[Pages H11411-H11419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2442, BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER
RECYCLING PROGRAM EXPANSION ACT OF 2009

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 830 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 830

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
2442) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to expand the Bay Area Regional
Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Ms. MATSUI. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 830.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 830 provides for consideration of
H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act
of 2009.

{time} 1330

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, controlled by the
Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes two small changes
clarifying the funding in the bill is subject to appropriations and
making a purely technical correction to the section numbering in the
bill. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Madam Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Miller and Chairman
Stark, as well as Representatives Eshoo, Honda, Woolsey, McNerney,
Lofgren, Napolitano, and Speier, for their work on this bill and
efforts to address the Bay Area waters' needs.
I also commend Senators Feinstein and Boxer for introducing identical
legislation in the Senate and their leadership on this issue.
As the elected Representative from Sacramento, and as a farmer's
daughter from the Central Valley, I understand that water is critical
to our State's economy and our way of life. After 3 years of drought,
pumping restrictions and lost jobs from the valley to the coast, there
is no doubt that improving the capability of water recycling will help
address these problems and lessen the burden on the bay-delta
ecosystem.
While recycling is not the only way to meet the Bay Area and
California's water requirements, it must be part of our comprehensive
solution. Effective water use will help keep California's agricultural
water economy strong and the delta healthy, and ensure that the needs
of northern California businesses, farmers and residents are not
ignored.
Under the Title 16 water recycling program, H.R. 2442, would
authorize six additional water recycling projects for the Bay Area that
would provide 7.2 million gallons of water daily and serve more than
24,000 households. Collectively, these projects will save 2.6 billion
gallons of water per year in the region, offering a new water supply of
treated wastewater for industrial and irrigation use.
Specifically, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion
Act would authorize $38 million in Federal assistance under the
Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation for the design, planning,
and construction of these new water projects. It would also expand the
authorization for two existing projects.
H.R. 2442 would stipulate that the Federal share of the cost of the
projects not exceed 25 percent of the total cost and bars the
Department from funding operation or maintenance of the projects. It is
important to note that this legislation has been endorsed by the
Association of California Water Agencies, commonly called ACWA, which
includes every major agricultural and urban water agency in the State
and represents the largest coalition of public water agencies
nationwide.
Additionally, the WaterReuse Foundation, which serves more than 180
public water agencies, cities and major engineering and technology
firms, has urged that we move expeditiously on the bill. These groups
understand that no one wins when these kinds of local projects are held
hostage because of

[[Page H11412]]

