the delta flows through five northern california counties that are home to more than four
million people. the delta is the region to big cities, small towns and lush farm lands just like other californians, the people of the delta deserve access to clean, safe drinking water. i'm deeply concerned that as currently written h.r. 1837 will severely erode the quality of our local water resources. this issue is important to public health and to local governments throughout northern california. this bill takes more of our fresh water and what's left will be saltier and lower quality. the deterioration of the delta water increases treatment costs by tens of millions of dollars and would require hundreds of millions of dollars in new capital investments. this bill will hurt the people. unfortunately, many communities in the delta are struggling with budget and public health challenges as it is. the last thing we need is for the congress to pass a bill that threatens our well-being and forces us to spend millions
more to just treat our water. it's bad enough to steal somebody's water. it's even worse to steal their water and then charge them millions of dollars for the privilege. this legislation we are considering today should not pass. it will harm the safety of drinking water supplies of the delta communities. my amendment makes sure that before this bill comes into effect it won't burden the delta with heavy costs and new public health threats. i ask all of my colleagues to support my amendment which will secure the safety and security of our drinking water, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition and i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. nunes. the chair: mr. nunes is recognized for four minutes. mr. nunes: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, once again, i don't believe the other side has read the bill. this bill provides for the
ultimate protections for delta communities. ultimate protections that guarantees their god-given right to their property and to their water. that's what this bill does. so if you vote against this bill, you're voting to continue the attack on farmers all over the state and communities all over the state. so if delta farmers want to continue to take water out of the delta like they've been doing for 100 years and have had their allocation, this bill guarantees that. now, i've been to the delta numerous times and i've spoken to the communities there. their number one concern is that they do not want the canal to be built. well, if you vote against this bill, you are voting to ensure that jerry brown, the governor of california who opposes this bill, gets his wish, to build the canal that the delta farmers don't want. so if the gentleman wants the canal built, vote against the
bill. if the gentleman wants to make sure his farmers are not guaranteed their right for water, vote against the bill. but i find it ironic that the minority is arguing for the delta farmers and the delta communities but at the very basic level, the people who are behind this, the governor of california was just here the other day advocating to build the canal that the gentleman says his constituents don't want. well, my constituents don't want it either. neither do the people in the north. none of us want to build a multibillion dollar project like this. and we don't have to. because passage of this bill allows valuable water to be moved across the delta in a more equitable fashion to guarantee waterfowl and fish population that would increase and guarantees rights to farmers and farm workers and communities. that's what this bill does. so i would hope that folks in
this body and the gentleman himself would maybe withdraw his amendment so we don't have to take a vote on this because i would hate for the gentleman to vote on an amendment that would basically ensure that he would be supporting jerry brown and the democratic administration that want to take his water away from him that he so cherishes. so, mamplee, -- mr. speaker, i would just say that, that we need to slow down, i would hope that the other side would take a look at this bill, read the bill, because once they find out they will figure out that all the stakeholders worked together. all the stakeholders were together in 1994 when everyone sat down to make this agreement. and that's what this goes back to. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. speaker. i certainly appreciate the passion of my colleague from
california. but if this bill is beneficial to the delta, then why does every delta county oppose the bill? they made it very clear to me their concerned -- they're concerned and to protect the drinking water, the quality of the drinking water is something that everyone can understand. what it seems to me is happening is that the other side is saying, we have the money, we have the votes, let's go get the water. might makes right. we know in this country that might doesn't make right. we have laws that have been observed. we're working through processes now to shortcut that process right now and start shipping all this water will devastate our community and we're going to do everything we can to prevent it. and i want to recognize my colleague from california, sorry about that, john, for two minutes. the chair: two minutes, the gentleman is recognized for two
minutes. mr. garamendi: sometimes on this floor you just shake your head and wonder if you may have fallen down the rabbit hole in alice and wonderland is really -- and als i in wonderland is really -- and alice in wonderland is really real. i just heard the most amazing argument i could possibly imagine that, -- possibly imagine, that somehow this bill will stop the peripheral canal. i think not. except, well, perhaps it will because it will totally destroy any opportunity that there may be for california to come together around a comprehensive solution to its water situation. it just makes me wonder what in the world is going on here. particularly my colleague from california that wants to represent this county may want to read his own bill where he wipes out all of the contracting provisions in the central valley
improvement act in which the county regional water agency is given the right to water out of the reservoir. that's gone. and, oh, by the way, if you happen to care about veterans who might somehow be placed in the san joaquin valley national cemetery, their 850-acre feet of water is also wiped out. this bill has far-reaching effects. it has far, far-reaching effects in wiping out the central valley improvement act, it also wipes out the environmental laws, wipes out the water for the central valley national cemetery, wipes out the water for the county and what effect it has on the peripheral canal, i just can't understand, other than it will destroy whatever comity and working together there is in california to solve the overarching problems. and by the way, you are stealing 800,000-acre feet of water from the dell at it. you are stealing 800,000-acre
