Amendment Text: H.Amdt.962 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (02/29/2012)

This Amendment appears on page H1067-1068 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H1041-H1079]
          SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WATER RELIABILITY ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 1387.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 566 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1837.

                              {time}  1422


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1837) to address certain water-related concerns on the San 
Joaquin River, and for other purposes, with Mr. Yoder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). Pursuant to the rule, 
the bill is considered read the first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1837, the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.
  Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent 
on irrigated water to support my agricultural industry. I understand 
the importance of having a stable, reliable water supply. I've 
witnessed how government regulations and environmental lawsuits can 
create conflicts for people, and jobs are the losers. However, Mr. 
Chairman, I have never seen anything like the economic devastation that 
California's San Joaquin Valley has experienced as a direct result of 
Federal policies that restrict water supply and that created this man-
made drought.
  Mr. Chairman, in 2009, Federal regulations to protect an endangered 
species 3-inch fish led to the deliberate diversion of over 300 
billion, Mr. Chairman, 300 billion gallons of water away

[[Page H1042]]

from the San Joaquin Valley farmers. This caused hundreds of thousands 
of acres of fertile farmland to dry up. It put thousands of people out 
of work, and it caused unemployment to reach 40 percent in some 
communities.
  Last April, the Natural Resources Committee traveled to Fresno, 
California, for a field hearing where we heard directly from 
farmworkers and valley growers who have been devastated and seen their 
livelihoods pushed to the brink by this man-made drought. We heard 
stories of farmworkers who normally feed the Nation, being forced to 
stand in food bank lines to receive handouts of carrots--carrots from 
China.
  Mother Nature temporarily rescued this region with historic 
precipitation last year, but another man-made drought is just around 
the corner if we do nothing. Rain and snow levels have declined, and 
just last week the Federal Government announced that the San Joaquin 
Valley farmers would receive only 30 percent of their initial water 
allocation for this year. This is unacceptable, and if Congress doesn't 
act now we will once again see farmworkers having to abandon the fields 
and return to the food lines.
  Families and communities in California have waited far too long for 
Congress to act. In 2009, Mr. Chairman, and in 2010, Mr. Chairman, 
while this man-made drought was devastating California, the Obama 
administration and a Democrat-led Congress did nothing. Republicans are 
ready to act today on bipartisan legislation that will end this man-
made drought and protect up to 30,000 jobs.
  This comprehensive solution would restore water deliveries that have 
been cut off due to Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits. It 
will ensure a reliable water supply for people and for fish and it will 
secure water rights just generally, and it will save taxpayer money by 
ending unnecessary and dubious government projects.
  I want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that this man-made drought does not 
just impact California but has rippling effects across the entire 
Nation. California's San Joaquin Valley is a salad bowl for the world 
and provides a significant share of fruits and vegetables for our 
country. The inability of these farmers to do their jobs would lead 
negatively to increased reliance on foreign food sources. Why, Mr. 
Chairman, would we want to do that?
  Also, according to an initial analysis by the nonpartisan CBO, this 
bill will repeal and reduce nearly $300 million in Federal spending 
over the next 10 years while also generating nearly $250 million in 
revenue. To repeat, this bill cuts spending by $300 million and it 
increases revenue by a quarter of a billion dollars.
  This bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to 
end future man-made droughts, and to protect jobs and economic 
livelihood of farmworkers, farmers, and their families. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I really applaud my good friend, Doc Hastings, with some of the 
statistics that he was quoting about the farmers in the valley. There 
were misrepresentations, which were later clarified, of the actual 
figures that were affected and, unfortunately, they were very far 
apart, and that's just for the record. I will be glad to give them to 
anybody who wants them later.
  H.R. 1387, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act is 
anything but. It repeals existing State law as written for the use of 
the water from the San Joaquin River in California's Central Valley. It 
reallocates water in a way that elevates agricultural uses above all 
other water needs--that's municipal, fisheries, and environmental uses.
  This bill was mostly aimed at California; believe me, mostly 
California. If enacted, it would set precedent: an unprecedented 
standard of State preemption, environmental disregard, and 
privatization of a public resource for the benefit of a select view. It 
could be, in my estimation, renamed the Barrister Employment Act.

                              {time}  1430

  The California State legislature stated it best:

       H.R. 1837 is almost breathtaking in its total disregard for 
     equity and its willful subjugation of the State of California 
     to the whims of Federal action.

  May I point out that in the past my colleagues on the other side have 
asked for less intrusion of the Federal Government, less government 
control, let the locals handle it. This would do the reverse. It would 
put it in the hands of the Federal Government to be able to determine 
the State's right to enact its own water laws.
  Despite amendments to the bill by the majority, it still seeks to 
make sweeping negative changes to the State's ability to manage water 
in the west.
  It amends the State constitution, and undermines California's ability 
to manage its own resources.
  It would repeal or overturn nearly 20 years of environmental 
protections under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the 
CVPIA, and the Endangered Species Act, which is normally under attack 
by my friends on the other side.
  It repeals the San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act, a compromise 
widely supported by all stakeholders, and diminishes funds for 
restoration. It also completely eliminates the coequal goal of 
protecting the environment and allowing for water deliveries.
  It puts jobs of fishermen at risk. The Pacific Fishery Management 
Council has raised concerns about the impacts on the fishery and 
fishing communities. The northwest fisheries were closed in 2008 and 
2009 and parts of 2010. They had no fishing. The industry was lost to 
them.
  The Subcommittee on Water and Power received over 34 letters with 
nearly 300 stakeholders opposing this legislation. They include the 
Western States Water Council; seven States--California, Colorado, 
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Wyoming; the Department of 
the Interior; and a statement of administration policy. Also, the 
senior Senator and the junior Senator of California oppose this. And 
the list goes on: elected officials, environmental groups, State 
legislatures, attorneys general offices, Governors' offices, and 
letters from these different States, not to mention the nonpartisan, 18 
Governor-appointed Western States Water Council.
  The scope of harmful provisions included in this legislation is 
matched only by the number of necessary provisions left out. Also, the 
severity of this legislation, which benefits only a small group, not 
all of California.
  Through a series of amendments, my colleagues seek to address the 
glaring issues associated with the legislation--the subsidies reform, 
construction of new facilities, and use of best available science.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the 
chairman of the subcommittee that developed this legislation on the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I compliment the gentlelady from California on stating the opposite of 
this bill with remarkable precision.
  It does not repeal 20 years of California water law; it restores it 
by restoring the allocation that was agreed to by a broad bipartisan 
coalition in the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994. In fact, at that time, the 
Democratic Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, assured all parties that 
this agreement would be honored by the State and Federal governments.
  His promise was broken first by his own Department and most recently 
when a Federal court deemed the delta smelt to be more important than 
the livelihoods of thousands of Central Valley farmworkers. Hundreds of 
billions of gallons of water that these communities had already paid 
for and depended upon were simply expropriated and blissfully and 
cavalierly dumped into the Pacific Ocean, turning much of California's 
fertile Central Valley into a dust bowl.
  This bill redeems the promise made to the people of California and 
restores the allocations that were agreed to.
  We hear: Well, that was then and this is now, and the science has 
changed. What they are referring to is not

[[Page H1043]]

science; it is ideology masquerading as science. In 2010, their claims 
were thrown out of the Federal court, which cited ideological zealots 
who had attempted to, in the words of the court, ``Mislead and to 
deceive the court into accepting what is not only not the best science, 
it's not science.''
  The science is this: the Northwest Fisheries Science Center 
determined the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a principal factor in 
salmon migration. Ocean currents.
  The California Department of Water Resources determined that pumps 
which deliver water to the Central Valley had a negligible influence on 
salmon and delta smelt migration.
  The National Academy of Sciences reported that nonnative and invasive 
predators, like the striped bass, are a far more significant influence 
on salmon and delta smelt populations.
  So the second thing that this bill does is to replace the ideological 
zealotry that created this human disaster with practical and fact-based 
solutions to support native delta smelt and salmon populations. For 
example, as I said earlier, it's common to find striped bass in the 
delta gorged with salmon smolts and delta smelt. This bill allows open 
season on these destructive, invasive, and nonnative predators.
  Fish hatcheries produce millions of salmon smolts each year, and tens 
of thousands return as fully grown adults to spawn, but these fish are 
not allowed to be counted. This bill counts them, ensuring that 
hatcheries will produce thriving and bountiful populations of salmon 
and delta smelts and any other species considered endangered.
  The San Joaquin River Settlement Act envisions an absurdly 
impractical year-round cold war salmon fishery on the hot valley floor 
at an estimated cost of $2 million per individual fish. That act was 
adopted by the Democrats 2 years ago when they controlled this House. 
It is so expensive because it attempts to establish something that only 
existed sporadically in nature. Instead, this bill establishes a year-
round warm water fishery that acts in concert with the habitat at a 
fraction of the cost.
  Third, the bill removes disincentives in current law that discourage 
farmers from purchasing surplus water in wet years to recharge 
groundwater banks.
  It removes prohibitive regulatory restrictions on water transfers 
between willing buyers and willing sellers, which once had efficiently 
distributed water throughout that system from areas of surplus to areas 
of shortage.
  It allows environmental flows to be recycled and used by human 
communities once those flows have achieved their environmental 
purposes.
  Fourth, it brings the full force of Federal law to invoke and protect 
State water rights and forbid their violation by any bureaucracy: 
local, State, or Federal. In fact, this provision specifically 
addressed concerns raised by the very same opponents to the original 
bill who feared that, because of the unique joint operating agreement 
between the State and Federal Governments, changes in Federal 
allocations could lead to raids on senior water rights holders by the 
State government.
  This provision fully addresses those concerns through the Federal 
Government's legitimate constitutional authority in the 14th Amendment 
to protect the property rights of its citizens against encroachment by 
any government bureaucracy. This is the preemption issue that the 
opponents are raising. They are some of the same opponents who attacked 
the original bill for not protecting those rights. This bill doesn't 
preempt those rights; it specifically invokes them and protects them.
  It brings to an end the predation on the working people of 
California. It places senior water rights holders in a safe and secure 
position, and treats our water as the precious resource it is.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlewoman.
  One hardly knows where to start, when you take California water law 
and push it aside and preempt it with Federal water law, really running 
over the top of the State of California, and then you steal 800,000 
acre-feet and transfer it to your buddies--yes, you're going to come up 
with a lot of reasons why it makes sense. But the reality is quite 
different.
  Let us understand very clearly here that 150 years of California 
water law is thrown out and a new Federal law is put in place that 
preempts California water law. The 1994 CALFED agreement was an interim 
agreement. It was never, ever intended to be a permanent statutory 
agreement on how water would be delivered in California.
  In addition to that, let me understand--yes, I see your little chart 
over there that you're going to throw up. That was 1994, and it said 
precisely what we ought to do today. And that is: today, we ought to be 
working together to solve the problems of California water. And guess 
what, California is.
  But with this law in place, it won't happen. The ability of 
California to work together to solve its problems are thrown out. What 
sense does that make unless you want to steal 800,000 acre feet of 
water and take an agreement that was forged over 20 years ago to solve 
a problem on the San Joaquin River that is not for year-round salmon 
flows but only for the spring salmon flows. Why would you want to do 
that, except you want to take somebody's water?

                              {time}  1440

  The water is the water of the fishermen as well as the water of the 
farmers.
  By the way, facts are ugly little things. There are no 3,000 people 
that lost their jobs, no 60,000 people that lost their jobs. The 
University of California, Berkeley, the University of California, 
Davis, and the University of the Pacific all say that the losses were 
less than 7,000, which almost equaled the loss of the fisheries.
  When we get to the end of this story, it is going to be a story of 
the rest of the Nation. If you happen to be a Western State, if you 
happen to be a Midwestern State that has a Federal water project from 
the Bureau of Reclamation, beware, because this is the first-ever 
attempt to throw aside 100 years of reclamation law in which deference 
is given to the States over the power of their water rights and their 
water laws.
  Yes, you can say section 4 of this bill deals with that. No, it 
doesn't. It does not deal with the totality of California law. In fact, 
the bill destroys that totality.
  Western States are opposed to this. The list has been given. Other 
States, watch out. This is a power grab. This is a water grab. This is 
an imposition of the Federal authority over the States, and 
specifically over California.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman--excuse me, if I might, through the Chair--you said 
that there is 100 percent water. No water district except those that 
preceded the Federal project have 100 percent allocation. Every other 
water district has shortage provisions in those water contracts.
  By the way, whatever power we may have, we don't have the power to 
overcome a natural drought, which is precisely what is happening in 
California today and happened during the period that this bill speaks 
to. It was a natural drought. Yes, there were restrictions placed on 
the pumps, restrictions that were necessary to protect an endangered 
species.
  By the way, the judge that you cited took a job 45 days after he quit 
with the water contractor that is supporting this bill. Figure it out 
yourself. Figure out what is going on here. This is a theft of 800,000 
acre feet of environmental water. This is an overturning of California 
water law, and we ought not do it.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the 
sponsor of this legislation, I yield myself 30 seconds to simply point 
out that the statistics I used as it relates to unemployment come from 
Fresno County. That is a county where all of this was impacted. The 
statistics that were cited by my friends across the aisle were from 
outside that area.
  The second point I want to make is that I have letters here from 14 
senators and 18 members of the California legislature. I insert their 
letters in support in the Record.

 Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act--Organizations in 
                                Support


                      Water Agencies/Organizations

       California Water Alliance

[[Page H1044]]

       Families Protecting the Valley
       Northern California Water Association *
       Family Water Alliance
       California Watershed Posse
       Westlands Water District
       San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority: Banta-Carbona 
     Irrigation District, Broadview Water District, Byron Bethany 
     Irrigation District (CVPSA), Central California Irrigation 
     District, Columbia Canal Company, Del Puerto Water District, 
     Eagle Field Water District, Firebaugh Canal Water District, 
     Fresno Slough Water District, Henry Miller Reclamation 
     District #2131, James Irrigation District, Laguna Water 
     District, Mercy Springs Water District, Oro Loma Water 
     District, Pacheco Water District, Pajaro Valley Water 
     Management Agency, Panoche Water District, Patterson 
     Irrigation District, Pleasant Valley Water District, 
     Reclamation District 1606, San Benito County Water District, 
     San Luis Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 
     Tranquillity Irrigation District, Turner Island Water 
     District, West Side Irrigation District, West Stanislaus 
     Irrigation District
       Placer County Water Agency *
       Nevada Irrigation District *
       El Dorado Irrigation District *
       Exchange Contractors **
       Modesto Irrigation District **
       San Joaquin Tributaries Association 
     **
       Kern County Water Agency: Belridge Water Storage District, 
     Berrenda Mesa Water District, Buena Vista Water Storage 
     District, Cawelo Water District, Henry Miller Water District, 
     Kern Delta Water District, Lost Hills Water District, 
     Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Semitropic Water 
     Storage District, Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District, 
     Tejon-Castac Water District, West Kern Water District, 
     Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District
       Tehama Colusa Canal Authority: Proberta Water District, 
     Kirkwood Water District, Thomes Creek Water District, Corning 
     WD, Orland-Artois Water District, Glide Water District, 
     Kanawha Water District, Holthouse Water District, Cortina 
     Water District, Davis Water District, LaGrande Water 
     District, 4M Water District, Dunnigan Water District, Colusa 
     County Water District, Westside Water District
       Bella Vista Water District
       Reclamation District No. 108 *
       Maxwell Irrigation District *
       Sutter Mutual Water Company *
       Provident Irrigation District *
       Natomas Mutual Water Company *
       River Garden Farms *
       Glenn Colusa Irrigation District *
       Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District *
       Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District *
       Chowchilla Irrigation District*


                         National Organizations

       U.S. Chamber of Commerce
       National Federation of Independent Business
       Americans for Limited Government
       National Taxpayers Union
       Americans for Tax Reform
       Citizens Against Government Waste
       American Land Rights Association
       Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
       Western Business Roundtable


                      National Farm Organizations

       Western Growers
       Family Farm Alliance
       Agricultural Retailers Association
       National Turkey Federation
       National Cattlemen's Beef Association
       National Agricultural Aviation Association
       National Cotton Council
       American Pima Cotton Producers
       National Chicken Council
       Milk Producers Council
       National Onion Association
       Supima
       Western Plant Health Association
       Dairy Farmers of America
       Western Agricultural Processors Association
       Irrigation Association


                     California Farm Organizations

       California Wool Growers Association
       California Cattlemen's Association
       California Grain Feed Association
       California Cotton Ginners & Growers Assoc.
       California Citrus Mutual
       California Olive Growers Council
       California Grape and Tree Fruit League
       California Dairies Inc.
       California Poultry Federation: Foster Farms; Aviagen 
     Turkeys, Inc.; Zacky Farms; Squab Producers of California; 
     Willie Bird Turkeys
       Apricot Producers of California
       Allied Grape Growers
       Almond Hullers & Processors Association


                        Local Farm Organizations

       Fresno County Farm Bureau
       Kern County Farm Bureau
       Tulare County Farm Bureau
       Kings County Farm Bureau
       Madera County Farm Bureau
       Merced County Farm Bureau
       Fresno-Kings Cattlemen


                         California Businesses

       Paramount Farms
       Harris Ranch
       Harris Woolf Almonds
       Borba Farms
       Land 0' Lakes
       Sagoupse Enterprises LLC
       Sagouspe Family Orchards I, II, III, IV
       Lyons Magnus
       Wawona Packing
       Lyons Transportation
       Triple J Partners
       Ghost Ranch LLC
       Old West Management LLC
       Panoche Creek Packing, Inc.
       Double D Farms
       Penny Newman Grain Company
       Chaney Ranch
       Wind Fall Farms
       Panoche Creek Farms
       J.G. Avila Farms
       Rock'n JK Farms
       Sano Farms
       Quad Knopf--Civil Engineering
       Alvarado Building Group
       Kingsburg Federal Land Bank
       AGRI Crop Insurance Agency
       Redding Electric Utility
       Proteus Inc.
       Aquarius Aquarium Institute
       Ferguson Farming Company
       Lost Wagon Wheel Ranch
       Brooks Ransom Associates
       Bettencourt Farms
       Kings Ranch
       Waymire Farms
       Nelson Ranch
       Triple J Trust
       Westside Ranch
       Freitas Farms 1
       JHP Ranch Inc
       Joseph G Freitas Farms
       Brooks Farms
       GCM Farms
       Farmer's Fury Winery
       Stone Land Company
       Errotabere Ranches
       Houlding Farms


                          Tea Party Supporters

       Mark Meckler, Co-Founder Tea Party Patriots
       Central Valley Tea Party
       North Valley Patriots


                            Other Supporters

       Stewards of the Sequoia
       Kelly Lilies, Area Administrator, Catholic Charities


                           Tribal Governments

       Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians


                         STATE ELECTED LEADERS

       Senator Jean Fuller
       Senator Bill Emmerson
       Senator Anthony Cannella
       Senator Joel Anderson
       Senator Bob Huff
       Senator Tom Berryhill
       Senator Mimi Walters
       Senator Tony Strickland
       Senator Mark Wyland
       Senator Bob Dutton
       Senator Tom Harman
       Senator Sharon Runner
       Senator Ted Gaines
       Senator Doug LaMalfa
       Minority Leader Connie Conway
       Assemblyman David Valadao
       Assemblyman Jeff Miller
       Assemblywoman Diane Harkey
       Assemblywoman Shannon Grove
       Assemblyman Jim Silva
       Assemblyman Brian Jones
       Assemblyman Cameron Smyth
       Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian
       Assemblyman Donald Wagner
       Assemblyman Mike Morrell
       Assemblyman Allan Mansoor
       Assemblyman Brian Nestande
       Assemblyman Steve Knight
       Assemblywoman Linda Halderman
       Assemblyman Paul Cook
       Assemblyman Martin Garrick
       Assemblyman Curt Hagman


                            CITIES/COUNTIES

       Kings County Board of Supervisors
       Tulare County Board of Supervisors
       Merced County Board of Supervisors
       Fresno County Supervisor Phil Larson
       Fresno County Supervisor Deborah Poochigian
       Fresno County Supervisor Judith Case
       Madera County Supervisor Frank Bigelow
       Madera County Supervisor David Rogers
       Madera County Supervisor Ronn Dominici
       Stanislaus County Supervisor Terry Withrow
       Fresno City Council President Clinton Olivier
       Madera City Councilwoman Sally Bomprezzi
       Madera City Councilmember Robert Poythress
       Madera City Councilmember Gary Svanda
       City of Clovis
       City of Orange Cove
       City of Reedley
       City of Huron
       City of Dinuba
       City of Visalia
       City of Lindsay
       City of Tulare
       City of Woodlake
       City of Farmersville
       City of Fire baugh
       City of Kingsburg
       City of Kettleman City
       City of Lemoore
       City of Coalinga
       City of Porterville
       City of Chowchilla
       City of Waterford


                            LAW ENFORCEMENT

       Fresno County DA Elizabeth Egan
       Tulare County DA Phil Cline
       Tulare County Sheriff Bill Wittman
       Fresno County Sheriff Margret Mims
       Madera County Sheriff John Anderson

[[Page H1045]]

       Kings County Sheriff Dave Robinson


                      LOCAL BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

       Fresno Chamber of Commerce
       Clovis Chamber of Commerce
       Visalia Chamber of Commerce
       Tulare Chamber of Commerce
       Kingsburg Chamber of Commerce
       Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
       Greater Reedley Chamber of Commerce
       Riverbank Chamber of Commerce
       Home Builders Association of Tulare-Kings
       * Support limited to Title IV.
       ** Supports bill but no opinion on Title II.
       *** Friant settling party supports bill--recommends 
     settling parties adopt Title II.
                                  ____

                                                         Assembly,


                                       California Legislature,

                                     Sacramento, CA, June 9, 2011.
     Congressman Devin Nunes,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Congressman Devin Nunes: We, the undersigned members of the 
     CA State Legislature, support The San Joaquin Valley Water 
     Reliability Act, H.R. 1837, as introduced by Congressman 
     Devin Nunes (R 21) and co-sponsored by Congressman Jeff 
     Denham (R 19) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R 22).
       H.R. 1837 is sensible water policy that codifies the 
     bipartisan Bay-Delta Accord into law and also reforms the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). By doing so, 
     water supplies will be increased by 1.4 million acre-feet 
     annually, which will create 25,000 30,000 jobs in the San 
     Joaquin Valley, a region suffering from 20 40% unemployment. 
     Additionally, by repealing and replacing the San Joaquin 
     River Settlement with a viable alternative, H.R. 1837 will 
     save taxpayers $1 billion.
       We would like to express our support for this important 
     piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
         David G. Valadao, 30th District; Diane Harkey, 73rd 
           District; Jeff Miller, 71st District; Shannon Grove, 
           32nd District; Jim Silva, 67th District; Connie Conway, 
           34th District; Katcho Achadjian, 33rd District; Mike 
           Morrell, 63rd District; Brian Jones, 77th District; 
           Cameron Smyth, 38th District; Donald P. Wagner, 70th 
           District; Allan R. Mansoor, 68th District; Brian 
           Nestande, 64th District; Linda Halderman, 29th 
           District; Martin Garrick, 74th District; Steve Knight, 
           36th District; Paul Cook, 65th District; Curt Hagman, 
           60th District.
                                  ____



                                      California State Senate,

                                Sacramento, CA, February 27, 2012.
     Congressman Devin Nunes,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Congressman Devin Nunes, We, the undersigned members of the 
     California State Legislature, support the San Joaquin Valley 
     Water Reliability Act, H.R. 1837, as introduced by 
     Congressman Devin Nunes (R 21) and co-sponsored by 
     Congressman Jeff Denham (R 19) and Majority Whip Kevin 
     McCarthy (R 22).
       H.R. 1837 is sensible water policy that codifies the 
     bipartisan Bay Delta Accord into law and also reforms the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). By doing so, 
     water supplies will be increased by 1.4 million acre-feet 
     annually, which will create 25,000 30,000 jobs in the San 
     Joaquin Valley, a region that is suffering from 20 40% 
     unemployment. Additionally, by repealing and replacing the 
     San Joaquin River Settlement with a viable alternative, H.R. 
     1837 will save taxpayers $1 billion.
       We would like to express our support for this important 
     piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
         Jean Fuller, 18th Senate District; Anthony Cannella, 12th 
           Senate District; Bob Huff, 29th Senate District; Bill 
           Emmerson, 37th Senate District; Joel Anderson, 36th 
           Senate District; Tom Berryhill, 14th Senate District; 
           Mimi Walters, 33rd Senate District; Mark Wyland, 38th 
           Senate District; Tom Harman, 35th Senate District; Ted 
           Gaines, 1st Senate District; Tony Strickland, 19th 
           Senate District; Bob Dutton, 31st Senate District; 
           Sharon Runner, 17th Senate District; Doug LaMalfa, 4th 
           Senate District.

  At this time, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Nunes), the sponsor of this legislation, who has 
been an absolute leader on bringing this to national attention.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman from 
California that facts are a funny thing, and the Deputy Under Secretary 
approved this bipartisan agreement in 1994.
  I remind the gentleman also that I defended his right in the Rules 
Committee. I defended the right of the Democrats to have all their 
amendments made in order.
  Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Government began to pass State 
preemption to take their water away, you can see here that up until 
this time we had full water allotment throughout California. Yes, when 
there was a drought, there were a few years we didn't have water, but 
look at the chaos that has erupted since. This is an important point. 
The Congress, by using State preemptions, has managed to take water 
away from cities, communities, and families.
  The opponents of this bill claim that somehow the salmon population 
is decreasing. We can see here in this graph at the bottom--I know it 
may be hard for some folks to see. The water exports are here. The 
green represents total water that flowed into the delta throughout the 
last 25 years. The red line indicates salmon populations. Lo and 
behold, there is no correlation between the water inflow into the delta 
and salmon population.
  But I will agree that the salmon population has declined, and this 
bill begins to fix that problem. Why? Because the delta smelt and 
salmon are being eaten by predator fish that are nonnative to the 
delta. Let me say that again. Striped bass, nonnative to the delta.
  This scientific evidence shows, as the bass population has increased, 
the smelt population has declined. This bill rectifies this. This bill 
allows fishermen to fish for the nonnative species. What this is about 
is we're shutting off the water to Californians and to their families 
because of the delta smelt right here.
  They talk a lot about these dangerous pumps that are pumping this 
water, these engineering projects that allowed this valley to bloom, 
that have improved the environment over time. Less than 2 percent of 
the juvenile salmon--it is negligible in the pumps. Instead of looking 
at ways to stop that negligible impact, we allow the predator fish, the 
striped bass, to eat 65 to 90 percent of the juvenile salmon that are 
being eaten by this bass.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. NUNES. Here we have evidence of this. You can see the bass--I 
know this is a little gruesome for some folks at home. Here you have 
the smelt inside the bass. Yet this government is allowing this 
nonnative species to eat the thing that they so love, the delta smelt.
  What has been the result, Mr. Chairman? Food lines. In the 
breadbasket of the world where they used to grow the Nation's carrots, 
we now import carrots from China to feed the people in the food lines. 
This is what this is about. These are children in a food line eating 
carrots imported from China.
  Does this Congress have a moral compass to do the right thing with 
regards to children in food lines eating carrots imported from China?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 
minute.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, we don't need any fancy speeches here today. 
A sixth-grader from an elementary school in my district--I won't read 
the whole thing--sent this letter:

       Not only does this problem affect the farming industry, it 
     also affects the farmers, families, and their livelihood. I 
     am sure you've heard this complaint. But before, as with 
     future generations, it is of great concern to me. Please do 
     what you can to get the water to the farmers once again, then 
     we can use the fertile soil that the people of this valley 
     have been blessed with.

