[Pages H1031-H1041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1837, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
WATER RELIABILITY ACT

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 566

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1837) to address certain water-related
concerns on the San Joaquin River, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, it
shall be in order to consider

[[Page H1032]]

as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112 15. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
This resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of
H.R. 1837. It's entitled the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water
Reliability Act and provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the
Committee on Natural Resources.
This is a bipartisan bill that came from our committee on a
bipartisan vote.

{time} 1240

In like manner, the Rules Committee has decided to make this a
bipartisan amendment process because we made in order all amendments
filed at the Rules Committee which were germane, which complied with
the House rules. I think this is very fair, and it's a generous rule to
talk about a bill that has support on both sides of the aisle.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging the service of David Timothy
Dreier to this House of Representatives and to this country. There will
be many more opportunities prior to his departure to acknowledge his
work for his country, but our chairman today announced that he will be
retiring at the end of this session. Chairman Dreier said:

We all know that this institution has an abysmally low
approval rating, and the American people are asking for a
change in Congress. So I am announcing today that I will
leave Congress at the end of the year.

I would like to reassure my chairman that the change the American
people, my constituents, and our country had in mind was not, in fact,
his retirement. That will be a tremendous loss to this body.
David Dreier is a proud institutionalist, somebody who has capably
served the country, has been a friend and mentor to me, first as
ranking member and now chair of the powerful Rules Committee, and
somebody that I've had the opportunity and the privilege to work with
on a number of bipartisan issues around trade and U.S.-Mexico
relations.
His retirement will constitute the loss of not only a wealth of
knowledge but of a tireless and dedicated and honorable public servant,
and I hope that he continues to find opportunities to serve the public,
as he truly has much more to give and is too young to call it quits. I
hope that, at the end of this session, his retirement from this body
will be a new beginning for our chair.
I rise today with great concern over this bill's impact on my home
State and its number one resource and scarcest resource in issue,
water. You know, we have an old saying in the West that ``whiskey is
for drinking and water is for fighting.''
I think, Mr. Speaker, we're going to see some of that fighting here
on the floor of the House tonight, and I would argue that this isn't
the appropriate venue to settle inter-California disputes that have
long been settled through case law and settlements.
Water fights are long, expensive, tiring, but, you know, they've led
to an established and workable framework within which States and
localities have operated for years.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not just about California. This bill has
far-reaching implications for nearly 17 other States, including my own
State of Colorado. This bill would override the century-long legacy
whereby the Bureau of Reclamation respects each State's legal ability
to control, appropriate, use, and distribute irrigation water. Because
of this, more than several dozens letters from stakeholders in
opposition to this legislation, including the nonpartisan Western
States Water Council and the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Oregon,
have all been received by the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter in opposition from my
home State of Colorado.

Colorado Department

of Natural Resources,

Denver, CO, August 19, 2011.
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power, House Committee on Natural
Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Grace Napolitano, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water and Power, House Committee on Natural
Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Natural Resources: The State of Colorado would like to join
with the Western States Water Council (WSWC) in an expression
of unified opposition to House Resolution 1837, the ``San
Joaquin Water Reliability Act''. The State concurs that this
Act is an ``unwarranted intrusion on the rights of the states
to allocate and administer rights to the use of state water
resources.'' Furthermore, in light of the current atmosphere
of cooperation and amiability between the Western states and
Federal agencies, this Act could detract from the hard work
and efforts that have gone into the evolution of Western
water law and policy.
The development of water law in the arid West has been a
long incremental process, involving ratification of treaties,
negotiation of interstate compacts, and litigation before the
United States Supreme Court. To allow this Act to proceed
would have the effect of throwing a proverbial ``monkey
wrench in the machinery'', especially in regards to current
projects, such as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a
bipartisan deal reached by the California Legislature.
The testimony on June 2 of John Laird, Secretary for the
Natural Resources Agency of California, reminded the
Subcommittee of Justice Rehnquist's opinion in the 1978 case
California v. United States: ``The history of the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States in
the reclamation of the arid lands of the Western States is
both long and involved, but through it runs the consistent
thread of purposeful and continued deference to state water
law by Congress.''
For these reasons, and the reasons stated in the Western
States Water Council correspondence and resolution passed on
July 29, 2011, the State of Colorado opposes the passage of
House Resolution 1837.
Regards,

Mike King,

Executive Director,
Colorado Department of Natural Resources.