disputes over the operation of Federal water projects.
We all know that there are some serious concerns about the water
crisis in California. I was back home in my district over the weekend,
Madam Speaker, and everyone at home was talking about a water deal
trying to be negotiated by the legislature and the Governor.
From local and State levels all the way here to Washington, there are
a number of different ideas about how to address our water issues in
California. Some of them I prefer more than others, and some of them
are preferred more than others by my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle.
But one thing is for sure: limiting our State's water supply by
holding up recycling projects like those in this bill will not solve
anything. In fact, it will only prolong our collective efforts to seek
solutions to California's water problems.
For these reasons, I strongly support the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Miller and the committee
for their work on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend,
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the House considered, under suspension of the rules,
H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act
of 2009. But the bill failed to get the necessary two-thirds to pass.
The reason that bill failed was not because Members objected to the
substance of the legislation, but because the majority leadership
brought forth the underlying legislation that provides water projects
for the San Francisco area for consideration by the House while
blocking the House from debating the desperate need for water in
another part of California, the San Joaquin Valley.
On numerous occasions, my colleague from California, Mr. Devin Nunes,
has submitted amendments to the Rules Committee so that those
amendments could be debated and voted on by the full House. His
amendments would restrict the implementation of the December 15, 2008,
biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
June 4, 2009, biological opinion issued by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. However, the majority on the Rules Committee
routinely blocked consideration of the amendments, twice on the
Interior appropriations bill and three times on the Energy and Water
appropriations bill.
The reason Mr. Nunes has so steadfastly sought to have the House
debate the restriction on those two opinions is that they have diverted
water from the San Joaquin Valley, practically turning that area into a
dust bowl.
Madam Speaker, why should Congress be concerned with what may look
like a simple water issue? The valley is home to a $20 billion crop
industry, and the region produces more in agricultural sales than any
other State in the country. It can be argued that no agricultural area
in the country is more productive and is, therefore, more important to
our Nation's food security. If we continue to allow the diversion of
water from the valley, food prices are going to increase; and we are
also going to put our food security, national security in jeopardy.
According to a recent University of California Davis study, the water
reductions have led to revenue losses of over $2 billion, and this year
will lead to 80,000 jobs lost. The area now has an unemployment rate of
about 20 percent. Some of its communities have an unemployment rate of
nearly 40 percent.
Today, the majority comes to the floor with a rule that the House
will once again consider the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program
Expansion Act without giving the House the opportunity to consider
amendments, including those proposed by Mr. Nunes. That is most
unfortunate.
It is time that the House be given the opportunity to debate the San
Joaquin Valley water issue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California, a member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mrs.
Napolitano.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Ms. Matsui.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2442, the Bay
Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009. The bill
has received extensive review and bipartisan approval from the
Subcommittee of Water and Power and was reported on a bipartisan basis
favorably from the Natural Resources Committee.
I listened to my colleague, as I am also a Californian, I listened to
my colleague on the other side, Mr. Diaz-Balart, talk about the
billions of dollars. Yes, there is a great need of assistance to the
Central Valley, but it's not all the San Joaquin.
The fact that the dam is wanting to be pushed forth, I agree. We need
additional storage, but right now you need immediate results and water
recycling is one of the tools that you need.
H.R. 2442 provides new water to the Bay Area in California. The
recycling projects authorized will provide, as Ms. Matsui pointed out,
2.6 billion gallons of water annually, enough to meet the needs of
24,000 families. Why do we stand against water for other areas? All of
us need additional water in California.
Water is life. As we all are very well aware, the drought in
California has taken a terrible toll on jobs all over the State, the
economy and the environment of the Central Valley in California in
particular. At a time when our Nation needs leadership and options to
meet our water requirements, H.R. 2442 provides a tool to create more
water for the Bay Area and, in the process, reduce the amount of water
imported from the Sacramento and delta area.
This bill, and the projects it authorizes, will immediately address
California's water crisis through local action and provide economic
relief through job creation. It will not solve California's water
crisis, as Ms. Matsui pointed out. However, it does provide a valuable
and important tool.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It does provide a valuable and important tool to
stretch the existing water supply and address the critical water issues
of our State. I urge strongly a ``yes'' vote and encourage all Members
to support this legislation. Water for our Nation is critical for all
of our citizens and we, as legislative leaders, have to provide for
solutions.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes
to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. I thank my good friend from Florida.
Madam Speaker, this water crisis has been created by the government.
This bill that's on the floor today provides water for San Francisco. I
would love for San Francisco to have water.
But in the grand scheme of things, this is a 2-billion gallon
project. We are losing 200 billion gallons out to the ocean because we
simply won't let the pumps run at historical levels.
This is a closed rule. It never should have been a closed rule, and
we need to find out why is it that the majority keeps closing down
these rules.

{time} 1345

I think we may be getting close to the answer if we look back at a
few things that were said a couple weeks ago at a public event at the
Department of Interior. The distinguished chairman, who is the sponsor
of the bill, the distinguished chairman of the Education Committee,
took credit for the lawsuits that turned the pumps off. I was not quite
sure which lawsuits he had brought forward, but he said, I don't think
I have lost many lawsuits in court over the last 10 or 15 years.
Now, I did some research. I wasn't sure what lawsuits the
distinguished chairman had brought forward. So it made me believe,
well, maybe there is some coordination going on between the left-wing
radicals and the fringe environmental movement, and how is that being
coordinated from this body. These are questions that we need to know
about.
So the shocking admission of coordination between the Democrats in
the

[[Page H11413]]