  This sixth-grader is correct. This Congress should do the right 
thing. We need Democrats and Republicans to come together today. As the 
Speaker of the House stated earlier, this is to right a wrong.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I can't believe how many of these 
people that wrote letters and the stakeholders, including 105 fishing 
agencies, could be so wrong.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  While this bill directly affects the State of California, even though 
the State of California opposes the legislation, it is also opposed by 
representatives of the other western water interests--the State of 
Montana, the State of New Mexico, the State of Oregon, the State of 
Wyoming, the State of Colorado--which have all joined California in 
saying they don't want this bill.

[[Page H1046]]

  Why are they all saying that? They are saying it because of the 
precedent that it will set in upsetting settled water rights in the 
West.

                              {time}  1450

  Now, to address that issue, the Republicans have inserted in the bill 
language that says this bill does not set a precedent in upsetting all 
the water rights in the West, as it upsets all the water rights in 
California. So, what's that like? Well, in 1929, the Belgian surrealist 
painter, Rene Magritte, painted a painting of a tobacco pipe. Under the 
pipe, he painted the words, ``This is not a pipe.'' But of course it 
was a pipe--or at least a painting of a pipe. This bill has a similar 
surrealistic quality to it.
  The bill states that the violence of this bill in upsetting water 
rights is not a precedent, that nothing that happens in California will 
be a precedent for any other State--which is why of course all the 
other States are opposing the bill because of the precedent that it 
sets. This bill sets the precedent to upset all those other 
arrangements. Others in the West who may wish to restructure water 
rights elsewhere around the West will look to it as a precedent. So I 
would say to the majority: nice job, but no cigar.
  Clearly, this bill does set a bad precedent, and we can't get around 
that fact just by putting in the bill that it does not set a precedent. 
You are, for all intents and purposes, taking all of those arrangements 
set up over generations and in one bill--opposed by all those States--
upsetting the apple cart and setting a brand new era. And you cannot 
get around it by saying in the bill: This does not set a precedent.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from northern California (Mr. Herger), 
an individual who unfortunately is leaving Congress after this, but who 
has been a leader on property rights in that part of his State of 
California.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I originally voiced strong concerns when 
this legislation was first introduced last year, arguing that it would 
negatively impact northern California's water supplies and undermine 
our senior water rights; but under Chairman Hastings' leadership, it 
has come a very, very long way.
  We have amended the bill so it not only protects northern California 
water and power users I represent, but in many respects puts them in a 
materially better position. As such, I intend to strongly support it. 
It contains important reforms to the CVPIA, a law that has, like so 
many others, gone awry, including greater certainty for agriculture 
through longer-term contracts, improved financial accountability, and a 
cap on the amount ratepayers I represent must pay into the restoration 
fund.
  Most importantly, a new title 4 contains an explicit Federal 
recognition of California water rights priority system and area of 
origin protections. Going forward, it will also ensure water users in 
our area are not harmed by efforts to address environmental and water-
quality challenges in California. We have created an important baseline 
for any water legislation to ensure northern California's water needs 
will be met first.
  There is broad support for these provisions, including from the 
Tehama Colusa Canal Authority, representing 17 water districts; the 
Northern California Water Association; eight absolute priority 
settlement contractors; the city of Redding; Redding Electric Utility; 
and the Family Water Alliance, a group representing Sacramento Valley 
landowners.
  In short, the bill seeks to solve another tragic ESA-caused water 
shortage facing our family farmers in California. And it does so while 
fully protecting senior water rights holders in my district, and in 
many ways enhancing their positions.
  I urge strong support for the bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss a matter of great importance to my 
constituents in the San Joaquin Valley, and that's the future of our 
water supply. More importantly, it's our Nation's food supply and, 
therefore, an important part of the world's food supply.
  H.R. 1837 is not perfect and has issues I think the authors should 
seriously consider, but I am supporting the legislation today because 
of a number of important provisions it contains.
  Titles 1 and 3 of the legislation aim to address the biggest 
challenges for water policy in California. In 2009 and 2010, valley 
communities suffered through a hydrological and regulatory drought that 
was insufferable. This year, we are again faced with below-average snow 
pack in the mountains and may see as little as a 30 percent allocation 
for water in our area.
  My congressional district is the most impacted in California by this 
shortfall. Farmers, farmworkers, and farming communities that live in 
my district is what I'm talking about. Our water system is broken in 
California; but while we're trying to fix it, we need operational 
flexibility while we continue to work on the long-term issues of the 
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan.
  We should be discussing more constructive ways in which we can work 
together.
  Title 2 of this measure repeals and replaces the San Joaquin River 
Restoration Act. After 18 years of litigation, the parties involved 
decided to reach an out-of-court settlement agreement. We can all 
dispute that, but it was those 22 districts' local government that we 
respected who asked them to codify their out-of-court settlement 
agreement. I note that the Friant Water Authority continues to oppose 
title 2 of the bill, as do many of the districts who were involved with 
the writing and the negotiation of the settlement agreement.
  Now, we do have problems with the implementation of the program--
Congressman Cardoza and I will tell you--from the schedule, to costs, 
to third-party impacts, to the fulfillment of the water management 
goal, which is critical to the water users. These issues need to be 
addressed. But simply repealing the settlement agreement won't solve 
any of these problems, in my view. In fact, I'm certain they'll be back 
in court the next day, and that's not solving a problem.
  We have had a long history of working on a bipartisan basis in 
California and in the San Joaquin Valley among our Representatives on 
water. It frustrates me to see the division on the House floor that has 
politicized this situation and arguably does nothing for the people 
that I represent. I have always been willing to work on both sides of 
the aisle, with the Senate, and with the administration to get things 
done for our valley; and I have done that throughout my career. But 
unless we are willing to work with Senator Feinstein, who I know wants 
to be helpful, I predict that this measure today, as it is proposed, 
will never be heard in the United States Senate. Therefore, it will 
never bring an additional single drop of water to our region that is 
desperately in need of more water.
  I think we can do better for our constituents by working together on 
a bipartisan basis with both Houses to develop and implement solutions 
both in the long term and the short term. These are the efforts that 
really will increase our water supply, which all Californians need and 
deserve to have.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), a new Member 
who represents part of this area that has been devastated and who was 
an integral player on developing this legislation.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about our area of the 
State, where you have 30 to 40 percent unemployment in some areas. It's 
not a Republican issue; it's not a Democrat issue. It is an American 
jobs issue--to put people back to work.
  Some people say, Well, those aren't the kinds of jobs that we want. 
You know, it's a dusty, dirty way to earn a living. Yeah, it is dusty; 
it is dirty. I'm a farmer. And without water, you shut down not only my 
farm, but you shut down farms throughout the valley, you

[[Page H1047]]

shut off our food supply, you shut off all of those jobs that 
desperately rely on water.
  Now, a lot of people like to talk about a deal is a deal. Back in 
1994, we had this grand deal that took CVPIA water, took 800,000 acre-
feet for environmental purposes. The deal was that water was supposed 
to be replaced. The Department of the Interior never did that, just 
stole 800,000 acre-feet of water, which still has to be paid for by the 
contract; but nevertheless, we need to make sure that our valley 
farmers are held whole.
  Let me talk about a couple of different issues within this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Again, this is about our priorities as the House. The Senate may or 
may not agree with them, but we'll never know if we don't have the 
debate. Shouldn't the Senate at least have an opportunity to look at 
this bill and vote on the bill and debate the bill?
  If they don't like the bill, present us your own; but don't just 
ignore valley farmers. Don't just ignore the amount of jobs that we're 
losing as a State. You don't like it, come up with your own bill. We'll 
vote on that; we'll debate on that.
  But we're going to express our priority, and our priority is about 
the jobs of the Central Valley. We're going to send you a bill that not 
only deals with greater water certainty, but also deals with 
duplicative regulation.
  I'm also on the Transportation Committee; and whether it's the 
Resources Committee or the Transportation Committee, when you have a 
higher environmental law, like California does, why go through these 
same environmental policies twice? Why not streamline NEPA so that you 
don't have that duplicative regulation that shuts down our water 
projects?
  And while we're at it, we can fight all we want on where the water 
that we currently have is delivered or who wins and who loses; but we 
lose as a State, we lose as a country until we get more water storage.
  We've put an amendment in this bill in committee that will authorize 
new water storage, whether it's Sites Reservoir, Los Vaqueros, Shasta 
or, in my area, Temperance Flat. But we have to have more off-stream 
storage.
  And in Los Vaqueros, in Congressman Garamendi's own district, in his 
own backyard, we can have water storage today without any cost to the 
Federal taxpayers. Where we've got users that are willing to pay for 
more water storage, and the water is desperately needed, why wouldn't 
we approve those projects?
  That's authorized in this bill. This bill deals with certainty. This 
does deal with a number of years of a problem, and it certainly deals 
with drought years, as well as certainty in wet years. But it also 
deals with greater water storage.
  So if you want to end this debate once and for all, let's make sure 
we keep up with the population growth of California. Let's have greater 
water storage, and let's solve this problem so that we don't have the 
double-digit unemployment in the Central Valley.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I must mention that California 
agriculture had the biggest banner year during that period, in other 
words, in the billions more than they had in prior years during this 
drought.
  So with that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, someone needs to stand up and defend the 
delta. I'm standing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1837. This 
legislation will do tremendous damage and harm to the San Joaquin 
Delta, an area that I'm honored to represent.
  The San Joaquin Delta is a treasure for California and the entire 
Nation. The delta flows through five counties and sustains major 
cities, small towns, and lush farmland. Agriculture is the economic 
backbone of the delta, generating nearly $800 million per year revenue 
in 2009.
  Unfortunately, the delta ecosystem is now in decline due to excessive 
water shipments to the south. Poor water quality is a threat to the 
region's entire agricultural economy and heritage. H.R. 1837 would even 
ship more water out of the delta, turning this precious estuary into a 
salty, stagnant marsh, crushing the local economy, and costing the 
delta region thousands and thousands of jobs.
  This bill is a blatant water grab meant to help some communities at 
the expense of others. Contrary to the conservative principles that 
this bill's proponents claim to cherish, H.R. 1837 uses the power of 
the Federal Government to undermine states' rights.
  Dozens of local governments, businesses, agricultural advocates, 
environmental groups and others oppose H.R. 1837. I have letters from 
these groups, and I will insert them into the Record.


                                                February 27, 2012.
     Re OPPOSE H.R. 1837 (Nunes).