feet of water from the delta in this bill. that's water that the delta community needs. that's water that the delta community needs for its citizens, for water quality and for agriculture. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, how much time on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from washington has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from california's time has expired. mr. hastings: his time has expired? with that, mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from california, mr. nunes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunnelee: mr. speaker, -- mr. nunnelee: mr. speaker, this debate -- mr. nunes: mr. speaker, this debate is really incredible. there's nothing about veteran cemeteries in this bill. now, i can understand why the minority would want to talk about veterans, because we love our veterans in this country, we do everything to support them. but it is a stretch to say that
a bill dealing with profit rights -- property rights somehow involves veterans cemeteries. but i will say, since we're talking about veterans, when we send our veterans overseas, our men and women in the military to protect this country, we have a right to protect people's private property. and that's what this bill does. now, i know my other friends on the other side of the aisle will continue to make this argument, they suddenly care about state preemption. well, they didn't care about state preemption in 1986, 1992 when they sat down in 1994, when they did their boondoggle in 2009. they didn't care about state preemption then. but, boy, today when we talk about guaranteeing people their right to their private property, they suddenly are the defenders of the constitution.
i mean, this is really stretching it. and i know that the gentleman who was the undersecretary at the time, who made the deal in 1994 that was bragged about by not only the former chairman of the resources committee at the time, bragged about the by a delta accord of -- bay delta accord of 1994, not only the undersecretary of the interior and the secretary of interior himself and president clinton, they all supported the 1994 agreement. so all this talk about comprehensive reform and getting people to the table, we've done that before, mr. speaker. and, mr. speaker, what that results in is the illegal taking of people's personal property. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the fross have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in the house report 112-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 566, the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as i may cool.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized -- consume. the chair: jazz is ro -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcnerney: someone needs to speak up for the delta communities. i rise to offer a second amendment to h.r. 1837 and i urge my colleagues to consider this amendment. i'm very honored to represent the people of the san joaquin delta. the delta is a precious resource that provides tremendous economic benefits to our entire state. preserving the delta should be a priority to all californians. agriculture is the backbone of the delta region. generating nearly $8 mun until -- $800 million in 2009 and sustaining thousands of jobs, supporting delta farming's essential to the economic sustainability of the delta region. i'm deeply upset that as currently written h.r. 1837 will shift vastly more water out of the delta even though the current shipments are already threatening the water quality for local farmers. simply put this bill will steal water from northern california
and devastate water quality for our delta farmers. farmers need freshwater, they don't need saltwater, for their harvest. that's why i'm offering a simple amendment to make sure that the most harmful provisions of this bill do not come into effect until the secretary of the interior certifies that they will not harm the water quality or water availability for delta farmers. proponents of h.r. 1837 claim their bill is pro-farmer but the truth is far different. the bill steals water from one part of california to give it to another. if the authors of h.r. 1837 support farmers throughout the entire state of california, then they should support my amendment. mr. speaker, thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rie rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr.
denham. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. denham: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. you know, the last couple of minutes we talked about the inconsistencies on how they effect other -- affect other counties in the community. certainly my county has been excluded, even though it certainly has impacts in this area. but even san joaquin county, you know, you've got this amendment that cribts -- contradicts it self because west side ag districts, west side irrigation district, del puerto irrigation district, their water will be shut off this year with a 30% water allocation. the city of tracy is important. they should have their water. 30% water allocation is unacceptable. so, the inconsistencies are -- around the valley are certainly interesting as these different amendments come up, but why divide a community that relies on the water that comes out of this allocation? mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: mr. chairman, i thank my colleague for his remarks. drought affects everyone. my big concern here is protecting the water quality of the delta. right now we see saltwater coming into the delta, we see farmers pumping water and having salt in it, not able to use it, needing additional treatments. all i'm asking is that the secretary look at the bill and prevent parts of the bill that will deteriorate water quality from going into effect until we're sure that it's safe. we're not asking for anything other than that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, the author of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. once again, i will say that delta communities are protected in this bill. mr. nunes: they're concerned about water quality.