House and radical environmentalists deserves our attention, and I want
to ask a few questions that I hope can be answered at some point by
some committee in this Congress.
The first is, how much money is going to fund these organizations?
Several billion dollars have been paid out to these fringe
environmental groups that continue to bring these lawsuits forward,
taxpayer dollars funding shutting off water to people.
Another question that needs to be answered: the bureaucrats at the
government agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service, are
they involved? Have these radical groups been coordinating with the
scientists and biologists over at the National Marine Fisheries
Service? Because nobody in their right mind would say that these pumps
are resulting in the death of killer whales. It is not believable.
Another question we need to figure out is the water czar that the
Department of Interior has appointed, that President Obama has
appointed, has been active with these special interests in the past at
the highest levels. He has served on their boards, and he has given
them money. Are there more people at Interior that are involved with
these biologists that are coming up with these plans and helping these
environmental groups bring these lawsuits that the taxpayers are paying
for?
This is a closed rule. It is a California water issue here, to
provide water for San Francisco; yet we can't even debate or have an
amendment to provide water to the bulk of California.
So we need to get to the bottom of this. Hopefully we will turn down
this rule, vote it down, so that we can allow the real issues to be
debated.
Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just
want to say that I know that my colleague on the other side of the
aisle is upset because his amendment that was offered in the Rules
Committee was not allowed on the floor. The fact is his amendment was
not germane to the underlying bill and not related to water recycling.
Blaming the Endangered Species Act by waiving it for 2 years to
prevent implementation of certain biological opinions will not put his
constituents back to work. More importantly, such an initiative would
not turn on the water pumps for the Central Valley.
To address the drought--the real cause of the water shortage in the
region and the State--we must work collectively toward a solution.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Costa).
(Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COSTA. I thank my colleague.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2442, the rule that we are
speaking on, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion
Act of 2009. While this measure by Congressman Miller has merit, there
are plenty of meritorious water projects and bills that we have
repeatedly tried to bring to the floor to help those of us where the
drought is most expansive in the San Joaquin Valley, and unfortunately,
they have been ignored.
Unfortunately, yesterday I learned that H.R. 2442 was reported out of
the Rules Committee with a closed rule, and therefore, no amendments
would be allowed. I oppose this rule because we need every opportunity
to offer amendments and to vote on legislation that will bring water to
our farmers, our farmworkers, our farm communities and our valley in
the middle of this drought crisis.
My district is ground zero for this crisis. Towns from Mendota to
Delano have 35 percent and more unemployment. There is no water, there
is no jobs, there is no money for our farms and farmworkers to put food
on their tables. Can you imagine what it would be like if you lived in
a community where a third or more of your citizens had no jobs?
In the 1990s, I was working with many of those water districts,
farmers, and urban and environmental groups to pass legislation that
would help fix California's broken water system. Unfortunately, we made
little progress.
We tried to establish a water ethos that we would all get healthy
together again. Clearly, we are not getting healthy in the valley. Our
valley agriculture provides half the Nation's fruits and vegetables,
and they are withering and dying out. Millions of acre-feet of water
have been diverted from the valley, and unfortunately, the fisheries
are not improving.
It is incumbent upon this body to come together and help us fix this
problem. If we expect to get healthy again, we must secure a
sustainable water supply for every region of California, and for
Congressmen Cardoza, Radanovich and myself, that begins with the San
Joaquin valley.
Let us start anew. Let us start with leadership focusing on
addressing California's water crisis in the valley and not shying away
from this crisis.
Congressman Cardoza agrees with my statement.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes
to my friend from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You know, I am a native Californian, born in Los Angeles. In fact, I
am a fourth-generation Californian. My family was a Gold Rush family in
1849. If you look back in the history of California for those 160
years, it has always been about water, where there is water. Where we
could get water in California there are jobs, there is growth, there is
prosperity, there is opportunity. When we didn't bring water to places
in California, we didn't have those things.
So this debate we are having now is not new for our State, but it is
important for our State, and I understand why my colleagues from the
Bay Area want this recycling program. As has been mentioned, that is
not really the issue here.
As my colleague Mr. Miller and I have discussed, in Orange County,
where I come from, we have some of the world's leading recycling
programs. They work, they are effective, and we ought to do more of
them in other places. But what we are talking about here is that there
are other places where we need water in California.
Now, I don't represent the Central Valley, but the Central Valley is
the breadbasket of California, arguably of the country. There are jobs
disappearing and there are businesses disappearing and there are farms
disappearing, because of a man-made water crisis. It is not because of
a drought. It is not because the water isn't available. It is because
we won't turn on some pumps 12 months a year to provide the water to
those farmers so they can grow food for us and for the world, to create
jobs, and to feed Americans and generate export for our economy. The
water provided by those pumps, 25 percent of the water in southern
California and the L.A. area also comes from the Sacramento River Delta
where those pumps come from.
The travesty of this bill is not what is in it; it is what is not in
it. And what could have been in it is the opportunity to turn on those
pumps, which have been 12 months a year for over 50 years.
It is not like this is a new idea or new environment. It is to get
that water for San Francisco, and that is great. But let's get water
for the Central Valley and the farmers in California, and let's get
water for southern California as well. Let's not just deal with one
part of the State. Let's deal with the whole State.
So, Madam Speaker, I would ask that we reject this rule because of
what it doesn't have. Let's give the Central Valley a chance. We need
jobs. We need economic activity. Turn those pumps on. Turn this rule
down.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong
support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I want to thank
Ms. Matsui, Ms. Slaughter, and the entire Rules Committee for their
support.
Today's bill responds to a request for assistance from the State of
California and local water managers to expand the supply of water in
our drought-stricken State. It does no more than that. It is good for
our economy. This bill will create thousands of jobs. It will reduce
the stress on our oversubscribed fresh water system. This bill expands
the water supply of six Bay Area communities, including my own
congressional district.