     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner: On behalf of the undersigned 
     organizations, we urge you to oppose the ``San Joaquin Valley 
     Water Reliability Act,'' (H.R. 1837), which was introduced by 
     Representative Nunes. Furthermore, we do not believe that 
     this bill merits a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives.
       H.R. 1837 overrides the public trust as defined in the 
     California Constitution and state water laws. It reverses the 
     long-standing Congressional principle that the federal 
     government should follow state water law whenever possible.
       H.R. 1837 would reduce water quality and water availability 
     for Delta communities and Delta farmers. It seeks to ensure 
     water flows to corporate agribusiness in the western and 
     southern San Joaquin Valley at the expense of Delta family 
     farmers. The recently-released Economic Sustainability Report 
     authored by the Delta Protection Commission shows that Delta 
     agriculture is worth $4.2 billion annually and provides tens 
     of thousands of jobs. Delta agriculture and jobs should not 
     be sacrificed to benefit water users in other parts of the 
     state, some of whom do not even use that water for 
     agriculture.
       H.R. 1837 would hinder efforts to restore fish populations 
     in the Delta. Science-based protections for salmon and other 
     endangered species are required under both California state 
     law and the Endangered Species Act. Since 2009, the State of 
     California has consistently opposed legislation that would 
     weaken the Endangered Species Act in the San Francisco Bay-
     Delta and Estuary. Title I of H.R. 1837 would substitute 
     measures that were part of a short-term agreement in 1994, 
     when the health of the Delta had not deteriorated so 
     seriously and when recent scientific studies had not yet been 
     done.
       H.R. 1837 would reverse San Joaquin River restoration, 
     thereby further impacting water quality and quantity for the 
     south Delta. While the San Joaquin River restoration allows 
     for a limited flow of additional water into the south Delta, 
     breaking the promise of San Joaquin River restoration would 
     signal to Delta communities the federal government's 
     sacrifice of the Delta for the preference of another region 
     in California.
       This deeply-flawed bill joins a long list of water 
     strategies created behind closed doors without input from the 
     Delta communities that rely on a healthy Delta for their 
     livelihoods. It threatens the economic security of families, 
     farmers, and small business owners in the Delta, as well as 
     those in the Delta and Northern California who depend on 
     recreational and commercial fisheries. It also threatens the 
     urban economy surrounding the Delta--an area that is home to 
     four million Californians and that is dependent on the Delta 
     to meet its water user needs.
       H.R. 1837 deserves your opposition.
           Sincerely yours,
       Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director, Restore the 
     Delta; Carolee Krieger, President & Executive Director, 
     California Water Impact Network; Ann Johnston, Mayor, City of 
     Stockton, Delta Coalition Chair; Ron Addington, Executive 
     Director, Business Council of San Joaquin County; John 
     Herrick, South Delta Water Agency; Roger Mammon, President, 
     CSBA West Delta Chapter; Bill Jennings, Executive Director, 
     California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Jack Chapman, 
     State Board President, California Striped Bass Association; 
     John Beckman, Chief Executive Officer, BIA of the Delta; 
     Bobby Barrack, Professional Bass Fisherman, Back to Class 
     Guide Service.
       Bill Berryhill, Assemblyman, 26th District, California 
     State Assembly; Roger Mammon, President, CSBA West Delta 
     Chapter; Jeff Shields, General Manager, South San Joaquin 
     Irrigation District; Bill Wells, Executive Director, 
     California Delta Chambers & Visitor's Bureau; Jeremy Terhune, 
     Executive Director, Friends of the lower Calaveras River; 
     Steve Dial, Deputy Executive Director/Chief Financial 
     Officer, San Joaquin Council of Governments; Jack Chapman, 
     President, CSBA Sacramento, The River City Chapter; Alyson L. 
     Huber, Assemblymember, 10th District, California State 
     Assembly.

[[Page H1048]]

     
                                  ____
                                         The Board of Supervisors,


                                       San Joaquin County, CA,

                                                February 24, 2012.
     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom McClintock,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on 
         Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Edward J. Markey,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Grace Napolitano,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on 
         Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.


                   Letter in Opposition to H.R. 1837

       Dear Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, Chairman 
     McClintock, and Ranking Member Napolitano: The County of San 
     Joaquin is writing to express its opposition to H.R. 1837, 
     the proposed San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act. H.R. 
     1837 contains a number of provisions that appear to 
     arbitrarily block legal protections for the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Delta (Delta). If enacted, H.R. 1837 would overturn 
     important environmental protections for the Delta provided by 
     State law, and would reverse the San Joaquin River 
     Settlement.
       We recognize and appreciate the inclusion of language in 
     Title IV mandating that the Central Valley Project be 
     operated in a manner consistent with State water law 
     provisions related to ``area of origin, watershed of origin 
     and county of origin. . . .'' This language is consistent 
     with our long-held view that federal law should specifically 
     and fully recognize and respect California's water rights 
     priority system and statutory protections for ``areas of 
     origin''.
       However, H.R. 1837, taken as a whole, would move the 
     Sacramento-San Joaquin River region and the State in the 
     wrong direction. The bill is focused on the past; it takes us 
     backwards, and that is not a direction that holds any promise 
     for collaborative, consensus-based solutions to California's 
     complex water challenges or a healthier Delta. If enacted, 
     H.R. 1837 would stall and potentially disrupt current efforts 
     of various State and Federal agencies as they work toward the 
     implementation of California's 2009 Comprehensive Water 
     Package (SB1, SB 6, SB7, and SB8), which mandates a reduced 
     reliance on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, provision of a 
     high quality supply of water, and restoration of the Delta's 
     ecosystem (e.g., the forthcoming Bay Delta Conservation 
     Plan).
       In addition, we oppose the closed-door process used in 
     constructing the bill. H.R. 1837 was put together with 
     neither public transparency nor any meaningful input from the 
     diversity of California's water and environmental interests.
       We appreciate your consideration of our concerns regarding 
     H.R. 1837, and we look forward to continuing to work with you 
     to ensure that any legislation that moves forward will 
     promote and protect a healthy Delta environment and clean 
     water supply to support a Delta economy. If you have any 
     questions, please contact Tom Gau, Public Works Director at 
     (209) 468 3100 or me at (209) 468 3113.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Ken Vogel,

                              Vice-Chairman, Board of Supervisors,
     San Joaquin County.
                                  ____

                                         The Board of Supervisors,


                                      Contra Costa County, CA,

                                                February 23, 2012.
     Re H.R. 1837--OPPOSE.

     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner: As Chair of the Board of Supervisors 
     of Contra Costa County, I write to express my opposition to 
     H.R. 1837, and I urge you to do everything you can to prevent 
     this ill-considered bill from becoming law.
       As one of the five counties located in California's 
     Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Contra Costa County 
     depends on Delta waters for drinking, recreation, 
     environmental health and a good portion of our economy which 
     is related to boating, fishing and other service businesses 
     in the Delta area.
       Reading the amended bill broadly, it will provide more 
     water, at subsidized prices, to Central Valley agribusiness 
     at the expense of Delta water quality and ecological health, 
     which in turn threatens Contra Costa County water users, the 
     Delta economy, and ultimately the economy of California.
       Reading the bill at a more detailed level, it will gut some 
     of the best provisions of the Central Valley Project 
     Improvement Act (CVPIA), and it repeals the San Joaquin River 
     Settlement. Both of these prior acts helped provide a 
     foundation for restoring Bay-Delta health and establishing 
     sound water management practices in California. To gut them 
     or eliminate them for the benefit of a specific group of 
     water users flies in the face of long-standing California 
     water policy and would be an unprecedented and ill-advised 
     act for the Congress to take.
       The amended bill specifically would implement the following 
     harmful actions.
       1) It would repeal the San Joaquin River Settlement, an 
     agreement from 2006 that was decades in the making among 
     public and private interests and provided the foundation for 
     the San Joaquin River Restoration Program,
       2) It would eliminate the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Program, which is critical to restoring Bay-Delta flow, Delta 
     water quality, salmon population and ecosystem health. By 
     cutting this program when it has only just begun, H.R. 1837 
     will stymie progress in restoring the highly dammed, 
     constrained and polluted San Joaquin River and will further 
     jeopardize Delta water quality and wildlife populations.
       3) The bill would significantly reduce the allocation of 
     federally provided (Central Valley Project) water that is 
     currently used for wildlife and habitat restoration each year 
     per the CVPIA. This water will instead be provided to 
     specific agricultural users.
       4) H.R. 1837 also would remove the tiered pricing structure 
     that the CVPIA put in place to encourage wise water use and 
     conservation. Under the tiered structure, the CVP provides 
     below-cost, subsidized prices to its water recipients for up 
     to 80 percent of their contract amounts of water, slightly 
     higher prices for the next 10 percent of their contract 
     amounts, and full-cost pricing for the final 10 percent of 
     their contract amount. Since water deliveries have rarely 
     been over 90 percent in recent years, recipients generally 
     have benefited from below-cost pricing provided by the 
     federally subsidized rates.
       5) The bill will discard the past two decades worth of 
     scientific research about Delta conditions by rolling back 
     water-supply regulations to those of a 1994 agreement known 
     as the Bay-Delta Accord. The Accord was developed before the 
     crash of numerous Delta species and before the scientific 
     community developed its current base of knowledge about these 
     issues. By rolling back water operations guidelines to 1994, 
     there will be even greater harm to species including fall-run 
     Chinook salmon. This will cause further economic harm to 
     fisheries and fishing-related businesses in the Delta,
       6) H.R. 1837 waives the current requirement that new 
     federal dam projects in the Central Valley comply with the 
     National Environmental Policy Act. The lesson learned from 
     construction of the Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River by 
     the Bureau of Reclamation is that ignoring environmental 
     impacts can wipe out entire runs of salmon and adversely 
     impact other species that rely on adequate water flows. All 
     water resources projects must undergo full and detailed 
     environmental review and any environmental impacts must be 
     fully mitigated.
       Finally, I will add a comment about the process this bill 
     has undergone. It is our understanding that no public 
     hearings were held on the amended bill, which was considered 
     in Committee less than 48 hours after the bill was made 
     public. Had there been more time allotted for comment on this 
     bill, undoubtedly objections would have been voiced sooner.
       Such critical decisions on water policy should have been 
     debated in full public view with adequate time for comment, 
     particularly in this instance where the Congress is 
     attempting to overturn long-standing state water management 
     practice.
       Thank you in advance for your consideration of these 
     concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                              Mary Nejedly Piepho,
     Chair, Board of Supervisors.
                                  ____

         Delta Counties Coalition, Contra Costa County, Sacramento 
           County, San Joaquin County, Solano County, Yolo County, 
           ``Working Together on Water and Delta Issues,''
                                                February 24, 2012.
     Re H.R. 1837.

     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Madam Leader: The Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Delta Counties of Contra Costa, Sacramento, San 
     Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo, working together as the Delta 
     Counties Coalition (DCC), write to express our strong 
     opposition to H.R. 1837, as currently constructed.
       The DCC is concerned that H.R. 1837 contains a number of 
     provisions that arbitrarily block legal protections for the 
     Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and its fisheries for 
     the benefit of a specific group of agricultural water users. 
     Among our concerns are the consequences of provisions that 
     would change or limit the use of the 800,000 acre-feet of 
     Central Valley Project (CVP) water that was devoted to fish 
     and wildlife purposes in the original Central Valley Project 
     Improvement Act (CVPIA). We also have significant concerns 
     about the impacts to Delta fisheries, water quality, and 
     sensitive ecosystems that would result from the bill's 
     requirement to revert back to the provisions of the 1994 Bay-
     Delta Accord as the benchmark environmental document to be 
     used in meeting today's biological and hydrological needs in 
     the Delta. Additionally, we are gravely concerned about the 
     consequences of provisions that preempt state land, water and 
     environmental laws which currently require more stringent 
     protections than those outlined in the Accord, which was 
     agreed to

[[Page H1049]]

     nearly 18 years ago. This would ignore the last two decades' 
     worth of scientific research about Delta issues and would 
     base water operations on out-of-date science that was in 
     place before the crash of Delta wildlife species in recent 
     years. Furthermore, as a bipartisan coalition, we are 
     surprised that this House would consider top-down, big 
     government legislation preempting state law in a manner that 
     is antithetical to core philosophies of the Majority. We must 
     ensure that any legislation that moves forward will avoid 
     cannibalizing one part of California's economy to benefit 
     another's--our litmus test will be to see if the bill 
     supports, rather than jeopardizes, a Delta economy based on 
     agriculture, fishing/hunting, recreation, and tourism.
       Another major problem with the bill is that it scraps the 
     San Joaquin River Restoration Program, which is needed to 
     begin restoring the San Joaquin River to reestablish salmon 
     runs, improve river water quality and restore the river's 
     Bay-Delta flow. The restoration is needed to improve the 
     health of the river and the Delta.
       While some of the provisions of the bill are consistent 
     with our long held view that federal law should specifically 
     and fully recognize and respect California's water rights 
     priority system and statutory protections for areas of 
     origin, taken as a whole, H.R. 1837 takes our region and the 
     State in the wrong direction. By undercutting decades of 
     agreements and ongoing negotiations, this bill brings us no 
     closer to solving California's complex water challenges. We 
     also are troubled by the way the bill was constructed. It was 
     put together behind closed doors, with neither public 
     transparency nor meaningful input from the diversity of 
     California's water and environmental interests. There were no 
     hearings held on the version of the bill that the Committee 
     considered less than 48 hours after it was made public. A 
     balanced, consensus based solution is only possible if the 
     interests of all stakeholders are considered.
       The DCC looks forward to continuing to work with 
     California's congressional delegation to promote and protect 
     a healthy Delta environment. If you have questions, please do 
     not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
       Mary Nejedly Piepho, Supervisor, Contra Costa County; Don 
     Nottoli, Supervisor, Sacramento County; Larry Ruhstaller, 
     Supervisor, San Joaquin County; Michael J. Reagan, 
     Supervisor, Solano County; Mike McGowan, Supervisor, Yolo 
     County.
                                  ____



                                   Central Delta Water Agency,

                                  Stockton, CA, February 24, 2012.
     Re Opposition to H.R. 1837 (Nunes).