In this letter that I submitted to the Record from my home State of
Colorado, our Natural Resources Department wrote:

The development of water law in the arid West has been a
long incremental process, involving ratification of treaties,
negotiation of interstate compacts, and litigation before the
United States Supreme Court. To allow this Act to proceed
would have the effect of throwing a proverbial ``monkey
wrench in the machinery.''

And so today, under this rule, this House will be considering, with
one broad, sweeping stroke of the Federal legislative brush, numerous
unintended consequences that will undo the existing framework, wiping
away decades of settled water law, wiping away relative certainty, to
the detriment of our Western States and to the sole benefit of
attorneys.
Mr. Speaker, I know that many of us in this body are concerned about
frivolous lawsuits and States rights. Anybody who shares my concerns
about

[[Page H1033]]

States rights and frivolous lawsuits should join me in opposing this
bill. This legislation will open up a century of water law to new
litigation across the West. If you ask me, that's the definition of
needlessly frivolous lawsuits.
This bill imposes Federal law over bipartisan local agreements, in
this case those reached by the California legislature on the Bay-Delta,
all while imposing unintended consequences and burdens on other States.
This bill simply isn't true to our values of local control.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the committee has refused to address many
issues with this bill and how it will impact the West. Now, that's not
because the committee was unaware of the problems. In fact, the
testimony on June 2 of John Laird, the Secretary for the Natural
Resources Agency of California, reminded the subcommittee of Justice
Rehnquist's opinion in the 1978 case, California v. United States,
where Justice Rehnquist wrote:

The history of the relationship between the Federal
Government and the States in the reclamation of the arid
lands of the Western States is both long and involved, but
through it runs the consistent thread of purposeful and
continued deference to State water law by Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does the exact opposite. The Western States
Water Council wrote to express their strong opposition to H.R. 1837 as
an ``unwarranted intrusion on the rights of States to allocate and
administer rights to the use of State water resources.''
Mr. Speaker, this bill would set a dangerous precedent of preempting
State water rights, leaving other States vulnerable to this kind of
Federal infringement, effectively letting Representatives from New
York, from Michigan, from Florida and from Texas vote on California
water. And I know as the Representative from Colorado, I wouldn't want
the shoe to be on the other foot and having Representatives from across
the country deciding what we do with our water.
Finally, this bill would erode any efforts in the multistate work to
recover listed salmon species along the West Coast, with immense impact
to local economies and fisheries. It would preempt California State
law, which is why the California Natural Resources Secretary has
written in opposition to this bill, and why the California Attorney
General is also opposed.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in a ``no'' vote on the rule and
the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a colloquy,
please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado controls the
time.
Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), who is the sponsor of this
bipartisan piece of legislation, to talk about his particular
underlying bill.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I was asking my good friend from Colorado to
enter into a colloquy with me, and that's okay. But I do want to say
that the gentleman from Colorado and myself work in a bipartisan
manner. We're both cochairs of the Mexico-U.S. Caucus. We've worked
hard on that, and I would hope that the gentleman from Colorado would
listen to the debate today because I think after we listen to the
debate--I understand some of the concerns that he raises.
But as Mr. Bishop pointed out, the Rules Committee was very gracious
to allow all the amendments on the Democrat side and the Republican
side to be offered and accepted to be debated here on the floor. So I
would just urge my colleague, with whom we work together on numerous
other issues in this Congress, that we find today a way to come
together in a bipartisan manner. Hopefully, the gentleman from Colorado
will listen to all the facts as they're presented.
Mr. Speaker, after decades of California water being controlled by
the Federal Government, Congress can conclude one thing: flushing water
into the San Francisco Bay is not helping to recover species, and
people are suffering needlessly.
We're going to hear a lot from opponents about this bill, about
science. I want to start right off the bat and make one thing clear:
we're supporting sound science with H.R. 1837, and we are rejecting
junk science that has long been foisted on the people of California,
junk science the Federal court has labeled the unlawful work of
zealots.
It is important for me to impress upon the House, the opponents of
H.R. 1837 do not possess scientific high ground, as they are all but
certain to allege. Their experts, and the activists masquerading as
experts who support them, have been biased from the beginning and have
molded their work to produce the findings that best suit their radical
agenda.