this bill allows water to move through the delta. they're concerned about maintaining their ability to divert water. this bill allows them to do it. it ensures them priority property rights and the rights to their water. they want the delta farmers, they want to make sure they get conveyance through the delta so they can get their water. this bill does that. and as mr. denham pointed out, the communities on the west side of san joaquin county, i guess, perhaps they don't matter to the minority. because evidently by supporting this and opposing this bill, you're basically guaranteeing that the city of phrasey and those districts, those watt -- of tracy and those water districts are going to be cut off from their water this year. this bill fixes that. and once again i will say, that if the delta communities are worried about this peripheral canal, this is why the delta community should be supporting this bill.
but we don't hear anything about that. we hear about jerry brown, the governor of california, opposing the bill. and the attorney general of california opposing the bill. why are they opposing the bill? because they were just back in washington two days ago. lobbying for the construction of the peripheral canal. now, perhaps the delta communities want the peripheral canal. maybe that's a change. i don't know. i haven't been up there in the last few months. but last i heard the delta communities do not want the canal to be built. so, mr. chairman, i would urge the gentleman to drop his amendment and to vote in favor of this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. speaker. right now the delta is in serious decline. we're shipping more water south than is good for the health of the delta.
what this bill does is increases water shipments so i don't see how we can put protection for the delta in a bill, in a provision that increases shipments when we're already seeing declines in the delta. again, as i said before, the other side sees they have the votes and they want to go take this water and that's what this is about. it's about taking water. and our communities, the delta communities, have rights to the water, we've been there for a long time, we've been farming the -- this lush farm land, our farms are very productive. what this will do is turn it into a salt, stagnant pool and that will destroy a lot of agriculture, more agriculture than would be created in other areas. it will destroy a lot of jobs. i don't see how people could support this sort of a provision. with that, mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 1
1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcnerney: thank you. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, we only have one other speaker and we have the right to close so i'll reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. mcnerney: i thank the gentleman from washington. as we heard both sides, this is a complicated issue. we don't want farmers in any part of the valley to be hurt. but the delta has a long history of providing excellent farm product, $800 million a year of agriculture output. this is a risk, this is what is risked, commy community is crying out to me. san joaquin -- my community is crying out to me. san joaquin is solidly behind my amendment. they're opposed to this bill and i ask my colleagues to stand up and consider what this bill means for the rest of the country, if we adopt this it sets a nasty precedent. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield the balance of the time again to the author of this legislation, mr. nunes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: i want to talk about the water exports. saw this earlier. here are the water exports, mr. chairman, right here at the bottom. the green line represents the inflows to the delta. you can see that most of the water, in fact, 76% of the watter that enters the delta ends up out in the ocean. 76% of the water ends up out in the ocean. what this bill does is allows the folks in the delta their right to their water. so if you vote against this bill, you're voting to take those people's water away and their right to their water away. now, if the gentleman -- if the gentleman is concerned about water quality, he should support the bill.
because this bill allows the water to move more freely throughout the delta because it gets rid of the problems that we have throughout the delta and the rigidness that was created when this congress in 1992 basically attempted to put farmers out of business and farmworkers in food lines. that's what this debate is about. i would suggest, the gentleman -- we can have a unanimous con sent agreement right now for an amendment if the chairman of the committee would allow me. city of san francisco and santa clara and all over the bay area, many of the folks from the other side of the aisle who oppose this bill, why do they oppose it other than they want to construct the peripheral canal and ensure construction of the peripheral canal, like their governor jerry brown wants to do. but also, they don't like the dirty little secret.
yosemite. this was dammed up. here's the water that sits here today. it was one of john muir's favorite places on earth. and this congress dammed it up. but you don't see, all this water that's here this water would go out to the delta. perhaps we could have a unanimous consent agreement to tear this down today. let's dump all this water that goes to san francisco and silicon valley, let's take all this watter that would go to the delta, let's dump it down there -- the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. new necessary: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman will be postponed.