     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir: The Central Delta Water Agency encompasses 
     approximately 120,000 acres in the central portion or 
     California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We are concerned 
     with the adequacy of the quality and flow of water in the 
     channels of the Delta. Although the use of such water in our 
     agency is primarily agricultural, there are also significant 
     urban, recreational, industrial and habitat uses. We are 
     opposed to the passage of H.R. 1837 for the following reasons 
     among others:
       H.R. 1837 would override State constitutional protection 
     for the public trust, State water rights law and even 
     preclude the State's ability to set limits on the take of 
     non-native fish. (Pages 19 and 20 of the bill.)
       This intrusion on State's rights is not only a break with 
     tradition and respect but is of questionable 
     constitutionality. This is bad law and bad precedent which 
     does not address the underlying problem of insufficient water 
     to meet needs in dry years.
       H.R. 1837 would represent yet another significant breach of 
     the promises by the United States to the people of California 
     that exports would be limited to surplus water.
       ``On February 17, 1945, a more direct answer was made to 
     the question of diversion of water in a letter by Acting 
     Regional Director R.C. Calland, of the Bureau, to the Joint 
     Committee on Rivers and Flood Control of California State 
     Legislature. The committee had asked the question, `What is 
     your policy in connection with the amount of water that can 
     be diverted from one watershed to another in proposed 
     diversions?' In stating the Bureau's policy, Mr. Calland 
     quoted section 11460 of the State water code, which is 
     sometimes referred to as the county of origin act, and then 
     he said: `As viewed by the Bureau, it is the intent of the 
     statute that no water shall be diverted from any watershed 
     which is of will be needed for beneficial uses within that 
     watershed. The Bureau of Reclamation, it its studies for 
     water resources development in the Central Valley, 
     consistently has given full recognition to the policy 
     expressed in this statute by the legislature and the people. 
     The Bureau has attempted to estimate in these studies, and 
     will continue to do so in future studies, what the present 
     and future needs of each watershed will be. The Bureau will 
     not divert from any watershed any water which is needed to 
     satisfy the existing or potential needs within that 
     watershed. For example, no water will be diverted which will 
     be needed for the full development of all of the irrigable 
     lands within the watershed, nor would there be water needed 
     for municipal and industrial purposes or future maintenance 
     of fish and wildlife resources.' '' (See 84th Congress, 2d 
     Session House Document No. 416, Part One Authorizing 
     documents 1956 at Pages 797 799.)
       H.R. 1837 attempts to repeal the San Joaquin River 
     Settlement--The actions of the United States in deliberately 
     dewatering portions of the San Joaquin River and 
     collaborating in its degradation is a national disgrace and 
     should be corrected. The San Joaquin River Settlement is a 
     voluntary and contractual resolution to years of litigation 
     which is but a small step towards remediation of longstanding 
     patterns of wrongdoings. It should be honored not 
     circumvented.
       H.R. 1837 would remove much of the CVPIA protection for 
     fish which was the quid pro quo for the significant benefits 
     extended to Federal water contractors and in particular the 
     ability to profit from transfer of subsidized water.
       This would be but another action confirming the lank of 
     credibility of our Federal government. Although not a party 
     to the negotiations leading to the CVPIA, it would appear 
     that any repeal of the environmental benefits should include 
     a repeal of the benefits to water contractors. We suggest no 
     change.
       H.R. 1837 represents the wrong approach to addressing water 
     issues in the State of California and would be a terrible 
     precedent for similar actions affecting other States.
           Yours very truly,
                                             Dante John Nomellini,
                                           Manager and Co-Counsel.

  H.R. 1837 would devastate my entire region, but folks from other 
States should also oppose this bill. With little debate, and complete 
disregard for the consequences, this bill sets a dangerous precedent so 
that the Federal Government can undermine State water law developed 
over decades. Your State could be next.
  This bill is a shameful attempt to rewrite California water laws to 
benefit a few selected water users, regardless of how much harm is done 
to other parts of the State. Democrats and Republicans should stand 
united in our desire to block this legislation from becoming law. I 
urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to oppose H.R. 1837.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), another Member from the West, 
and the chairman of the Western Caucus who knows this issue very well.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1837. The 
Nation is faced with trillion-dollar deficits, persistent unemployment 
above 8 percent, and we continue to use the Federal Government to kill 
jobs and to export them to China.
  You can take a look at what the President recently did regarding the 
Keystone pipeline. You can look at the export of the rare-Earth mineral 
mines to China.
  But this is the one that is most offensive, this exporting of our 
agriculture products. San Joaquin Valley used to place vegetables, safe 
vegetables grown in America on store shelves across the country. Today 
we import vegetables from countries that use pesticides that are 
disallowed here.
  We have an unsafe food supply. We have more people out of work, and 
we have deficits because we don't have tax-paying citizens.
  This bill simply is a commonsense, bipartisan solution that puts 
people back to work, provides a safe food supply, and makes America 
more sound. It's common sense. We should vote for it.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to this jobs killer act that ignores more than 20 years of established 
science.
  Tens of thousands of people depend on the Bay-Delta for their 
livelihoods, including many farmers, fishermen, and sportsmen who 
contribute billions of dollars to our economy every year.
  Sadly, the sponsors of this bill are using the legislation to create 
winners and losers by preempting California State law. This bill would 
take water from folks in northern California for use in California's 
Central Valley. This means even less water to sports fishermen and to 
commercial fishermen, the basis of two thriving industries in our 
State.
  The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations strongly 
opposes the bill. They estimate that over 25,000 jobs were lost in the 
salmon fishing industry due to the 2008 and 2009 closures.
  The American Sportsfishing Association shows that California's 
economy suffers $1.4 billion in loss each year that the salmon fishery 
season is

[[Page H1050]]

closed. If this bill becomes law, these jobs would be lost forever, and 
the economic losses would be permanent.
  Appropriate amounts of water are also critical to support the 
economies for wildlife-associated recreation. In California, 7.4 
million sportsmen contribute over $8 billion to the economy every year. 
Without water, many of these hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching 
activities will be lost.
  More than 200 sportsmen's organizations have written to express their 
opposition to this bill. These men and women recognize the extreme 
consequences of this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to insert this letter that I have signed by 
those over 200 organizations into the Record.

                                                February 26, 2012.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The 
     California Environmental Water Caucus, and the numerous 
     environmental, environmental justice, recreational and 
     commercial fishing groups, legal and advocacy groups, and 
     Indian tribes, whose logos and names are attached to this 
     letter, would collectively like to express our strong 
     opposition to the ill-conceived and regressive legislation 
     contained in H.R. 1837, the misleadingly entitled 
     ``Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.'' We 
     do not believe that this bill merits a vote by the U.S. House 
     of Representatives.
       In summary, this radical legislation preempts state water 
     law, eliminates environmental protections for salmon and 
     other commercially valuable species, guts the 1992 Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act, and overturns the broadly 
     supported, court approved settlement to restore the San 
     Joaquin River. As a result, this bill threatens thousands of 
     salmon fishing jobs and communities in California and Oregon, 
     water quality in the Bay-Delta, and the reliability of 
     California's water supplies.
       H.R. 1837 would overturn the fundamental Congressional 
     principle which requires the federal government to follow 
     state water law whenever possible. This principle has been a 
     bulwark of rights reserved to the individual states and 
     should not be violated by this kind of legislation. Even more 
     specifically, this radical legislation would preempt the 
     public trust doctrine as defined in the California 
     Constitution and eliminate the implementation of a bipartisan 
     package of water policy reform legislation adopted by the 
     State of California in 2009.
       H.R. 1837 would defeat efforts to restore fish populations 
     in the Delta. Science-based protections for salmon and other 
     endangered species are required under both California state 
     law and the Endangered Species Act. In order to support 
     recovery of endangered fish species, the State of California 
     has consistently opposed legislation that would weaken the 
     Endangered Species Act in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and 
     Estuary. H.R. 1837 would strip those protections.
       H.R. 1837 would gut the Central Valley Project Improvement 
     Act of 1992, which corrected numerous deficiencies built into 
     the federal Central Valley Project. The Act requires 
     compliance with state law, encourages water conservation, 
     makes modest reforms to reduce water subsidies, and 
     contributes water for the recovery of endangered fish 
     species.
       H.R. 1837 would overturn the 2009 court approved San 
     Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act which ended twenty 
     years of litigation on the San Joaquin River. The Settlement 
     and the Act were supported by all parties to the litigation 
     and numerous water districts in the San Joaquin Valley and 
     across the State, along with Members of Congress from both 
     sides of the aisle. H.R. 1837 attempts to preempt state law 
     that requires river restoration, and eliminates flood 
     protection and water supply projects for farmers that were 
     approved as part of the Settlement and Act.
       H.R. 1837 would reduce water quality and water reliability 
     for Delta communities and Delta farmers. It seeks to ensure 
     water flows to agribusiness in the western and southern San 
     Joaquin Valley at the expense of smaller Delta family 
     farmers. The recently released Economic Sustainability Report 
     authored by the Delta Protection Commission shows that Delta 
     agriculture is worth $4.2 billion annually and provides tens 
     of thousands of jobs. Delta agriculture and jobs should not 
     be sacrificed to benefit water users in other parts of the 
     state, some of whom do not even use that water for 
     agriculture. This legislation would further aggravate the 
     water supply divide within the state and would help 
     perpetuate the destructive ``water wars'' which characterize 
     water rules in California.
       In summary, H.R. 1837 is an unprecedented assault on a 
     state's ability to enact and support its own water laws, and 
     it is an undisguised water grab in favor of one district to 
     the detriment of other parts of the state, all engineered by 
     the federal government.
       For all of the above reasons, we oppose H.R. 1837 and 
     request that you withdraw the legislation.
                                                    David Nesmith,
                                                   Co-Facilitator.
                                                    Nick Di Croce,
                                                   Co-Facilitator.
       The following 190 organizations are signatories to this 
     comment letter:
       Bill Jennings, Executive Director, California Sportfishing 
     Protection Alliance; Dave Britts, President, Pacific Coast 
     Federation of Fisherman's Associations; Carolee Krieger, 
     Executive Director, California Water Impact Network; Jonas 
     Minton, Senior Water Policy Advisor, Planning and 
     Conservation League; Ron Stork, Senior Policy Advocate 
     Friends of the River; Jennifer Clary, Water Policy Analyst 
     Clean Water Action.
       David Lewis, Executive Director Save the Bay; Joan 
     Clayburg, Executive Director, Sierra Nevada Alliance; Deb 
     Self, Executive Director, San Francisco Baykeeper; Jim 
     Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California; Chris 
     Wright, Executive Director Foothills Conservancy; John Merz, 
     President, Sacramento River Preservation Trust.
       Conner Everts, Executive Director, Southern California 
     Watershed Alliance; Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla Executive 
     Director, Restore the Delta; Caleb Dardick, Executive 
     Director, South Yuba River Citizens League; Barbara Vlamis, 
     Executive Director AquAlliance; Caleen Sisk-Franco, Spirtual 
     Leader & Traditional Chief Winnemen Wintu Tribe; Victor 
     Gonella, President, Golden Gate Salmon Association.
       Geoffey McQuilkin Executive Director Mono Lake Committee; 
     Huey D. Johnson, President, Resource Renewal Institute; Adam 
     Scow, California Campaign Director Food and Water Watch; 
     Linda Sheehan, Executive Director Earth Law Center; Leda 
     Huta, Executive Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Capt. 
     Roger Thomas, President, Golden Gate Fishermen's Association.
       Mondy Lariz, Director, Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition; 
     Larry Collins, President, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners 
     Association; Leaf G. Hillman, Director, Karuk Department of 
     Natural Resources, Karuk Tribe; Lloyd Carter, President, 
     California Save Our Streams Council; Eric Wesselman, 
     Executive Director Tuolumne River Trust; Don Rivenes, 
     Conservation Chair, Sierra Foothills Audubon.
       Esmeralda Soria, Legislative Advocate, California Rural 
     Legal Assistance Foundation; Mark Rockwell, Co-Conservation 
     Director, Northern California Council Federation of Fly 
     Fishers; Dan Bacher Editor, Fish Sniffer; Alan Levine, 
     Director, Coast Action Group; Zeke Grader, Executive 
     Director, Institute for Fisheries Resources; Siobahn Dolan, 
     Director, Desal Response Group.
       Andrew J. Orahoske, Conservation Director, Environmental 
     Protection Information Center; Scott Greacen, Executive 
     Director, Friends of the Eel River; Mati Waiya Executive 
     Director Wishtoyo Foundation, Karen Schamback, California 
     Field Director, California Public Employees for Environmental 
     Responsibility; Rich Cimino, President, Alameda Creek 
     Alliance; Milo Vukovich, President, Sonoma County Abalone 
     Network.
       Jeff Miller, Conservation Advocate, Center for Biological 
     Diversity; Bill Wells, Executive Director, California Delta 
     Chambers & Visitors Bureau; Dave Steindorf, California 
     Stewardship Director American Whitewater; Bill Ferrero, 
     Owner, President, Mokelumne River Outfitters; Lorna Elness, 
     President, San Joaquin Audubon; Carol Perkins, Water 
     Resources Advocate Butte Environmental Council.
       Michael Warburton, Executive Director, The Public Trust 
     Alliance; Sylvia Kothe, Chairperson, Concerned Citizens 
     Coalition of Stockton; Frank Egger, President, North Coast 
     Rivers Alliance; Luke Breit, Legislative Advocate Forests 
     Forever; Marily Woodhouse, Director, Battle Creek Alliance; 
     Jeremy Terhune, Coordinator, Friends of the Calaveras.
       Don McEnhill, Riverkeeper, Russian Riverkeeper; Tim Little, 
     Co-Director, Rose Foundation; Steve Shimek, Chief Executive 
     The Otter Project, Greywolf, Jeff Kelly Chief, Modoc Nation; 
     Alan Harthorn, Executive Director Friends of Butte Creek; 
     Larry Hanson, Manager, Northern California River Watch.
       Steve Shimek, Program Manager Monterey Coastkeeper; Steve 
     Pedery, Conservation Director, Oregon Wild; Melanie 
     Winter, Founder & Director, The River Project; Larry 
     Glass, President, Safe Alternatives for our Forest 
     Environment; Lynne Plambeck, Executive Director, Santa 
     Clarita for Planning and the Environment; Marie Logan & 
     Jessie Raeder, Co-Presidents, SalmonAid Foundation.
       Karen Schambach, President, Center for Sierra Nevada 
     Conservation; Rain Ananacel, Executive Director, Northcoast 
     Environmental Center; Michael Schweit, President, Southwest 
     Council Federation of Fly Fishers; Chris Poehlmann, 
     President, Friends of the Gualala River; Brenda S. Adelman, 
     Chairperson, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee; 
     Nate Rangel, President, California Outdoors.
       Chet Ogan, Conservation Chair, Redwood Regional Audubon 
     Society; Susan Robinson, Board Member, Ebbetts Pass Forest 
     Watch; Bob Dean, President, Upper Mokelumne River Watershed 
     Council; Trevor Kennedy, Executive Director, Fishery 
     Foundation; Dan Silver, Executive Director, Endangered 
     Habitats League; Jane Humes, Chair, Waldo Holt Conservancy.
       Michael Garabedian, Friends of the North Fork American 
     River; Mike Hudson, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fisherman's 
     Association; Allison Boucher, Project Manager, Tuolumne 
     Conservancy; Michael Martin,