{time} 1250

We can say this with certainty that this agenda has not improved the
fish populations. If that were true, we would not be here today.
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. District Court has thrown out the biological
decisions used to justify the horrible regulations that cut off water
supplies to families throughout California. The court's decision was a
shocking indictment of the kind of government operating in America
today when it comes to our environmental laws. The U.S. District Court
judge said, I've never seen anything like it. He went on to say that
government scientists acted like zealots and had attempted to mislead
and to deceive the court into accepting junk science.
These are powerful statements by the Federal court and should give
anyone who believes in due process, open government, and justice a
cause for concern.
But the band has marched on without missing a beat; and instead of
disciplining these scientists, the Fish and Wildlife Service actually
gave them an award for outstanding service under pressure.
The arrogant disregard for public trust didn't stop there. Just
yesterday, the President issued a veto threat, essentially doubling
down on the dishonest smear campaign accusing House Republicans, and I
believe many Democrats, of doing just the sort of thing that his
administration has been found guilty of by a Federal court.
Mr. Speaker, we are not ignoring the latest science in favor of
special interests. We are not the people who are sending zealots into
the Federal court to lie in the defense of junk science. We are not the
people rigging regulations to favor a small minority of special
interest groups.
The agenda of junk science governing the bay delta is indefensible.
Just as the Federal court had said, it's dishonest.
Congress needs to ask itself, who are these people that come up with
these things? Who are they?
I think the Congress will be interested to find out that one of the
leaders just weeks ago, a guy by the name of Dr. Peter Gleick, he spent
his career trying to dry up farmland in rural communities throughout
California; and, in fact, he's even testified before Congress to this.
But Dr. Gleick is an activist. He's an activist who poses as a
scientist.
Just a few weeks ago, he admitted to impersonating another person and
stealing information from a nonprofit. He then mingled that stolen
information with a fake memo in an effort to discredit his intellectual
critics. Radicals like Dr. Gleick lie; they make it their mission to
destroy scientists who do not agree with their twisted, anti-human
views.
Meanwhile, they are used by some in this House as an excuse to take
people's water away, to take their private property rights away, to dry
up farm land and, worst of all, to justify human suffering.
Mr. Speaker, people in our Nation's bread basket are standing in food
lines, and they're getting carrots that have been imported from China.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, their sacrifices have done nothing to improve
the environment. Fish populations have declined, and I think what we
will prove today here in the Congress is that there is a better path
forward, and H.R. 1837 provides that path forward.
So I would urge not only my Republican colleagues but also my
Democrat colleagues to listen to the evidence, and I would urge them to
vote for this rule so we can move on to the debate so we can finally
restore sanity to California's water system.

[[Page H1034]]