[[Page H11414]]

This bill authorizes additional water recycling through the
successful Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI program. Title XVI allows
local water managers to treat wastewater and use the clean recycled
water for other purposes within their jurisdiction. This bill would add
7.2 million gallons of water per day to California's water supply,
enough water to meet the needs of 24,000 households.
My bill is one of a series of water recycling bills that have been
approved by the House this year and in recent years to expand the water
supply in Republican and Democratic districts alike throughout the West
and the Southwest. They have been passed without controversy, without
amendment, without debate on the larger California water policy needs.
This year alone the House has passed by voice vote and overwhelming
majorities five local water bills the same as this legislation to
provide for this recycling and this reuse. Why has the House done that?
Because across the State of California, the water users in that State
recognize the extent to which we can recycle and reuse water. We take
immediate pressure off of the entire California water system, both the
Federal system and the State system.
This is an investment in which there is unanimity that it must be
made. When you talk about doing this, you are talking about helping the
Central Valley, because you release the pressure. When you do this, you
are talking about helping the Delta.
Clearly the cities, the agencies in southern California, believe this
is important to their future. That is why the cities have put up the
money to match the Federal effort. That is why my colleagues from both
sides of the aisle have come forward and asked for this legislation.
That is why they have been approved overwhelmingly on a unanimous
bipartisan basis, because they are critical to the long-term water
needs.
You cannot help the Central Valley if you cannot relieve the stress
on an oversubscribed system. It is just that fact. The pumps are on.
The pumps have been on for months. But what they would suggest you do
is, you devastate the San Francisco Bay Area. We have already lost tens
of thousands of jobs, from the fisheries, from the ice stores, from the
gas stations, from the tourist businesses, from the loss of the salmon
running from Monterey, the midcoast, all the way up to the Washington
border. Those jobs have been impacted.
This is not a good situation. That is why I said I haven't lost many
lawsuits that I have supported. The point was to check your guns at the
door and see if we could work together. And this has agreement--it has
unanimous agreement of the water agencies across the State that this is
helpful. This will make a difference. That is why they have supported
all these projects.
We can start to work together, water agencies that today are down at
the Department of the Interior trying to see if we could get things
done that the last administration prohibited the Bureau of Reclamation
from doing, such as entering new fish screens within the Delta that we
think will save 250,000 acre-feet of water. 250,000. Does that sound
familiar in the valley?
But the last administration would not let the Bureau of Reclamation
take those projects, even though they would be paid for by State funds.
That is the importance of this legislation. This is about whether or
not we as a State come together from the Oregon border to the Mexican
border and solve this problem across all of our needs, which is
agriculture, which is business, which is municipal use of water.
We have the potential to do that, and these pieces of legislation are
critical. That is why, up until now, the House decided on a joint
bipartisan basis that we would get these bills as fast as we can to the
Senate and hopefully get action and get these projects underway,
because the cities have already put up the money, the engineering is
done, the projects are cleared. That is why many of them were eligible
for stimulus money, because they are ready to go. They have been
waiting to go. They have been waiting, in fact in many cases a number
of years, because the administration wouldn't put up the money until
the stimulus bill of this year.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
my friend from California (Mr. McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank my friend from Florida.
As I listen to my colleague from California, I rise opposed to this
rule. You cannot bring water to California when you bring another
closed rule to the floor. You cannot bring debate to the floor when you
don't allow amendments.
Madam Speaker, the people of the Central Valley are being crushed
with record unemployment from a man-made drought, from 14 percent to
over 40 percent. Plain and simple, the majority that runs this House is
failing to fix this problem. Jobs are being lost because the pumps were
shut off.
At a time of crisis, when there is no excuse for partisanship, some
appear to be playing partisan games at the expense of people's
livelihoods. Instead of coming together as Republicans, Democrats and
Independents, the solution to get the water flowing sits behind post
office bills and this bill that would recycle water for use in San
Francisco Bay.
I ask this simple question: why are we failing to take up a needed
bill to turn the pumps on to get the water flowing again? This is not a
liberal, conservative or moderate issue. This is a commonsense issue.
Madam Speaker, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said the
Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself. Well, the pumps are off,
the pipes are dry, the land is no longer able to produce, and the soil
is being destroyed. How do you bring water to California with a closed
rule? How do you sit on this floor and say you are bringing all these
bills up for water but you deny the Valley, you deny the breadbasket
and you deny the ability for the pumps to be turned on?
I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.