it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in house report p -- report 112-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: for the purpose of offering an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number ed in house r 112-405, offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 566, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. chairman. i've heard some of the most amazing things in the last 20 minutes that i'm absolutely, sometimes unable to even respond to them. first of all, let's get a cupful of things straight before i go to the amendment. the watter that is delivered by the central valley project either under the cbpia or under the original law is water that
is under contract. it is not a property right. it is water that is granted by reason of a contract between the federal government and the individual water districts that take that water. it is not a property right. now certainly the farmers own their property and that is a property right. but the water is not. and by the way that water on every one of those contracts, there are shortage -- on most of those contracts, particularly the ones that are not replacing riparian water rights, that water, those contracts all have shortage provisions so that when we have a drought, and we certainly have been in that situation in california today and we were back in 2008 and 2007, there are specific requirements in the contracts to reduce the amount of water system of all of this poppycock we've been hearing about 100%, it's not the way it's ever been or ever will be unless the contract provisions remain -- in this
bill become law and that's where my amendment comes in. it simply removes from this bill those contract -- the contract provisions in the bill. and those gows back to the original law. the original law which is the cbpia, which amended the earlier law, has many, many provisions and in fact it does provide up to 850 acre-feet of water for the national cemetery in the san joaquin valley. that, by the way, is wiped out, as always wiped out by the proposed law, proposed bill before us, the water for the county regional water agency. if i represented those counties i might be concerned about what was happening here. i understand that many other provisions of the law are important and that is that we did not know back in 1990 or 1992 what was going to happen with water. the state was in the process of adjudicating the water right
the water resources control board. the law took into account their decision. what's happening here in this bill is the removal of the pow over the state to allocate its water, to look at the water resources and to make some sense out of what is happening with water. apparently, we're not going to care about that anymore, we're simply going to bring to the federal government the power to appropriate water in california. that's precisely what happened here. there was an improvement, i'll grant the chairman of the subcommittee credit for eliminating the perpetual nature of the contracts in the original bill that was brought to the floor. good as far as it goes. but all of the other requirements that are in the cbip that are wise requirements about how the water is to be allocated, from north to south, from the environment, to the farmers, and among the farmers are all removed and the power of the state to allocate that water using the water resources
control board which has been the traditional meth is also removed giving rise to this point. that this bill overrides state law. and if you are any other state that has a reclamation project in it, beware. beware what is happening here in the house of representatives this day. you, too, could be at risk that some interest group in or out of your state seizing your water. i reserve the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mcfor the -- >> i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: as i pointed out to the gentleman, he has a short member, he objected to the successive renewal provision he claimed was in the
bill but said he felt he could probably live with 40 years on the amount of time for these contracts. as i tried to point out to him repeatedly, the measure and explicitly as amended does restore the contracting provisions used throughout the western united states for contracts involving c.b.p. water. the gentleman says his amendment puts the contract provisions back to the original law. no, his amendment does not do that. this bill puts the contract provisions back to the original law, that's the reclamation law of 1939 as amened july 2, 1956, the very provisions that are restored in this bill. what his measure does is to continue to single out the central valley project uniquely among all the reclamation projects across america as the one project that can only get
25-year financing. the problem, of course, with that, is that these contracts require a degree of certainty over the long-term cost. that's why the 40-year contracts are in place with every other project of the bureau of reclamation in the united states, just as was the fact for the central valley project until it was amended by congress in 1992. the gentleman says this overrides state law. the -- the cvpia overroad state law and the gentleman was supportive of that at the time. he obviously has concerns over long-term memory loss as well. i would simply point out that this measure simply says that the c.b.p. -- c.v.p. contracts will be treated on the same basis as every other contract in america. i reserve the plans of my time.
the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: may i inquire as to the time remaining. the chair: you have one and a half minutes remaining. mr. garamendi: 90 seconds. first of all if the gentleman would listen carefully, i was never referring to the 1956 law, but cvpia, the 1992 law, which did change for the better , where we had a state and federal water project operating and many other appropriators operating on the river in california. taking that into account and taking into account the rapid growing population and need in california and allowing the state, allowing the state to determine where the water might be needed, i would refer the gentleman if he cares to take a look, at section 3404, limitations on contracts an contract reforms. this is what you wiped out in
your bill. it provides that the california state water resource control board in concluding their review of the california court of appeals, in other words, you have wiped out in your bill the ability of the state of california through the water resources control board to allocate the water, to take into account quick decisions. the bill overturns 150 years of california water law. and wipes it out. in fact, the cvip took specific, very specific account of california law and wrote it into the federal law. what's wrong with that? nothing that i can think about, because california is unique in so many, many ways and the cbp -- cvpia allowed that to happen. if i might take a few seconds and clarify a few things, yes, indeed, you were talking about the deputy secretary of the department of superior, that's me. i did conduct those negotiations and keep this in mind -- oh, too bad.