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California, a former member of the Rules Committee,
Ms. Matsui.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to this
bill. The issue of water in California has been debated for many
decades because it is such a critical issue for our States. As a
daughter of a California Central Valley farmer, I grew up on a farm;
and I deeply understand the value of and the controversy over water.
Being able to plan the next growing season is critical for farmers.
Unless they can count on the water being provided, there is no
assurance for their crops. Now, in northern California, we have
balanced our watershed. We have provided water for our farms, our
cities, and our sensitive habitats in a way that we can have
sustainability. But this legislation throws out the ability of the
people of California to decide their own water future.
Mr. Speaker, any real solution to California's water issues will need
to be crafted with consensus within California, not in a partisan
manner on the House floor the way H.R. 1837 has been written.
This legislation purports to have the support of northern California,
but I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.
My district, the Sacramento region as a whole, the five delta counties,
are among countless others who oppose this bill, and the list continues
to grow.
Some of the strong concerns include the loss of the State's right to
manage its own water, the decimation of environmental protections for
our Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the ability to manage the Folsom Dam
reservoir for the benefit of the lower American River, and, most
importantly, the overall instability that this bill would create in
California. The idea of usurping the rights of States to control their
own water is incredibly damaging, not only to the Sacramento area but
to California and even to our country.
For those of our colleagues who represent areas outside of California
and plan to support the bill because they may not impact your State, I
have news for you. This is not just about California. H.R. 1837 will
set a precedent that will create a domino effect so that it could
happen next in Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and so forth. We don't
need Federal legislation that only creates more problems for an already
intractable problem. We cannot afford to give up California's right to
control its own water future. The stakes are just too high.
I urge my colleagues to strongly reject this legislation.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of attending a
public hearing in California with the gentleman to my right from
California. It was an honor to listen to these people, and I'm pleased
to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that worked
through this bipartisan bill, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in 2009 and again in 2010, hundreds of billions of
gallons of contracted water were expropriated from California farms and
instead dumped into the Pacific Ocean in the name of the delta smelt.
This tragic policy fallowed hundreds of thousands of acres of some of
the most fertile and productive farmland in America. It threw thousands
of hardworking families into unemployment. It devastated communities
throughout the region, and it created the spectacle of unemployed farm
workers standing in food lines to receive carrots imported from China
in a region that, just a short time before, had produced much of
American-grown fruits and vegetables; and it contributed to rising
grocery prices that families felt far beyond the congressionally
created dust bowl of California's Central Valley.
In the last Congress, the then-minority Republicans begged and
pleaded for hearings to address this catastrophe. The majority turned a
deaf ear.
Last year, we returned as the new House majority to take testimony on
what could be done to correct this disaster. The result of those
hearings is the bill by Mr. Nunes that this rule brings to the floor.
This bill restores the water allocations established under the
historic Bay-Delta Accord in 1994. When that agreement, commanding
broad bipartisan support, was signed, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
assured all parties:

A deal is a deal. And if it turns out that there is a need
for additional water, it will come at the expense of the
Federal Government.

The water diversions shattered that promise. This bill redeems it.
The Federal Central Valley Project is part of a coordinated operating
agreement with the State Water Project at California's request and
consent. The two are inseparable. In order to protect the water rights
of every Californian, this bill brings the full force of Federal law to
protect those rights so that there is no ambiguity. This protection has
earned this provision the support of the Northern California Water
Association, representing the water districts that serve the farms and
communities and families throughout the areas of origin in California.
My opponents just said this preempts State water rights. It doesn't
preempt State water rights. It specifically invokes and protects State
water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy--local, State, or
Federal--a legitimate constitutional function of the Federal Government
established under the 14th Amendment and made essential by the terms of
the State-approved joint operating agreement of these intertwined water
systems.

{time} 1300

The bill also restores common sense and practicality to protections
for endangered native species like salmon and the delta smelt. One of
the greatest threats to these endangered native species is nonnative
invasive predators like the striped bass. Indeed, it is common to find
striped bass in the Sacramento Delta gorged with endangered salmon
smolts and delta smelt. This bill allows open season on these
predators, and it encourages the use of fish hatcheries to assure the
perpetuation of thriving native populations of salmon and smelt.
It replaces the cost-prohibitive provisions of the San Joaquin River
Settlement Act, which contemplates spending an estimated $1 billion to
achieve the stated goal of establishing a population of 500 salmon
below the Friant Dam. That comes to $2 million per individual fish.
This bill replaces the absurd mandate of a 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 for 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 has 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 on
what one Federal judge rightly called the ``ideological zealotry'' of
rogue bureaucrats.
This debate will determine if we are about to enter a new era when
common sense can be restored to our public policy and when a sensible
balance can be restored between environmental and human needs. I
welcome that debate, and I ask for the adoption of the rule to bring it
forth.
Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
174 days ago, the President of the United States came to this floor
and 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 has been dealt with, belatedly,
which is the extension of the middle class tax cut. There has been no
vote on a bill to create construction jobs, on the rebuilding of our
libraries and schools; no

[[Page H1035]]