[[Page H1051]]

     Ph.D., Director, Merced River Conservation Committee; Beth 
     Werner, Baykeeper, Humboldt Baykeeper; Kelli Gant, President, 
     Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance.
       Rick Coates, Executive Director, Forest Unlimited; Sue 
     Lynn, Secretary, Cascade Action Now; Larry Glass, President, 
     South Fort Mountain Defense Committee; Seymour Singer, 
     President, Pasadena Casting Club; Dick Harris, President, 
     Santa Clarita Casting Club; Ken Javorsky, President, Tri-
     Valley Fly Fishers.
       Jim Cox, President, West Delta Chapter, California Striped 
     Bass Association; Jackson Chapman, President, Sacramento 
     Chapter, California Striped Bass Association; Roger Mammon, 
     President, Lower Sherman Island Duck Club; Larry Dennis, 
     Conservation Chair, Mission Peak Fly Anglers; Henry Sandigo, 
     Conservation Chair, Granite Bay Flycasters; Jim Tolonen, 
     Conservation Chair, Santa Cruz Fly Fishermen.
       Tom Bartos, President, Foothills Angler Coalition; Bill 
     Carnazzo, President, Spring Creek Guide Service; Grant 
     Fraser, President, Auburn Flycasters; Mark Allen, General 
     Manager, Adventure Connections, Inc.; Greg King, Siskiyou 
     Land Conservancy; Jim Yarnall, President, Humboldt Area 
     Saltwater Anglers; Joesph Vaile, Campaign Director, KS Wild.
       Ron Forbes, Conservation Chair, Delta Fly Fishers; Denise 
     Boggs, Executive Director, Conservation Congress; Kim 
     Glazzard, Executive Director, Organic Sacramento; Bill 
     O'Kelly, President, Sierra Pacific Flyfishers; Cindy Charles, 
     Conservation Chair, Golden West Women Flyfishers; Ted Shapas, 
     Conservation Chair, Diablo Valley Fly Fishermen.
       Darrell Tichurst, Chairman, Coastside Fishing Club; Steve 
     Burke, Spokesperson, Protect Our Water; Lillian Light, 
     President, Palos Verdes Audubon Chapter; John Weisheit, 
     Conservation Chair, Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper; 
     Spreck Rosenkrans, Restore Hetch Hetchy; Don Schmoldt, 
     President, Sacramento Audubon Society; Diane Hichwa, 
     Conservation Chair, Madrone Audubon.
       Stephen Fuller-Rowell, Co-Founder, Oregon Waterwatch; Tom 
     Chandler, Editor, Trout Underground; Will Harling, Executive 
     Director, Mid-Klamath Watershed Council; Don Gillespie, 
     President, Friends of Del Norte; Randa Solick, Co-Chair, 
     Santa Cruz WILPF; Ken Franke, Executive Director, 
     Sportfishing Association of California.
       Jim Martin, Recreational Fishing Alliance; Sep Hendrickson, 
     Executive Director, California Inland Fisheries Foundation; 
     Aaron Newman, President, Humboldt Fisherman's Marketing 
     Association; Mark Micoch, Co-Chairman, Northern California 
     Guides Association; Dan Blanton, Chairman, StriperFest; Mike 
     Augney, Co-Owner, USA Fishing.
       Jim Martin, Director, Berkeley Conservation Institute; Bob 
     Mellinger, Vice-President, Water for Fish; Bart Hall, 
     Producer, Fred Hall Shows; Randy Repass, Chairman & 
     Founder, West Marine; Bruce Tokars, President, Salmon 
     Water Now; Galen Onizuka, Owner, President, Johnson Hicks 
     Marine.
       Angelo Pucci, President, P Line; Dick Pool, President, Pro-
     Troll Fishing Products; Liz Hamilton, Executive Director, 
     Northwest Sportfishing Ind. Assn.; Bob Rees, President, North 
     West Guides and Anglers Assoc.; Peter Grenell, Manager, San 
     Mateo County Harbor District; Ken Elie, Owner, President, 
     Outdoor Pro Shop.
       Bill Divens, Salmon King Lodge West; Paul Johnson, Owner, 
     Monterey Fish Market; Bob Kotula, Outwest Marketing; Danny 
     Layne, Hawkeye Marketing; Roy Gray, Owner, Roy Gray & 
     Associates; Dan Pamel, President, Leisure Sales; Paul 
     Johnson, Owner, Monterey Fish Market.
       Michael Scaglione, Pacific Catch Fish Grill; Bill Boyce, 
     Boyce Image, World Fishing Network; Rich Kato, Sport Sales; 
     Jack Swanson, Sales Manager, Repala USA; Chuck Cappotto, 
     Bodega Bay Fisherman's Marketing Assoc.; Gary Coe, Kokanee 
     Power.
       Angelo Pucci, President, G. Pucci and Sons Mfg.; Capt Brian 
     Smith, Riptide Charters; Capt Bob Ingles, Queen of Hearts 
     Charters; Capt Brian Cutty, Chubasco Charters; Capt Brian 
     Guiles, Flying Fish Charters; Capt Chris Chan, Ankeny St. 
     Sportfishing.
       Capt Craig Shimokosu, New Salmon Queen Charters; Capt Dale 
     Walters, Que Sera Sera Charters; Capt Dennis Baxter, New 
     Captain Pete Charters; Capt Don Franklin, Soleman 
     Sportfishing Charters; Capt Ed Gallia, New Easy Rider 
     Charters; Capt Frank Rescino, Lovely Martha Charters; Capt 
     Harry Necees, Checkmate Charters; Capt Jack Chapman, Lovely 
     Linda Sportfishing; Capt Jacky Douglas, Wacky Jacky Charters; 
     Capt Jay Yokomozo, Huck Finn Charters; Jimmy Robertson, Outer 
     Limits Charters; Capt Joe Gallia, El Dorado III Charters; 
     Capt John Atkinson, New Ray Ann Charters; Capt John Kluzmier, 
     Sir Randy Charters; Capt Nick Lemons, Star of Monterey 
     Charters; Capt Ken Stagnaro, Stagnaro's Charters; Capt Randy 
     Thornton, Telstar Charters.
       Capt Richard Thornton, Trek II; Capt Rick Powers, Bodega 
     Bay Sportfishing; Capt Peter Bruno, Randy's Fishing Trips; 
     Bob Sparre, Bob Sparre's Guide Service; Capt Sean Hodges, Hog 
     Heaven Charters; George Catagnoia, Owner, Sandy Ann Charters; 
     Capt Steve Talmadge, Flash Sportfishing Charters; Sal 
     Vallone, Bob Sands Fishing; Capt Tim Klassen, Reel Steel 
     Sportfishing; Vance Staplin, Vance's Tackle.
       Barbara Emley, F/V Autumn Gale; Capt Chris Acacelo, Chris' 
     Fishing Charters; Jim Cox, Owner, Jim Cox Sport Fishing 
     Charters; Jonah Li, Hi's Tackle Box; Sunny Lampre, Owner, 
     Sunny's Electric Marine; Ron La Force, President, United 
     Outdoorsmen; Danny Layne, Fish'n Dan's Guide Service; Marilyn 
     Hendrickson, Sep's Outdoors Inc.; Mike Chamberlain, Ted's 
     Sports Center; Craig Stone, Emeryville Sportfishing.

  That's 200. That's more than the 12 or 14 members of the State 
legislature that wrote you a letter.
  In the end, H.R. 1837 is nothing more than an attempt by well-funded 
water contractors to steal water from other users with no regard for 
the fishers, sportsmen, the farmers north of the delta, the families 
and the businesses who depend on their delta for their livelihood. It 
guts environmental protections and kills local jobs. It should be 
rejected, and solutions to California's water challenges should be 
based on strong and sound science; and it should be done with all of 
the stakeholders at the table, not in the proverbial back room.

                              {time}  1510

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. So please join me and over 100 outdoor 
and fishing organizations and the Western States Water Council to 
protect northern Californians from political agendas that harm our 
economy, wildlife, and the people. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, here are a number of 
organizations that have written in support of this legislation on both 
sides of these pages; and at the appropriate time I, too, will insert 
them in the Record to show that there is broad, broad support for this 
legislation.
  I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say, for those of us who have seen this with our 
own eyes, who saw the devastation in the Central Valley, we know for a 
fact that when the aqueduct pumps in California were slowed, when that 
water came to a halt because of the orders and opinions issued partly 
by the Obama administration, what we saw was devastation. We saw the 
worst of it in 2010. Over a million acre-feet of water were lost. Tens 
of thousands of jobs were destroyed in our State. The unemployment 
rate, my friends, in some of these Central Valley towns reached 40 
percent.
  Those signs that I saw along the I 5 when I was going up to take a 
look at this, they told a certain story, and these were written by 
farmers: ``No water = No jobs.'' You'd go down the highway: ``Food 
grows where water flows,'' but there was no food growing. The 
devastation was incredible.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ROYCE. My personal favorite: ``New Dust Bowl, created by 
Congress.''
  Well, this legislation would bring some sanity back to this process. 
By restoring water deliveries to the levels agreed upon in the 1994 
Bay-Delta Accord between California and the Federal Government, this 
bill could bring back 30,000 jobs, and it would save millions of acre-
feet of water which has been sent to the ocean.
  My friends, this is a man-made problem. It's going to take 
legislation to fix. This bill will fix it.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I also toured that area, and the 
devastation was very severe. I wish some of the areas would find 
another way to be able to find employment, because this is a chronic 
unemployment circle, if you will, for years, for decades; it isn't just 
new.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1837, the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.
  This legislation repeals existing State law and, frankly, leaves no 
State safe. If enacted, H.R. 1837 would set an unprecedented standard 
of State preemption. As a member of the Subcommitee on Water and Power, 
I am concerned that the opposition to this legislation, over 300 
stakeholders, over seven States, the nonpartisan Western States Water 
Council, various

[[Page H1052]]