{time} 1400

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind everyone here that
earlier this year several other local water measures were resoundingly
approved by the House. They include the South Orange County Recycled
Water Enhancement Act, which was in Representative Calvert's district;
the Lake Hodges Surface Water Improvement Act in Representative
Bilbray's district; the Magna Water District Reuse and Groundwater
Recharge Act in Representative Chaffetz' district of Utah; the
Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling project in Representative
Gallegly's district; the Hermiston water recycling and reuse project,
Representative Walden of Oregon; the Tule River Tribe Water Development
Act in Representative Nunes' district.
Until it was caught up in partisanship, H.R. 2442 would have followed
the same procedure. H.R. 2442 is no different than any of these bills.
What is different is politics.
I reserve my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
my friend from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I'm here standing in support of
Congressman Nunes and the California delegation that has spoken against
this rule and for water for the valley. And as I watched this debate
unfold here on the floor, something about the depth of the emotion in
the voice and in the eyes of Devin Nunes told me I needed to go see for
myself, Mr. Speaker.
So in late August, I went down to the Fresno area and traveled the
valley--most of the valley, not all of the valley--and I looked at
250,000 acres of man-made dust. And I know there are at least 600,000
acres of man-made drought in that Central Valley area, and then I went
up to San Francisco with a heavy heart. And I can tell you what I saw
when I looked at that dust in the valley. I felt like that Indian in
the commercial that saw his river full of junk and tires and the tear
trickled down his cheek to think that man could do that to man. And
they're watering the lawns in San Francisco while we have a man-made
drought and they're taking out dead trees from orchards in California
in the valley.
I also led a codel to go look at the swamp Arabs in Iraq, and there,
Saddam Hussein, years ago we'll know, decided that he didn't like the
politics of the people in the south, the Shias in

[[Page H11415]]