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 or our teachers back in the classroom.
Nothing.
Now, the bill that is before us today is very important, not just for
California but for the country, and it is something that needs to be
taken up. 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.
Since the President came here, there has been another increasingly
urgent economic problem, which is the manipulation of gasoline prices
by speculators, and Americans are seeing the consequences of this at
the pump every day. Members on our side have some ideas to stop this
speculation and to stop the pillaging of the wallets of American
consumers at the gas pumps every day. Not surprisingly, that's not
coming up for a vote either.
The priorities of the House are misaligned with the priorities of the
American people. Let's put on this floor legislation that creates jobs
and that gives relief to our people at the fuel pumps.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's
comments. I would remind him also that the CBPA, the bill that started
this problem, was actually authored by the Senator from New Jersey at
the time, and I appreciate that. This is one of those things we are
trying to fix.
I gladly yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. First, I want to mention to my friend from New Jersey that
we have several bills, including that of the Keystone pipeline, sitting
over in the Senate. They're bills that will create tens of thousands of
jobs, maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet it does not seem that
Harry Reid would like to bring those to the floor, so we are doing our
job here.
Mr. Speaker, this bill today is about creating, really, a new
environment for job creation in recognizing the human suffrage that has
occurred in the Central Valley. I visited out there almost 2 years ago
and saw the level of employment and the human impact of this Federal
mandate upon California under the Endangered Species Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. TERRY. I don't know about the court case where it really raised
some serious issues regarding the credibility behind the rule, itself.
What I do know is that, by passing this bill today, we basically push
the restart button so that the entities that are hurt and the
environmentalists can work together for an appropriate balanced rule
that protects people's livelihoods as well.
This should be a bipartisan bill. It came out of committee as a
bipartisan bill. This is exactly the type of thing that we should be
working together and across the aisle on, and I would encourage my
friends on the Democratic side of the aisle to join with us in passing
this bill.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Costa).
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
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 hydrological and regulatory drought that
occurred in 2009 and 2010. I was in the food lines in which
farmworkers, sadly, found themselves because there wasn't sufficient
water to employ them.
My constituents who rely on water for their livelihoods are looking
to Congress to see that we are listening and that we care to work on
real solutions that impact their futures. The politics of water are not
new in California nor in the West. They've existed for decades. I would
hope that at some point we could put the politics aside. This debate is
too important. It has been put off for too long.
For the farmers, the farmworkers, and the farm communities that I
represent, I urge my colleagues to support this rule on a bipartisan
basis.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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 am one who does that very well.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill,
a bill which is a piece of bipartisan legislation that was introduced
not to serve mere partisans but to serve real people, not to promote
one's party but to promote everyone's prosperity.
I say this in a true spirit of inclusion as someone who comes from a
manufacturing State, as one whose auto companies stared into the abyss
of potential bankruptcy. 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 is a federally dictated drought in the San Joaquin Valley, one
that devastates farmers and all of our fellow Americans who live and
who, if they can, work there.
To me, as 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 legislatively imposed drought and to 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.

{time} 1310

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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding,
and I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the
legislation.
There is 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, 18 years ago? That will be the
science for the purposes of this legislation. You might as well tell
the people of California to use the same telecommunications systems
they had in 1994, no iPhones, no BlackBerries, no advancement in
knowledge, skills, training, or technology.
It's a pretty simplistic approach to science. You might say it's
mindless. The Federal Government is 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 and the Supreme Court says,
the Federal Government simply cannot commandeer the legislatures of the
States, but that's what this legislation does. I love the fact that we
have people here with wonderful conservative credentials who are now
suggesting the Federal Government should preempt California law,
preempt the California Legislature, preempt the Federal law, and go
back to 1994.
Where else would you 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, their water agencies, their 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, these heavily subsidized farmers
who have more than one or two or three 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