attorney generals from New Mexico to other States, have voiced their 
concern about the preemption and the concern about the intrusion into 
what has traditionally been a State's right in terms of water 
management.
  If enacted, this unprecedented act of State preemption would be a 
precedent that brings many States' water settlements into question. In 
my State, Arizona, a diverse set of stakeholders, water users, Indian 
tribes, municipalities, the Federal Government were involved in lengthy 
years in reaching water agreements to try to balance the use of water 
in our State. They were crafted, they were difficult, they were 
delicate, but agreement happened, and now those are now being 
implemented throughout the State.
  It raises question about that difficult process, particularly when 
you had tribal governments involved in these negotiations and are part 
of the settlement. By sovereignty, States' rights are preeminent in 
this question.
  I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, another gentleman from 
California who has seen the effects of what this man-made drought is, 
Mr. McCarthy.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman 
Hastings for his work in committee, and I'd also like to thank, Mr. 
Chairman, the subcommittee chairman, Tom McClintock, and the authors of 
this bill, Devin Nunes and Jeff Denham, for their work.
  Now, in California there's a saying: ``Whiskey's for drinking and 
water's for fighting,'' and for too long we've been fighting about 
water. For too long this man-made drought in California has been 
ignored. Well, you know, today that stops. I'm excited about it 
stopping today; because you're going to hear a lot of arguments on both 
sides, but that's where we're supposed to debate, on the floor of the 
House.
  But, you know, the thing we've always yearned for, the thing we've 
always taught our children? That an agreement is an agreement, that you 
keep your bond. You come into a debate where you make your points, but 
when you come to an agreement, you keep it.
  Simply put, what does this bill do? This bill simply says an 
agreement is an agreement.
  When both sides sat down from the Bay Area-Delta Accord--why was it 
named that? Because people from the bay area and people from the delta 
had discussions, had fights, had policy arguments, and they finally 
came to agreement.
  Now, who was on what side? Was it all just based upon a farmer or 
just based upon environmentalists? No. There was the Clinton 
administration. There was Pete Wilson from the State. He was Governor 
at the time. There were farmers. There were environmentalists. Mr. 
Chairman, there were people that were in the administration that are 
even Members of this Chamber today who spoke in support of this. So if 
you made an agreement then, why do you want to break it?
  And because of what the man-made drought has done, have you ever 
examined the pain that it has caused? I know people, when they think of 
California, sure, you think of Silicon Valley, you think of Hollywood, 
you think of San Diego. Well, you know what? There's this whole area in 
the valley. When you start and talk about this area in the valley, you 
know where my district is? My district is from the ``Grapes of Wrath.'' 
It's the shantytown everybody ended up in. Cesar Chavez is buried in my 
district. But you know what I saw from my valley on up? Thirty, 40 
percent unemployment. I saw people standing in line.
  I'm very proud of the district I'm fortunate to represent. There's 
two families in my district that grow 80 percent of all of the carrots 
in the country. But you know, because of this man-made drought, where 
hundreds of people were lined up to get food at the food bank, they 
were getting carrots. But were they getting carrots from America? No. 
They were getting carrots from China. The breadbasket of America.
  Well, you know, that all ends today. It ends with a bipartisan 
agreement that America craves for us to find. You know what? In the 
Bay-Delta Accord, I didn't get everything that I would represent 
philosophically. The other side didn't as well. But, you know, the 
greatest thing about America is the rule of law, and if we make an 
agreement, we should stick to the agreement. Simply put, that's what 
this bill does and ends the man-made drought.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
  May I ask what time we have left, sir?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlelady from California has 8 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 3\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I rise today to offer my support for the legislation.
  This bill, like so many others that we vote on, is far from perfect. 
However, I'll support this bill because of many provisions, important 
provisions for my valley within it.
  Mr. Chairman, water is absolutely critical to the economy of the San 
Joaquin Valley, the valley I love. Without an adequate water supply, 
agricultural fields go fallow and entire communities can be laid to 
waste. No one understands this more than myself and my colleague, Mr. 
Costa, my friend from the valley. We have both fought for water for our 
entire careers for our people. In fact, just last year, he and I 
introduced legislation to provide operational flexibility in the 
implementation of the Endangered Species Act for water deliveries for 
the Central Valley Project. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle haven't felt the importance of holding a hearing on 
that bill.
  Titles I and III of this legislation aim to address the flawed 
regulations that have reduced our vital water deliveries to my friends 
and neighbors throughout the valley.

                              {time}  1520

  I have no reservations in supporting these provisions, and commend my 
colleagues on the other side for introducing them. I recommend a 
``yes'' vote.
  When it comes to title II of this bill, which calls for the repeal 
and replacement of the San Joaquin River Restoration Act, I would like 
to mention that this was a locally requested and locally championed 
piece of legislation to end an 18-year lawsuit. Although I had serious 
reservations when this bill was first introduced, I supported the 
solution when it came through this House. I will say now that the 
implementation of this act, as it has been done by the administration, 
has left a lot to be desired.
  I have significant further reservations with the San Joaquin River 
Restoration program, and it has recently become clear that those views 
that I expressed during its formation are coming to pass. The 
restoration is far too costly, and its schedule is advancing in a way 
that landowners adjacent to the new flows are being damaged.
  Despite this, just simply saying we will remove the agreement that 
has been put in place is not the answer. We don't need to repeal it--we 
need to repair it--particularly when the only thing a repeal 
accomplishes is a continuation of a lawsuit that prompted the 
legislation in the first place.
  However, I'd like to make a comment about the process under which 
this legislation was drafted.
  As many of you know, this is my last year as a Member of this body.
  This bill, even while I support it, is a perfect example of how 
dysfunctional this body has become.
  This bill will never become law. To be frank, I'm doubtful that it 
will even be debated in the Senate.
  I feel this way because the authors of this bill haven't expressed a 
serious interest in engaging either me, Congressman Costa or Senator 
Feinstein in drafting a bipartisan piece of legislation that can pass 
both chambers of Congress.
  It's unfortunate that some continue to exploit the real life 
challenges facing the folks we have the honor of representing to score 
a cheap political point.
  Successful functioning of Congress and the resulting successful 
resolution of the problems afflicting this nation will require the 
participation of both Republicans and Democrats.
  We cannot function individually; we must function in concert to solve 
the challenges facing us today.
  I think we not only can do better, but we must do better, if we're 
going to accomplish what we were sent here to do.

[[Page H1053]]

  Only efforts like that will truly solve the complex problems facing 
us today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from northern California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.
  Let us understand what is taking place here. In California, for the 
first time in 40 years, all of the various water parties have gotten 
together to try to work out these disagreements and come up with a 
sustainable water policy that serves all of the needs of all 
Californians--agriculture, manufacturing, municipal uses, environmental 
uses--all of that together. For the first time, the State legislature 
passed historic legislation empowering these negotiations to take place 
in order to take care of disparate interests.
  But there are two parties in that negotiation that keep threatening 
to walk out of the room. They're going to walk out, walk out, walk out. 
Apparently, they did walk out. They walked out, and they came back to 
Washington, D.C., to cut a separate deal. These are among the largest 
water users in the State. These are among the most highly subsidized 
users in the State. One of our conservative friends on the other side 
was complaining about the deficit when he started to talk on this bill. 
These are people who are getting a $400 million interest-free loan from 
the taxpayers of this country. These are the people who are getting 
$400 million in subsidies every year from the taxpayers of this 
country.
  And what do they do?
  In this bill, they have an earmark. You gave them 40 years and these 
rights in perpetuity to get at least $400 million a year from the 
taxpayers of this country. That's not on top of the crop subsidies. 
That's not on top of the insurance payments, disaster payments. This is 
just in subsidized water that goes to these people who are crying poor. 
The largest users have decided they want two negotiations--one in 
California and one in Washington. To do that, they want to overturn the 
California laws, the California legislature, the Supreme Court 
decisions, and the science. We'll go back in time 18 years and say that 
this science is good enough.
  But the heart of this, more than water, is money, and the money sits 
there, and it flows with the water. Every drop of water that goes to 
the San Luis Unit and others is subsidized. Right now, they only have a 
year-to-year contract. They'd have a 20-year contract possibly if they 
reach agreement. You give them 40 years, and then 40 years in 
perpetuity: $400 million a year times perpetuity. You figure out what 
this earmark is worth. You figure out what this special treatment is 
worth.
  Do you want to know who is driving this process?
  It's those very, very special interests that are moving this process, 
and apparently, they can move our friends on the other side to overturn 
Supreme Court opinions. They can overturn the State legislature. They 
can overturn these negotiations. There used to be a saying around here 
that said that it takes some skill and talent to build a barn, but that 
any damned fool can kick it down. So what these people have decided is 
that they're just going to kick over those negotiations in California, 
those negotiations in which people have invested a huge amount of time 
and talent--from the legislature, to the agencies, to the farmers, to 
the environmentalists, to our cities, to our counties--all of whom 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to point out that this bill 
came out of committee with bipartisan support, and we've had bipartisan 
debate for this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the author of this legislation, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman from 
California has read the bill, because he complains about the subsidies. 
In fact, this bill gets rid of the subsidies as this bill returns 
almost $300 million to the Treasury. So we agree. We want to get rid of 
the subsidies. We want to cut the deficit. That's what this bill does.
  I don't quite understand what he was talking about in terms of 
tearing down barns, but I would say that the gentleman's legislation 
that was passed with a Senator from New Jersey and a Congressman from 
California to preempt State law has been very successful at tearing 
apart farms and families.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. NUNES. Once again, as many of my colleagues will say, Secretary 
of the Interior Bruce Babbitt made a deal with Republican Governor Pete 
Wilson. A deal is a deal. The only problem was that there were some 
dishonest brokers at the table who never went to Congress to get this 
implemented.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I inquire of the Chair as to how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to say to my friend that, as 
I am the last speaker on my side, I am prepared to close when she is 
done with her speakers.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I have one more speaker.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues on both sides to 
consider what this bill will do.
  I now yield my remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. If you know California water, you know that we can get 
pretty wound up about it, and the solution for California water is not 
to be found in this particular piece of legislation. Facts are 
difficult things to deal with, but they are facts. There has been no 
manmade drought. There was a very real drought. In addition to that, 
there were restrictions on the pumping.
  Let us understand that the principal advocates of this bill have the 
shortest straw. They came last in line, and therefore they're not 
first--they're last. Their contract provided for shortage provisions 
for a variety of reasons, among them droughts and environmental 
restrictions. So they should have planned for that. Apparently, they 
did not.
  The losses to the agricultural community were significant to be sure, 
but at the same time, the agricultural community in the Central Valley 
prospered, having the best years to any previous year that occurred 
during this drought period. Certain farmers were shorted--no doubt 
about that--but they had a contract that called for those shortages.
  Now let us understand that this bill has profound implications on 
every State, some 21 States that have contracts with the Bureau of 
Reclamation. This bill, should it pass and become law, is a signal to 
every State that you cannot count on State law allocating the water 
within your district. Instead, it will be Congress that will allocate 
the water within your State. That is a profound change: 100 years of 
reclamation law are pushed aside by this piece of legislation. For the 
State of California, it is a total preemption of State law--a total 
preemption of State law--and the State constitution is pushed aside.

                              {time}  1530

  There is within the California constitution a thing called the 
``public trust.'' The legislature and the government of California hold 
in trust for the people of California the water of California, and this 
legislation pushes that aside and gives that water to a very special 
group.

                      Groups Opposed to H.R. 1837

       Statement of Administration Policy
       U.S. Department of the Interior
       State of Colorado
       State of Montana
       State of New Mexico
       State of Oregon
       State of Wyoming
       Western States Water Council \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ 18 member body, composed of governor-appointed 
     representatives from the 18 Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Elected Officials

       California Secretary for Natural Resources
       Congresswoman Anna Eshoo

[[Page H1054]]

       Congressman John Garamendi
       Congressman Mike Honda
       Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
       Congresswoman Doris Matsui
       Congressman Jerry McNerney
       Congressman George Miller
       Congresswoman Grace Napolitano
       Congresswoman Jackie Speier
       Congressman Mike Thompson
       Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
       Senator Barbara Boxer
       Senator Dianne Feinstein


                               Newspapers

       The Sacramento Bee
       The San Francisco Chronicle
       The San Jose Mercury News


                 Water Districts and Local Governments

       Central Delta Water Agency
       City of Sacramento
       City of Stockton
       Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
       Contra Costa County
       Grassland Water District
       Reclamation District 999
       Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
       Sacramento County
       San Joaquin Council of Governments
       San Joaquin County
       San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
       San Mateo County Harbor District
       Solano County
       South Delta Water Agency
       South San Joaquin Irrigation District
       Water Replenishment District of Southern California
       Yolo County


                       Business and Civic Groups

       BIA of the Delta
       Business Council of San Joaquin County
       California Delta Chambers & Visitor's Bureau
       California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
       Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton
       The Contra Costa Council
       Environmental Entrepreneurs
       Hawkeye Marketing
       Silicon Valley Leadership Group
       Stockton Chamber of Commerce


                          Environmental Groups

       Alameda Creek Alliance
       American Rivers
       AquAlliance
       Audubon
       Battle Creek Alliance
       The Bay Institute
       Berkeley Conservation Institute
       Biodiversity Conservation Alliance
       Butte Environmental Council
       California League of Conservation Voters
       California Public Employees for Environmental 
     Responsibility
       California Save our Streams Council
       California Water Impact Network
       Cascade Action Now
       Center for Biological Diversity
       Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation
       Clean Water Action
       Conservation Congress
       Coast Action Group
       Defenders of Wildlife
       Desal Response Group
       Earth Law Center
       Earthjustice
       Ebetts Pass Forest Watch
       Endangered Habitats League
       Endangered Species Coalition
       Environmental Defense Fund
       Environmental Protection Information Center
       Food and Water Watch
       Foothills Conservancy
       Forests Forever
       Forest Unlimited
       Friends of Butte Creek
       Friends of the Calaveres
       Friends of Del Norte
       Friends of the Eel River
       Friends of the Gualala River
       Friends of the Lower Calavera River
       Friends of the North Fork American River
       Friends of the River
       Humboldt Baykeeper
       Institute for Fisheries Resources
       KS Wild
       Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper
       Madrone Audubon
       Merced River Conservation Committee
       Mid-Klamath Watershed Council
       Mono Lake Committeee
       Monterey Coastkeeper
       National Parks Conservation Association
       Natural Resources Defense Council
       Nature Abounds
       The Nature Conservancy
       Northcoast Environmental Center
       North Coast Rivers Alliance
       Northern California River Watch
       Oceana
       Oregon Waterwatch
       Oregon Wild
       The Otter Project
       Palos Verdes Audubon Chapter
       Planning and Conservation League
       Protect our Water
       The Public Trust Alliance
       Redwood Regional Audubon Society
       Restore Hetch Hetchy
       Resource Renewal Institute
       Restore the Delta
       The River Project
       Rocky Mountain Wild
       Rose Foundation
       Russian Riverkeeper
       Russian River Watershed Protection Committee
       Sacramento Audubon Society
       Sacramento River Preservation Trust
       Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment
       San Francisco Bay Keeper
       San Joaquin Audubon
       Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition
       Santa Clarita for Planning and the Environment
       Santa Cruz Women's International League for Peace and 
     Freedom
       Save the Bay
       Save the Frogs!
       Sierra Club California
       Sierra Foothills Audubon
       Sierra Nevada Alliance
       Siskiyou Land Conservancy
       South Fort Mountain Defense Committee
       South Yuba River Citizens League
       Southern California Watershed Alliance
       Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance
       Trust for Public Land
       Tuolumne Conservancy
       Tuolumne River Trust
       Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth
       United Outdoorsmen
       Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Council
       Waldo Holt Conservancy
       Western Nebraska Resources Council
       Whidbey Environmental Action Network
       The Wilderness Society