the south that lived in that swamp, and so he shut off and diverted the
Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and shut off the water and dried out the
swamp Arabs in the south. And I visited that area. It was a political
decision and a man-made drought for the swamp Arabs in Iraq, and we're
quite proud that we sent our American military in to turn on that water
and reflood that swamp and give them back the lifeblood of the people
in southern Iraq on the delta area there.
Here, we have the valley, and this is a battle going on between San
Francisco, the urban areas in California, and the most productive area
in the world. And I'm from Iowa and I'm saying this. The most dollars
per acre produced out of the valley of anyplace in the world, and we
have a man-made drought. We're watering lawns in San Francisco and
diverting more water to San Franciscans, who didn't look to me like
they were very dry, and throwing dust in the face of the hardworking
people in the valley.
I can't believe we can have a man-made tragedy of this magnitude and
we're told, check your guns at the door. Check your guns at the door
when the cards are dealt, and we have a closed rule that shuts off any
debate other than on the rule itself, no amendments allowed, no vote
being able to be forced. We can't shape policy in this Congress if it's
being shaped up there in the hole in the wall.
I want to bring that debate down to the floor. And if you at least
have enough courage to ask for an open rule and allow some amendments
so the Members of this Congress can weigh in, then the people of the
country can weigh in and they can have their voice heard. We can turn
on the water.
This is not about the minnow you'll find and other species. It's
about a fight over the water. But a man-made drought and 600,000 acres,
40,000 jobs lost, shut off the water to the swamp Arabs, shut them off
to the people down in the Central Valley. It is heartbreaking, Mr.
Speaker, and this has got to stop. The voice of the people needs to be
heard.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that five amendments were
submitted to the Rules Committee for this bill. All five were
nongermane. Not a single amendment would be allowed on this floor under
an open rule.
I reserve my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The Chair will remind all
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to
yield 5 minutes to my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose
this rule. As a former member of the Rules Committee, and currently as
the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I want to
address several arguments that have been made that try to justify
blocking amendments to provide relief for tens of thousands of
suffering people suffering an economic disaster in the San Joaquin
Valley as a result of a man-made and government-enforced drought.
First, I want to specifically dispel the notion that allowing the
House to vote on relief to these suffering communities wasn't possible
because amendments were nongermane. Mr. Speaker, it is entirely within
the power of the House Rules Committee to allow debate on any amendment
that it wishes and, conversely, to shut down debate on any amendment
they do not want to see discussed on the House floor. The Rules
Committee does, can, and regularly does, waive the germaneness rule. It
simply refused to do so on this matter because the Democrat leadership
of this House doesn't wish to have this matter, this matter of the man-
made drought in the San Joaquin Valley, debated or discussed on the
House floor. Any notion, any notion, Mr. Speaker, that they couldn't
allow these amendments even 10 minutes of debate time followed by a
vote is simply not true.
So let's be clear about what we're debating here. The underlying bill
relates to Federal water recycling projects in the San Francisco Bay
Area of California. The amendments not made in order relate to Federal
water supply and a man-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley in
California. This is hardly a case of mixing apples and oranges. The
truth is that the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose to hand a
shiny red apple to the San Francisco Bay Area and give a giant
raspberry to the people in the San Joaquin Valley.
The other argument I wish to address and dispel is that the drought
in California is an issue only for those in California to resolve. Mr.
Speaker, if this House can debate and vote on a bill to provide
millions of taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer dollars, for water
projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, then this House can certainly
debate and vote on providing relief to farmers and farmworkers that are
denied Federal water by Federal lawsuits and Federal policies, again,
in the San Joaquin Valley of California. This isn't a case of having
your cake and eat it, too. It's a matter of water for San Francisco and
none for the San Joaquin Valley.
Lastly, to the argument this is a California issue for Californians
to resolve, I will note that the votes in the Rules Committee to block
the amendments from being heard were by a margin of six ``no'' and five
``yes.'' All four Republicans voted to allow the amendments to be heard
on the floor, as did Mr. Cardoza from California, and a Democrat, but
not one single one of Mr. Cardoza's Democrat colleagues joined him. We
were told this is a California matter, and yet relief for the San
Joaquin Valley is denied because of the votes of Democrats on the Rules
Committee from New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Maine, and Colorado,
who all voted ``no'' to block discussion of these amendments on the
House floor.
The arguments of germaneness and it's a California only matter are
simply excuses being used to try to hide the fact that the Democrat
leaders who control this House don't want to allow a vote on solutions
and provide relief to the tens of thousands of people suffering in the
San Joaquin Valley.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unfair rule.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we are in a drought. We are in a drought.
That's a fact. And this legislation will help ensure that future
droughts in California will have less of a damaging impact. When water
is used more efficiently, droughts like the one we are currently
experiencing become less severe because we have built in defense
mechanisms.
We know that the drought, and not the Endangered Species Act or House
leadership, is the real reason why so many individuals are suffering in
California's Central Valley. In fact, according to Ron Milligan, the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operations manager for the Central Valley
Project, the average delta water exports prior to 2008 were 5.7 million
acre-feet. In 2009, the export fell to 3.6 million acre-feet. Of the
2.1 million acre-foot shortfall, 1.6 million is due to the drought.
Only 500,000 of the decreased results are from the delta smelt ruling.
If anything, our colleagues who represent that part of the State
should support H.R. 2442 as a means of fighting against the drought.
They should also support it as a way to increase the amount of water
available statewide for local agencies to access.
I reserve my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\
minute to my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that this bill will apparently
benefit people in the San Francisco Bay Area with water. As I
understand it, I think we have some leadership on the majority side
that is from that area. And that's wonderful that they'll benefit with
water, but it is deeply troubling to hear people come to this floor and
start trying to blame the past administration for water problems in
California.
At what point are people going to acknowledge, you know what? The
Democratic majority, we're in the majority as Democrats. We took
control over 2\1/2\ years ago, and we're responsible here. We have had
an opportunity to do something about this for over 2 years, and we have
not done anything because the majority leadership has chosen not to do
anything.