the chair: the gentleman's time has expyred. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i yield one minute to my colleague, the author of legislation, mr. nunes of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: i appreciate the gentleman admitting he was undersecerer tear at the time and he failed -- undersecretary at the time and he failed to implement the agreement everyone came together and agreed upon. earlier, we had the gentleman from california, the author of the 1992 act, came down to the floor, berated farmers, berated production agriculture and admitted it was his goal to get rid of production agriculture. so why did they, at the time, change from 40-year contracts to 25-year contracts? folks, i think this is something that the american people will understand. the american people from other states may not understand a whole lot about what we're talking about but they will
understand this. and farmers across america will understand this. when farmers borrow money on their landmark times they have to do it under 30-queer agreements with the -- 30-year agreements with the bank. so i have to ask myself, why in 1992 did they move this to a 20 to 25 years. mr. mcclintock: i yield an additional minute. mr. nunes: why did they move to 20 or 25 years? conveniently it made it hard for farmers to get loans on their land especially when they were not sure if they were going to have a water supply. that's what this bill tries to fix. an that's why we should vote no on this amendment because i believe that our founding fathers and previous members of congress who came before us knew at the time that a 40-year agreement would be enough for farmers and people trying to
borrow money to go and borrow that money so they could put their families to work and provide for their families. that's why we should vote no against this agreement. when we had the author down here berating production agriculture. we know what the intent was of 1992, and we've seen the chaos created since 1992. and that's what we fix in this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to correct one thing. i said that 40 years is common throughout the western united states, i do need to point out again that the hoover dam was actually given a 50-year contract, the amendment addressed the concerns that were expressed by the gentleman over the successive renewal provisions in the contracts, i think we made it very clear that the conditions of the
contracts have to be agreed to by both party the gentleman himself in markup said he could live with 40 years, he's obviously reconsidered, this measure simply sets right a wrong that was done in 1992 and treats the cvp as every other reclamation project and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-405.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. napolitano: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk, i would request be made in order. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mrs. napolitano of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 566, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. nal, -- napolitano, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from -- the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. nap -- mrs. napolitano: thank you, sir. this is a simple amendment. it creates a revenue stream through elimination of debt without interest. in other words, ending free subsidy on $400 million. it requires that any new water contract or renewed contracts must reflect the price of water
with interest and repay debt of the project to the treasury with interest. it's a small but very important assist to try to balance our federal budget and we're always looking ways to try to find these little, i call them pockets of money, to be able to help out. reclamation established in 1902, it was meant to deliver water to farms with a maximum acreage of 160 acres, to provide interest -free, it did provide interest-free on the cost of that project. this was in 1902. times have changed. subsequent reclamation reform acts have changed acreage limitation along with the repayment contract for these projects. congressional action has also made repayment of project debt interest-free. i repeat, debt interest-free, on $400 million, for irrigaters while municipalities like mine and my constituency, power users
pay all the required appropriate interest. which our water users in southern california were as unlucky. this removes the role of federal government in protecting environment and public good. if we are removing the role of federal government as we plan to do, protecting environment and public good we should also remove the federal subsidy associated with renew or new water contracts. my constituency and anybody else's must be treated fairly, must be required to pay equally any additional interest on any future water contract end project. california foresaw the need for infrastructure. i'm talking about southern california. local entities stepped up to the plate and paid and constructed a new storage facility, a dam, entirely paid for by our local folks without one cent of federal money. no tax cuts, no free interest at
taxpayer expense. eliminating this unfair subsidy will help cut our deficit and i urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. nunes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. tune in mr. nunes: thank you, mr. chairman. once again, i want to bring up this issue that the minority continues to ignore. they don't want to talk about this. i don't understand why. because they care about this freshwater, they dammed up this, they care about the environment, but they dammed up yosemite. they have the water here. they pipe it to their communities. they completely, completely go around the delta. so none of this water ever makes it to the precious fish that they care about. we have this beautiful environment here, mr. chairman,