[[Page H1036]]

right, that's it. They want to turn it into perpetuity. They want the
water in perpetuity, and the hell with the rest of the State of
California. That obviously isn't acceptable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is 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
oppose this process, because this group of people had never come
together in the last 40 years to work on California problems.
The urban users, the rural users, the agricultural 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, that was
imposed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That was a Statewide drought. Yes,
they lost some employment in farm work, but, in fact, agricultural
employment, even through the drought, was pretty stable.
The big employment in the Central Valley came because we were selling
homes to people who couldn't pay for them. That was the crash. It was
first place and the longest crash that we had in this country in terms
of mortgages and the loss of the people who were working in those
trades.
But that drought was still 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 and the support
services all across our State. That drought was an equal destroyer of
this California economy from north to south.
Don't wreck this opportunity for California to settle California's
problems.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the
House adopts this rule, it will 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? Well, my colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop) has a
proposal to do just that.
I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) to
talk about his proposal.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge the House to
defeat the previous question so we can bring to the floor today my bill
that would have an immediate impact on lowering gas prices.
Leap day arrives more often than a Republican energy plan. A year
ago, when it became clear that 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 8 years. In fact,
we've become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that we
produce. And yet it's clear speculators are behind the spike in prices.
They will never take delivery of oil, but they make up 64 percent of
the market.
When speculators 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 million in profits last year. That's up 75
percent 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 weans 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 while striking at the heart of rising American gas
prices.
To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. 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 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. That's why, I suppose, States such as Colorado, Montana, 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 anything about your State's
ability to control its own destiny insofar as water is concerned, you
do not want this bill to pass because it is a blatant attempt by the
Westside Farmers to simply grab water and take total control of the
California water system.
It blows away all of the environmental laws of the Federal Government
and all of the environmental laws of the State of California and even
overrides the State Constitution. I cannot think of a worse policy for
anyone to be supporting if you care anything at all about States'
rights.
In addition to that, the bill totally destroys the efforts that have
been underway to solve the problems that do exist in California water.
There is absolutely not one new drop of water in this bill, but there
is 800,000 acre feet stolen and delivered to the southern water
contractors. For many, many reasons it ought to be defeated.
Briefly on Mr. Bishop's attempt to have his bill heard on this floor:
not a bad idea. Consider for a moment the fact that 26 million gallons
of gasoline are exported from the United States every day. Something is
wrong when that is occurring at the same time we're finding higher and
higher gas prices.

{time} 1320

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I remind the body, once again, that 9 out of the
10 amendments were made in order, and the only one that was not made in
order had a question of its germaneness to the body here.
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Denham), who does have a germane amendment that will be debated later
on on the floor.
Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this
not only in support of the rule, but in support of the bill. This is
something we went through in committee with very great debate, but it
goes well beyond the debate of committee.
We've debated this in the State of California for many, many years,
if not decades now. To have Members from California come down to the
floor and say that this is mindless, this is anything but mindless.
These are jobs. When you go down to Dennis Cardoza's district and see
30 percent unemployment in the Los Banos area or

[[Page H1037]]