[[Page H11416]]

My friend Devin Nunes recruited me over 2 years ago. He had me look
at this, and I saw how the smelt were being protected, and that's fine.
But the smelt, the 2-inch minnow, while people are starving, the land
is starving, the people are starving, they're losing their jobs.
When Devin brought this to my attention, it smelt badly back then. It
smelt badly a year ago. It's smelt badly all this year, and now, my
friends, it stinks. It's time to have open rules that allow us to bring
water to everyone who needs it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that further investing in
water recycling is sound public policy. This bill would allow the Bay
Area to reuse water. This legislation would not mandate additional
water transfers or adversely affect California's Central Valley in any
way. H.R. 2442 is a proactive step taken by our delegation to address
California's water situation in a positive way.
I'd like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on the rule.
I was sitting here waiting to speak on the underlying legislation
after the rule is passed because I think it is an important ingredient
towards dealing with a serious problem in California that affects us
all, but I am compelled to come to the floor to support briefly the
rule that is brought before us.
My friend from the other side of the aisle from Texas recently asked,
wonders at what point the majority stops blaming the Bush
administration. I would hope that at some point the minority looks at a
lost decade of Republican stranglehold on reasonable environmental
policy, not just for California, but throughout the West, that actually
set us back. We're playing catch-up now on things that we should have
done for years in water infrastructure and water policy.

{time} 1415

Second, the notion that somehow we are wasting water because it flows
into the delta and on into the Pacific Ocean, I will tell you, my
fishermen in the Pacific Northwest don't think that is a waste. They
don't think the smelt--which is a proxy for a collapsing ecosystem that
is posing problems throughout the Pacific Northwest on historic
fisheries and speaking to other environmental problems--is not a waste.
I find it amusing to hear some people come to the floor and talk
about a man-made, government-made drought. For heaven sakes, look at
what's happening to the water levels; look at the areas there where
they don't even monitor what is happening with groundwater to keep
careful control. The California legislature just tied itself into knots
unable to advance sensible water policies.
There is a governmental failure all right, a governmental failure
that at the Federal Government, the State government, and the local
government we haven't dealt meaningfully with these conflicts. Instead
we have treated farmers, fishermen, the environment and local
communities that rely on these sources, we have treated them shabbily.
Well, now with the climate change and persistent drought and the fact
that some people aren't going to sit back and take it anymore, it's
coming home to roost.
I hope that there is a more spirited and robust discussion about the
reality. I hope California gets its act together on a State level.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. And I hope that the Federal Government makes up for
that lost decade.
We are in a situation now where water is the precious resource for
going forward, and what we're seeing here is a blip on the radar screen
that is going to be affecting each and every State across the country.
We better stop pretending that this drought is somehow government
caused. We need to get our act together, get policies in place, protect
the environment, be rational and be fair.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. I thank my friend from Florida.
I just want to make sure that we set the record straight on this
salmon fishing issue. A lot of people are probably watching out there
and wondering, well, are these salmon fishermen really out of work? The
truth is that the salmon fishermen can still fish; they just can't fish
for salmon. And that is because the government--us, this body--and
others told the fishermen that they cannot fish for salmon. Every other
country in the world can fish for salmon, just us.
So not only are we not allowing the salmon fishermen to fish, we are
also paying them not to fish; several hundred million dollars we have
given the salmon fishermen so that they will not fish for salmon.
Meanwhile, we have 40,000 people that are without work, and they get
nothing.
So there is no correlation between these pumps that have run for 50
years and salmon fishermen not fishing, except for this: the government
says, salmon fishermen, you can't fish for salmon. The government also
says, keep the pumps shut off so that people in the San Joaquin Valley
don't have any water and can't grow any crops to provide Americans
food. So this whole argument about the poor salmon fishermen is
complete fiction.
I would like to know where my colleagues were--some of them who were
in this body--in the 1980s when they ran every Portuguese American
fisherman out of the San Diego area. There were several thousand mostly
Portuguese fishermen, and nobody came to their aid. They fished for
tuna. All those jobs were lost to foreign countries. And now all of a
sudden we're here and we're worried about salmon fishermen? Bogus,
absolutely bogus. Shameful on this body.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the
issue that's been debated, one thing continues to come to mind: the
merits of this issue, this water issue of such importance to people in
the San Joaquin Valley in California, have been debated during this
rule debate because there is no other option.
The substantive legislation, two amendments that Mr. Nunes came to
the Rules Committee and asked to be authorized for debate by the House,
they were denied; they were not made in order. So there is no other
option but during the time when we are debating the rule, the terms of
debate for an underlying bill that will subsequently be debated, this
is the only time when Mr. Nunes and the others who know this issue so
intimately and feel it, appropriately, so passionately in
representation of their constituents, it's the only opportunity that
they have to be able to bring out the issue, to educate us. And it's a
shame because the Congress as a whole, the House as a whole, should be
able to debate this issue and consider it and decide it.
Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have
written and called many of us and made their opinions known at meetings
asking us whether we pledge to read bills before we vote on them. The
reason is that many people were outraged when they found out that the
majority leadership forced the Congress to vote on a number of sweeping
and very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or
even to read the bills.
For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus
bill and on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on a cap-and-trade
bill. I remember that one was presented to us at three in the morning
in the Rules Committee, and a few hours after that we had it here on
the floor. All those bills were passed without Members being able to
read them, having time to do so. That's no way to run the House, and so
our constituents are rightfully upset.
You would think that this issue of sufficient time to read
legislation should not be controversial. The distinguished Speaker
stated, and I quote, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine
bills and conference reports before floor consideration,'' and yet that
has not been the case time after time after time.
So 182 Members have signed a discharge petition at the front desk
that