that was destroyed by the congress. but we don't see any amendments to fix this travesty, do we? but it's interesting that the gentlelady from california wants to raise water rates. because do you know who pays the cheapest water rates in california? or electricity rates and fees on that? the power generation of hecheche. so perhaps we should have an amendment that would be offered that would not only make them pay today's fees, that all the other folks in california are having to pay. if we want to do that, then we can make everybody, everyone would be on the same level playing field. but, no, instead this is an attack once again on farm workers and farmers. as usual. i want to remind my colleagues that this bill saves $300
million. $300 million. this bill saves. so if the rate payers in san francisco and santa clara and silicone valley and all over the area that want to have their precious water, they ought to pay the same fees, too. and i would suggest and i would hope that maybe we would come back at some other time and deal with the issue and the unfairness of people who don't have any water in san francisco, who are so hell-bent on taking people's water away. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: ma may i inquire -- may i inquire what time i have, sir? the chair: the gentlelady has 1/2 minutes remaining. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. it is my understanding then that my colleagues on the other side are arguing to keep a subsidy, lose for us. just as an aside, according to the california department of
food and ag, california ag experienced a 9% drop in the sale of value of its products at the height of the drought. now, the 81,000 farms and ranchers received $34.8 billion, billion for their output. down from an all-time high of 38.-- $38.4 reached in 2008. this was despite the water shortages and restrictions in the state's agricultural sales for 2009, were the third highest in the record. that's with 2007, 2008, 2009, the years of the drought, the three highest years coincide with the three consecutive ag sales. with that i'd like to yield time to mr. garamendi. a minute. a minute and a half, sorry. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. chairman. we're going round and round here and at the end of the day i think we need to step back from the heat of the debate and realize exactly what's happening here.
in this particular amendment is an effort to try to make sure that the taxpayers of the united states are adequately compensated for the money that they have loaned for the development of the central valley project and the money that they have loaned for the specific elements within the central valley project. these are the specific authorized subportions of the central valley project. for example, the san luis unit. the taxpayers loaned a vast amount of money. when you look at the details in this bill, you will find that there is a very artful way of avoiding the full cost of repayment. through early repayments, the way in which the bill is written, the water districts are able to pay off their loans without having to pay off the interest. and then going forward not having to share in the ongoing cost of maintenance of the major
reservoirs and water facilities. in other words, they're simply charged with the cost of the water, not for the ongoing operational repair and other costs. it's very interesting, very artfully done, and once again provides an enormous subsidy to those who have had a very good subsidy for many, many years. it's not right, it ought not occur. the amendment before us simply says that if you're going to get a loan, you're going to have to pay interest. mrs. napolitano: how much time do we have? the chair: you have 30 seconds remaining. mrs. napolitano: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. garamendi: you'll hear this from the other side as they close, oh, but year going to be able to get some $300 million. yes, that money will flow more quickly into the treasury, to be sure. because it allows the water districts, as a result of the way in which this bill is written, to achieve an enormous advantage. they'll be able to get water into the future without having
to pay the full cost of that water. and so when you look at it from the total accounting procedures, you wind up with an additional subsidy go to these water districts. it's not right and it's not fair to the taxpayers. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, i yield 30 seconds to my friend from california, mr. nunes. mr. nunes: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be very quick. the gentlelady from california is the biggest defender of the ultimate subsidy of all. those are those mystery little title 16 grants from the bureau of reclamation. they don't even charge interest. they just give those away. and that's an outrageous subsidy that goes to communities in southern california and in the bay area of $1,500 an acre foot. so i guess we could offer an amendment to strip out all title 16 money. i'd be willing to do that, too. let's strip out all the title 16 money. all the subsidies that go to los
angeles and hollywood and san francisco. let's strip out the title 16 moneys. is the gentlelady willing to strip out title 16 money? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, this amendment was rejected on a bipartisan vote when the gentlelady introduced it in markup. and it deserves a similar fate on the house floor. let's be clear about what this does. it singles out central valley project participants to pay a punitive surtax that is imposed on no other bureau of reclamation project in the united states. this surtax would be passed on to consumers through higher prices. the central valley project was already singled out for one punitive tax, about $50 million annually, by congress in 1992. to fund an array of environmental slush funds. now, i believe that