down to Jim Costa's district and see 30 to 40 percent unemployment in
Firebaugh or over in Mendota, and you call it mindless? Come down and
talk to the people in our districts and tell them that their jobs are
mindless, that their homes are mindless, that their cars that they're
having to give up are mindless. These are farmworkers. These are
individuals. These are farmers that are seeing their families destroyed
right now. It is not mindless. They are certainly not special
interests. Come down to these districts.
We have invited the President, on a bipartisan basis, many times now
to come to California. Don't just go to L.A. and San Francisco, but
come see the Central Valley and the challenges that we have. See how,
when the water is shut off, we see our farms destroyed.
This absolutely has impact on the rest of the Nation. If you want a
safe food supply, if you want a reliable food supply, make sure we have
reliable water delivery. That is simply all this does.
Anytime that we talk about water throughout the Nation, or certainly
throughout California, it becomes a battle. A lot have talked about
pre-'94 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 State water rights.
We want a deal. We want a deal every year. We want an agreement that
says that if you're going to have a contract for 100 percent of your
water, you actually get 100 percent of your water. 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 percent water
allocation. We're still going to pay 100 percent of the cost of the
contract but have 30 percent of the water, which means once again we
will see 30 percent unemployment in Jim Costa's district, in Dennis
Cardoza's district, in my district, and in many of the districts
throughout the Central Valley.
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 in the committee level, as we've done elsewhere within
the State, but making sure that Republicans and Democrats are working
together and, more importantly, that the House and Senate are working
together.
I give a great deal of praise to the author of the bill, Congressman
Nunes, for getting a regional perspective for this, getting north and
south and central California to actually work together. That is a
tremendous accomplishment. The bigger accomplishment is actually
getting the Senate and the House to work together.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DENHAM. It is time that we come up with a solution that avoids
further cost, 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 that we've got 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 Senate and the House to work together,
just as we've come together in a bipartisan fashion on this bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker and Members, I think it was Einstein that said: If you
start with the wrong numbers in your equation, you can never get to the
correct solution. 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
is happening south of the delta, I don't know where those numbers came
from. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but you're not
welcome to your own facts. The facts tell a whole different story.
If you look at what UC Davis did, if you look at what the University
of the Pacific did, UC Berkeley, all their numbers point to a loss
associated with certain things: a loss of jobs associated with the
drought, a loss of jobs associated with an endangered species. But
these are in the hundreds or the single-digit thousands, not anywhere
close to 30,000 or 60,000. We need to get this thing right.
My friend from California was absolutely correct when he called for
us to work together. That's exactly what we've been trying to do, to
work together. This bill was not crafted with the stakeholders at the
table. This bill was crafted in the proverbial back room with not all
of the stakeholders present. None of us who have a legitimate dog in
this fight were included in this.
If this bill were to pass, there will be thousands of jobs lost.
They'll be north of the delta. They'll be farming jobs; they'll be
fisheries jobs; they'll be recreational jobs. They'll be all kinds of
jobs associated with the economy north of the delta.
You can't come to this floor with legislation that creates winners
and losers in the marketplace without bringing everybody to the table
to work on that. That's exactly what this bill does--it creates winners
and losers. It chooses jobs south of the delta at the expense of jobs
north of the delta. That's wrong and this bill should be defeated.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is hard to estimate
jobs when you're thirsty, but I realize if there was even one job that
is cost because of bad Federal behavior, that is one job too many.
I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr.
Diaz-Balart).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I'm glad, sir, that you just mentioned that, because
I just heard here that, no, no, it's not maybe X thousands of jobs that
are going to be lost; it is X minus a few thousand jobs that are going
to be lost.
What? Did I just hear that? I just did.
Rarely do you see such a reckless and immoral disregard for American
families, for American farmers, for American farmworkers, for
hardworking people than what we have in front of us and what this bill
is trying to solve in a bipartisan way, because this does have
bipartisan support.
I keep hearing about all of these horrors. But wait a second. Take a
step back, Mr. Speaker. These are farmers who have been farming that
very land for generations. This is not like they are trying to do
something new. They've been doing this for generations.
Can you imagine the circumstances if the Federal Government steps in
and says, ``No, we are going to cut off your water. You're not going to
be able to farm, and forget about those jobs. Go do something else,''
just because some bureaucrat someplace decides that they found a fish
all of the sudden after these farmers have been there for generations?
Sometimes a little common sense has to prevail and sometimes a little
moral sense has to prevail. Let's stand up for these farmers who have
been there for generations. Let's stand up for these farmworkers, the
poorest, hardest working individuals 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.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from
Utah how many speakers he has remaining.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. To be honest, I'm not quite sure. I know I have a
speech and there may be another one coming down here.
Mr. POLIS. I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I had the opportunity of going down to California to one of the
hearings where we met the farmers who are living in this particular
area. I heard their anguish. I understood 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. 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

[[Page H1038]]

so that we can solve a problem that has been caused by us. This effort
is to put forward legislation that corrects harms that are inflicted by
onerous, extreme, completely unbalanced Federal regulations which too
often seem to favor a narrow special interest group constituency as
opposed to a balanced approach to protect our environment while
considering jobs and the needs of real human people.