[[Page H11417]]

would require all legislation to be available to Members of Congress
for at least 72 hours before the legislation is brought to the House
floor for a vote.
So, accordingly, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question so we can amend the rule and allow the House to consider that
legislation, House Resolution 544, a bipartisan bill by my friends and
colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson.
Now, with regard to any Members being concerned that that may
jeopardize consideration of the underlying legislation, I want to make
it clear that this motion provides for separate consideration of the
Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can vote on this
underlying legislation, the water bill, and then once we're done,
consider House Resolution 544.
Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
The rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to make a
strong Federal commitment to sustaining California's economy, water
supply, and our environment.
This bill was reported unanimously by the National Resources
Committee on September 29. It was voted under suspension on September
30. It was introduced in May. There has been ample time for the
minority to review this legislation. Now is the time to act on it.
The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act would
lessen the limited demand for fresh water by the region and the State.
It is critical that we avoid partisan debate and disagreements over
water issues and pass this legislation.
Moreover, the House has already expedited similar measures for a
bipartisan collection of congressional districts across California. The
south Orange County recycling project was passed in February in Mr.
Calvert's district. The Lake Hodges Surface Water improvements was
passed in April in Mr. Bilbray's district. The Calleguas Municipal
Water District recycling initiative was approved in September for Mr.
Gallegly. The Magna Water District Reuse proposal in Utah was passed
for Mr. Chaffetz's district. The Hermiston water recycling and reuse
project in Oregon was passed for Mr. Walden's district. And the Tule
River Water Development Act was passed by a vote of 417-3 in July for
Mr. Nunes' district.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that local water projects typically have
bipartisan support here in the House of Representatives. I am
disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have set
aside that tradition, forcing us to bring this rule to the floor today.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 830 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new
section:
Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of
this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention
of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the
Rules of the House of Representatives to require that
legislation and conference reports be available on the
Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and
for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the
Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative
day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order or demand for
division of the question, shall be considered as read and
shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and
(3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain
instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 554.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 178, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 786]

YEAS--237

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson

[[Page H11418]]

Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--178

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Boyd
Cao
Carney
Cleaver
Deal (GA)
Emerson
Hall (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kind
McCollum
Melancon
Mollohan
Radanovich
Scalise
Smith (WA)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters

{time} 1453

Messrs. CHILDERS and GOODLATTE changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. TANNER and WELCH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 193, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 787]

YEAS--221

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--193

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor

[[Page H11419]]

Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Boyd
Cao
Carney
Cleaver
Deal (GA)
Emerson
Hall (TX)
Herger
Johnson (GA)
McCollum
Melancon
Mollohan
Olver
Radanovich
Scalise
Smith (WA)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters

{time} 1501

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California and Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________