beneficiaries should pay the cost of water projects. but they should pay only the cost of those projects and no more. these are not cash cows for the federal government to milk until they're dry. when the left speaks of corporate farms, they leave out the fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated. and that's who we would be singling out for what amounts to a special tax. and that tax can be paid in one of two ways. by employees through lower wages or by consumers through higher prices. and i have a modest suggets suggestion for the gentlelady, perhaps we should start putting people back to work rather than running them out of business. i'm often crizzcrith side sized -- criticized by colleagues who for conditions that send water prices through the roof but this proposal's quite bold. this proposal does so directly and dramatically. that's why several of her colleagues on the democratic side abandoned her in committee and why they would be well-advised to do so again on
the floor. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. napolitano: recorded vote requested. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, thank you. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. garamendi of
california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 566, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. once again we need to step back and really understand the full impact of this particular piece of legislation that is before us. it has profound impact on california. we heard earlier a discussion about the delta, two amendments put forth by my colleague, mr. mcnerney, and as he spoke to the issues of the delta and the sensitivity of it. the largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere and it includes the san francisco bay. it's a sensitive estuary, it's dependent upon a flow of fresh water at certain times of the year and this legislation very
artfully, in a very complex series of languages and changes in law and word, takes 800,000 acre-feet away from the environment of the delta, that would be the aquatic environment and delivers it to the water contractors. it's done in a way that it's hard to recognize but when i asked the chairman of the committee what the purpose was, he stated unquestion give -- equivocally it was to take the 800,000 acre-feet of water. the impact of that would be profound. whatever you may say about the species in the dell tark the salmon, the striped bass, the smelt or any other species, this theft of 800,000 acre-feet of water will have a profound effect. it's water to be used at certain times of the year to carry out the necessary
protection of species, watter that will flow down the river when salmon want to migrate up the river. water that's there for the smelt when they are breeding or moving into their breeding habitat. it is one of the biggest water grabs at least in the last half century. and it will have profound negative effects. when taken with the other provisions of the bill that wipe out entirely, entirely wipe out the environmental protection act, the endangered species act, the e.p.a. clean water act, all of those are gone in this bill. and now you're taking the water and california protections for the environment, the california laws that replicate the federal law, they, too, are pushed aside by this bill. then you wind up taking the water on top of it. what is left for the delta? what is left for the species in the delta, the fish, the
aquatic what is left for san francisco bay? not much. not much. that's why this bill is the worst environmental bill in many, many decades. call it any other way you like but that's exactly what it is. i reserve my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mcclintock: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: this amendment more than any other focuses on the key part of this bill, what comes first, people or fish? in 1992, they carved out 800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes temporarily. the floor manager of the conversation report, senator malcolm wall pointed out the 800,000 acre-feet is upfront water designed to deal with the requirements of the endangered species act while the various
litigation actions are undertaken. the various litigation action were to build more supply so that that 800,000 acres taken from the farmers would then be returned to them. that 800,000 acre-feet came out of allocations in the central valley project agreed to by all sides. but somewhere along the line, the federal government began treating this allotment as the floor rather than the ceiling. a se louse official in the interior department under bill clinton ordered that more than one million acres feet of water appropriated by the central valley project be used for purposes not authorized under water rights permits issued by the state of california. that preempted state water rights laws, i might add. i believe the gentleman from california knows it. in fact, i believe the gentleman from california is
him. this bill re-establishing the 800,000 acre-foot allotment agreed to by all sides when the interior secretary promised, quote, a deal is a deal this provision redeems the promise that was broken by mr. babbitt's deputy and this is the provision the gentleman would have us delete. i might also add that under this bill, the 00,000 acre-feet of water can be recycled by communities once it is -- once it has met its environmental purpose rather than being lost to the ocean. that's 800,000 acre-feet of additional water for communities like his. of that, a little more than 1/10th of that could have gone to kettleman city. the contract holders that paid for the project gave up 800,000 acre-feet of water with the promise it would be a temporary ceiling.