{time} 1330

As many have said already, our colleagues have put forth a program
which, unfortunately, is causing massive unemployment in the San
Joaquin Valley, causing thousands of acres which were the most
productive farmland to go fallow, and risks turning this productive
area into a dust bowl causing erosion. These are negative 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 is that California's 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
percent of those that are sold in the supermarket are raised in San
Joaquin Valley of California. For those who enjoy walnuts--I'm now zero
for two--or almonds and garlic--which I finally like--98 percent of
those supplies come from California. Nearly all of the domestic
avocados and nectarines are raised in California. Just for the record,
I'm three out of six for those particular food items.
California's man-made drought does not just impact Californians. It
attacks and it touches each and every one of us in some way. The next
time we go to the grocery store and stop and take a look at where these
products come from, the chances are pretty good they're coming from
California's Central Valley. You can nearly have a complete food meal
group just by looking at what comes out of a 10-square-mile area of
Central Valley California.
As prices continue to rise at the grocery store 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.
Ironically and sadly, in recent years since the Federal water
takings--and that's takings by the Federal Government--more and more
produce has found its way from other foreign sources to replace what
should have been produced in our own particular country. This bill
addresses that problem in a positive way by reinstating water rights to
farmers from water that was unjustly taken away by Federal regulations.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Colorado I have
no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I will yield
myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
previous question amendment in the Record along with extraneous
material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. My colleague, 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. If we defeat the rule
and the previous question, we will be able to immediately bring forth
Mr. Bishop's bill and the discussion about price gouging and gas
prices.
Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a dangerous precedent for preempting
State water rights, leaving other States vulnerable to this kind of
Federal interference. This bill is opposed by the State of California,
California's two U.S. Senators, the leaders of both State legislative
houses, commercial and recreational fishing associations, water
districts, local governments and the California Bay Delta Farmers. This
bill overrides a 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 under both California law and the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
There is simply no reason to support legislation that has a myriad of
unintended consequences. It is an attack on certainty, and it is an
attack 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 impact
seen during the first-ever closures of California's salmon fishery in
2008 and 2009 due to collapsing runs.
This bill is a recipe for lawsuit after lawsuit, 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
that ends up creating more problems for more people than the problem
it's trying to solve. Simply put, this bill is cutting off the nose to
spite the face; and my State, along with 17 others, stands to get
harmed over in the process, particularly by the dangerous precedent of
Federal second-guessing of local water rights.
If this bill were really about the delta smelt, then it should be
drafted more narrowly. If this bill were really about jobs, then take
into account the jobs of the salmon industry which the bill would
decimate. Take those concerns to local stakeholders and to the State of
California and work out a solution that is in the best interests of
California citizens. Unfortunately, this bill is not about real
problems. It's about scoring political points and advancing 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.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in addition to restoring
agricultural productivity in this area, what has been referred to as
``America's salad 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 those loans early on a
penalty-free basis.
In addition, as we are facing unprecedented debt, this bill would
stop wasteful spending, terminate over a billion dollars 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 is pro-environment by restoring warm-
water fish habitats. It also protects northern California waterfowl
habitat and still helps those who are trying to make a living as
farmers in this area.
Mr. Speaker, in this body, we always use comparatives and
superlatives 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
superlatives. We often do that. We talk about bills being so important.
In this case, I think superlatives are appropriate. 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. We are not setting any precedent for
anywhere else.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), the Speaker.
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding. My colleagues
know that 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.
I never thought, in my wildest dreams, I'd ever run for public office
or ever seek to come here to Congress. But as a small businessman, I
was concerned about the ever-growing size of

[[Page H1039]]

the Federal Government and the ever-growing reach of the Federal
Government. I saw it in my own business, I saw it with my suppliers,
and I saw it with 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 society.
Look at this bill and you will see 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 and who think that using water to
grow crops to feed the world is environmentally dangerous. They're
using the endangered species law for what I would describe as an
unintended purpose. They're using a law to shut down production
agriculture that they don't like, and they're 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.

{time} 1340

Well, here's a 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 it ought to pass.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 566 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
964) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and
other fuels, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the 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 Republican
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 Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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 on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 178, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 80]

YEAS--241

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)

[[Page H1040]]

Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--178

Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--14

Ackerman
Bass (CA)
Cantor
Crowley
Goodlatte
Lee (CA)
Myrick
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Sherman
Woolsey

{time} 1407

Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. ALEXANDER, STIVERS, and BURGESS 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.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245,
noes 173, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 81]

AYES--245

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--173

Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Ackerman
Bass (CA)
Braley (IA)
Cantor
Crowley
Goodlatte
Lee (CA)
Nadler
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Rivera
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Woolsey

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1415

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.
Stated against:
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 81, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''

[[Page H1041]]

personal explanation

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 81 and 80, due to being
unavoidably detained, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________