one broken promise after another changed this to a permanent floor, take manager and more water from the people who paid for it and dumping it in the ocean. with that, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman, the chairman of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i heard the author of the amendment state something, i i will paraphrase, that he spoke to the chairman of the committee on the allocation of the water and supposedly the chair of the committee responded back, take the water away. number one, i do not recall ever having that dialogue with the maker of the amendment but had he asked me, my answer would have been an equitable distribution of the water. i want to set the record straight, mr. chairman, because that's what i heard in the debate previously. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining.
mr. garamendi: two minutes? the chairman of the committee, if i did say the chairman of the committee, i believe i said the chairman of the subcommittee, which if i did, mr. hastings, you were not there. the chame of the subcommittee was whom i was referring to. with regard to the effect here, you can try to spin this anyway you'd like put the reality is that in the central valley improvement act, 00,000 acre-feet of water was dedicated to the environment and it was not a temporary, it was part of the -- part of what was to be done into the future. the negotiations that ensued following the accord in 1994, those negotiations were specifically designed to reach an accommodation on how to meet all the requirements of the central valley improvement act, including what to do with the 800,000 acre-feet. i would point out to the opponents of this amendment
that the accord was never, the 1994 bay delta accord was never intended to be permanent. it had, in fact a three-year limitation, which led to my involvement when i became deputy secretary, to try to work out a solution. in fact, we did. unfortunately, the water district, one of the proposed signatures -- cigna tores of the bill, walked away from the table when everyone else was ready to sign and we've been involved in this imbroleyow ever since. -- imbroglio ever since. no matter how you take it, this water is gone. 6800,000 acres feet. it may be recycled but the control of it is lost. the environmental protection that go along with that water are gone. both state and federal environmental protections, clean water act, national
environmental protection act, california ceqa. this is the most amazing override of environmental law i have ever seen in the 37 years i have been involved in water policy throughout this nation. this is remarkable what is being atelled here. we've got to stop this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: the gentleman's memory problem seems to have struck again. i do not recall to make such a statement either or intending to make such a statement. what i have said is that that 800,000 acre-feet which now will become a ceiling rather than a floor is in order to -- can provide the opportunity for recycling under this bill so that that 800,000 acre-feet, once it's served its environmental purpose, may then by used by communities throughout the bay area. with that, mr. chairman, i ask
for a no vote on the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcclintock: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number eight pribted in house report 112-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: i rise to offer an amendment along with ms. matsui and mr. thompson. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in house report 112-405, offered by mr. markey
of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 566, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. markey: our amendment is simple. it would ensure that state law is upheld and that the best available science is used when making decisions about the complex california water system. instead of using cutting edge science, the republican bill would take us back to 1994. so let me ask you, are you willing to give up your 2012 iphone for a 1994 brick of a cellular phone? how about giving up your prius for a ugoh or using a phone book instead of facebook? would you rather fold a map or use google maps?
the answers to these questions are easy. and so is this one. would you trade the science of california water in 2012 for 1994's science? if your answer is no, if your answer is, you want to use the best science, today's science, in order to ensure that we protect the water users and the environment, then vote yes on our amendment, i reserve, mr. chairman, the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i raise to claim time in opposition to the ealt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: long ago, my parents rose me a truism that has been reconfirmed over and over again in my life. my parents were both raised on dirt-poor farms in north dakota in abject poverty and my father
who made a decent life for himself and for his family with the hard work and struggle, told me as a child, when we visited those farm he said, son, ordinary people are not going to live well in this country or any country unless there's an abundance of water and energy. and that's what all through my life, i have seen that those people who have had their water or energy restricted, it has hurt the ordinary people, the standard of living of the people of this cauntry. what we have faced in this country is a good example of that. what we've got is a coalition of radical environmentalists who have over the years prevented america from having the energy we need to have a high and good standard of living for our people. ordinary people have suffered. the same is true when we're talking about water. this radical coalition has never thought anything about
constitutional rights and about whether states rights to this or that. that's made no difference to them at all. the central issue is there is a vision radical environmentalists have in which people are less important than fish or little insects or reptiles. the bottom line is ordinary people, ordinary americans should be our highest priority. what is it doing to their standard of living? we have seen an attack on the standard of living on the people of california by depleting water resources that should go to them and instead are being committed to a tiny little fish that isn't even good enough for bait. now today as we're going to reaffirm in a very bipartisan fashion that the people of this body are elected to represent the well-being of ordinary american, make sure we have the energy and water we need to fulfill the american dream where everyone has a chance at a decent life. a decent life.