   Commercial and Recreational Fishing and Hunting Organizations and 
                               Businesses

       Ankeny Street Sportfishing
       American Sportfishing Association
       Auburn Flycasters
       Back to Class Guide Service
       Bob Sands Fishing
       Bob Sparre's Guide Service
       Bodega Bay Fishermen's Marketing Association
       Bodega Bay Sportfishing
       Boyce Image
       California Inland Fisheries Foundation
       California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
       California Striped Bass Association
       California Striped Bass Association--Sacramento Chapter
       California Striped Bass Association--West Delta Chapter
       Checkmate Charters
       Chris' Fishing Charters
       Chubasco Charters
       Coastside Fishing Club
       Delta Fly Fishers
       Diablo Valley Fly Fishermen
       El Dorado III Charters
       Emeryville Sportfishing
       Fishery Foundation
       Fish Sniffer
       Flash Sportfishing Charters
       Flying Fish Charters
       Foothills Angler Coalition
       Fred Hall Shows
       Golden Gate Fishermen's Association
       Golden Gate Salmon Association
       Golden West Women Flyfishers
       G. Pucci and Sons Manufacturing
       Granite Bay Flycasters
       Hi's Tackle Box
       Hog Heaven Charters
       Huck Finn Charters
       Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers
       Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association
       Jim Cox Sport Fishing Charters
       Johnson Hicks Marine
       Kokanee Power
       Leisure Sales
       Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association
       Lovely Linda Sportfishing
       Lovely Martha Charters
       Lower Sherman Island Duck Club
       Mission Peak Fly Anglers
       Monterey Fish Market
       New Captain Pete Charters
       New Easy Rider Charters
       New Ray Ann Charters
       New Salmon Queen Charters
       Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers
       Northern California Guides Association
       Northwest Guides and Anglers Association
       Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
       Outdoor Pro Shop
       Outer Limits Charters
       Outwest Marketing
       P Line
       Pacific Catch Fish Grill
       Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
       Pacific Fishery Management Council
       Pasadena Casting Club
       Pro-Troll Fishing Products
       Queen of Hearts Charters
       Que Sera Sera Charters
       Rapala USA
       Randy's Fishing Trips
       Recreational Fishing Alliance
       Reel Steel Sportfishing
       Riptide Charters
       Roy Gray & Associates
       SalmonAid Foundation
       Salmon King Lodge West
       Salmon Water Now
       Sandy Ann Charters
       San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association
       Santa Clarita Casting Club
       Santa Cruz Fly Fishermen
       Save our Wild Salmon Coalition
       Sep's Outdoors Inc.
       Sierra Pacific Flyfishers
       Sir Randy Charters
       Soleman Sportfishing Charters
       Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association
       Sonoma County Abalone Network
       Southwest Council Federation of Fly Fishers
       Sportfishing Association of California

[[Page H1055]]

       Spring Creek Guide Service
       Stagnaro's Charters
       Star of Monterey Charters
       StriperFest
       Sunny's Electric Marine
       Ted's Sports Center
       Telstar Charters
       Trek II
       Tri-Valley Fly Fishers
       Trout Underground
       Trout Unlimited
       USA Fishing
       Vance's Tackle
       Wacky Jacky Charters
       Water for Fish
       West Marine


                             Tribal Groups

       Karuk Tribe
       Mocdoc Nation
       Winnemen Wintu Tribe
       Wishtoyo Foundation


                          Agricultural Groups

       Friant Water Authority \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ Opposition limited to San Joaquin River Restoration 
     provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Organic Sacramento


                           Recreation Groups

       Adventure Connection, Inc
       American Whitewater
       California Outdoors
       Camp Lotus
       Mokelumne River Outfitters
       The O.A.R.S. Family of Companies
       River and Rock Adventures
       River Runners, Inc.
       Rubicon Whitewater Adventures
       Sport Sales
       Whitewater Connection
       Whitewater Voyages

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, am I correct to assume that 
all their time has expired?
  The Acting CHAIR. All time has expired for the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There has been much discussion on the floor about preemption. In 
fact, the previous speaker emphasized that in his close.
  I am from a western State; I'm from Washington. If anybody should be 
cautious about preemption, it is certainly me. And I say that because I 
represent an area that has two over-half-a-million-acre, or half-a-
million-acre, irrigation districts. So I understand about preemption 
and Western water law.
  But in the context of today's debate, the California water system is 
unique. Here we have a massive Federal system, the Central Valley 
Project and a massive State water project called the State Water 
Project, and it operates as one combined unit.
  This is what is very important, Mr. Chairman. The coordinated 
approach was requested by the State and codified by the Federal 
Government in 1986. That's when water law was preempted. They asked for 
it in 1986.
  In 1992, it was further preempted by amendments to the law in the 
Central Valley Project in 1992. So what we did in committee is we 
offered an amendment that was adopted. Let me read the amendments by 
Mr. Tipton and Mr. Gosar, and it says:

       Congress finds and declares that (1) coordinated operations 
     between the Central Valley Project and the State Water 
     Project, previously requested and consented to by the State 
     of California and the Federal Government, require assertion 
     of Federal supremacy to protect existing water rights 
     throughout the system.

  That's in California. It says:

       (2) these circumstances are unique to California. 
     Therefore, nothing in this act shall serve as precedent in 
     any other State.

  When we offered that amendment, everybody on our side of the aisle 
voted for it. Only four on their side of the aisle, when they had an 
opportunity to make sure preemption wouldn't happen, they voted ``no.'' 
You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.
  So with that I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to legislation that 
would trample the state's rights of California and overturn a carefully 
crafted agreement about how our state's fresh water is allocated.
  This Republican legislation is a threat to the ecology of the 
Sacramento Delta and the San Francisco Bay, the safety of drinking 
water for many Bay area communities, and the many California jobs that 
depend on productive fisheries and a healthy Delta and Bay. The bill 
has many losers and the only winners are the large agri-business 
interests in the Central Valley, who already receive lavish taxpayer 
handouts in the form of subsidized water and crop subsidies.
  Three years ago, in a bipartisan fashion, Congress and the California 
General Assembly approved the landmark San Joaquin Restoration 
Agreement. This agreement was based on the latest science and settled 
over 20 years of litigation regarding the use of water in the 
Sacramento River Delta. The San Joaquin Restoration Agreement brought 
together multiple water users, including fishermen, farmers, cities and 
communities, and conservationists and provides a fair allocation of the 
fresh water that flows through the Delta and into the San Francisco 
Bay. It also created a roadmap for the further restoration of wild 
salmon populations. Now, some of the very same interests who signed 
onto the recent agreement have convinced their allies in Congress to 
bring legislation to the floor to overturn it.
  In addition to throwing out the San Joaquin Restoration Agreement and 
overriding state law, the bill before us also pre-empts the Endangered 
Species Act and proclaims that the science regarding the Delta and the 
Bay that was used in 1994 is current and cannot be updated. Rather than 
turning back the clock nearly 20 years, ignoring scientific advances, 
and undermining one of our nation's most important environmental 
protections, we should vote against the legislation and respect the 
rights of the State of California.
  Both the Governor and Attorney General of California oppose this 
legislation, as do my colleagues in the Bay Area delegation. The 
President has rightfully said he will veto this bill. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support clean water, jobs, and the environment and vote 
against this misguided bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-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.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1837

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sacramento-San Joaquin 
     Valley Water Reliability Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

           TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY

Sec. 101. Amendment to purposes.
Sec. 102. Amendment to definition.
Sec. 103. Contracts.
Sec. 104. Water transfers, improved water management, and conservation.
Sec. 105. Fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration.
Sec. 106. Restoration fund.
Sec. 107. Additional authorities.
Sec. 108. Bay-Delta Accord.
Sec. 109. Natural and artificially spawned species.
Sec. 110. Authorized service area.
Sec. 111. Regulatory streamlining.

                TITLE II--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION

Sec. 201. Repeal of the San Joaquin River settlement.
Sec. 202. Purpose.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Implementation of restoration.
Sec. 205. Disposal of property; title to facilities.
Sec. 206. Compliance with applicable law.
Sec. 207. Compliance with Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Sec. 208. No private right of action.
Sec. 209. Implementation.
Sec. 210. Repayment contracts and acceleration of repayment of 
              construction costs.
Sec. 211. Repeal.
Sec. 212. Water supply mitigation.
Sec. 213. Additional Authorities.

    TITLE III--REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT OF 
                           CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Sec. 301. Repayment contracts and acceleration of repayment of 
              construction costs.

 TITLE IV--BAY-DELTA WATERSHED WATER RIGHTS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION

Sec. 401. Water rights and area-of-origin protections.

[[Page H1056]]

Sec. 402. Sacramento River settlement contracts.
Sec. 403. Sacramento River Watershed Water Service Contractors.
Sec. 404. No redirected adverse impacts.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANOUS

Sec. 501. Precedent.

           TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO PURPOSES.

       Section 3402 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4706) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), by striking the period at the end; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) to ensure that water dedicated to fish and wildlife 
     purposes by this title is replaced and provided to Central 
     Valley Project water contractors by December 31, 2016, at the 
     lowest cost reasonably achievable; and
       ``(h) to facilitate and expedite water transfers in 
     accordance with this Act.''.

     SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION.

       Section 3403 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4707) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) the term `anadromous fish' means those native stocks 
     of salmon (including steelhead) and sturgeon that, as of 
     October 30, 1992, were present in the Sacramento and San 
     Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and ascend those rivers 
     and their tributaries to reproduce after maturing in San 
     Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean;'';
       (2) in subsection (l), by striking ``and,''
       (3) in subsection (m), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and'', and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) the term `reasonable flows' means water flows capable 
     of being maintained taking into account competing consumptive 
     uses of water and economic, environmental, and social 
     factors.''.

     SEC. 103. CONTRACTS.

       Section 3404 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4708) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``LIMITATION ON CONTRACTING 
     AND CONTRACTS REFORM'' and inserting ``CONTRACTS''; and
       (2) by striking the language of the section and by adding:
       ``(a) Renewal of Existing Long-Term Contracts.--Upon 
     request of the contractor, the Secretary shall renew any 
     existing long-term repayment or water service contract that 
     provides for the delivery of water from the Central Valley 
     Project for a period of 40 years, and renew such contracts 
     for successive periods of 40 years each.
       ``(b) Delivery Charge.--Beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a contract entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to this section shall include a provision that 
     requires the Secretary to charge the other party to such 
     contract only for water actually delivered by the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 104. WATER TRANSFERS, IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT, AND 
                   CONSERVATION.

       Section 3405 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4709) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting before ``Except as provided herein'' the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall take all necessary actions 
     to facilitate and expedite transfers of Central Valley 
     Project water in accordance with this Act or any other 
     provision of Federal reclamation law and the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969.'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``to combination'' and 
     inserting ``or combination'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) The contracting district from which the water is 
     coming, the agency, or the Secretary shall determine if a 
     written transfer proposal is complete within 45 days after 
     the date of submission of such proposal. If such district or 
     agency or the Secretary determines that such proposal is 
     incomplete, such district or agency or the Secretary shall 
     state with specificity what must be added to or revised in 
     order for such proposal to be complete.
       ``(F) Except as provided in this section, the Secretary 
     shall not impose mitigation or other requirements on a 
     proposed transfer, but the contracting district from which 
     the water is coming or the agency shall retain all authority 
     under State law to approve or condition a proposed 
     transfer.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal 
     reclamation law--
       ``(A) the authority to make transfers or exchanges of, or 
     banking or recharge arrangements using, Central Valley 
     Project water that could have been conducted before October 
     30, 1992, is valid, and such transfers, exchanges, or 
     arrangements shall not be subject to, limited, or conditioned 
     by this title; and
       ``(B) this title shall not supersede or revoke the 
     authority to transfer, exchange, bank, or recharge Central 
     Valley Project water that existed prior to October 30, 
     1992.''.
       (2) In subsection (b)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``METERING'' and inserting 
     ``MEASUREMENT''; and
       (B) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``The contracting district or agency, not including 
     contracting districts serving multiple agencies with separate 
     governing boards, shall ensure that all contractor-owned 
     water delivery systems within its boundaries measure surface 
     water at the district or agency's facilities up to the point 
     the surface water is commingled with other water supplies.''.
       (3) By striking subsection (d).
       (4) By redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively.
       (5) By amending subsection (e)(as redesignated by paragraph 
     (4))--
       (A) by striking ``as a result of the increased repayment'' 
     and inserting ``that exceed the cost-of-service'';
       (B) by inserting ``the delivery of'' after ``rates 
     applicable to''; and
       (C) by striking ``, and all increased revenues received by 
     the Secretary as a result of the increased water prices 
     established under subsection 3405(d) of this section,''.

     SEC. 105. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT RESTORATION.

       Section 3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4714) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) by striking ``is authorized and directed to'' and 
     inserting ``may'';
       (ii) by inserting ``reasonable water'' after ``to 
     provide'';
       (iii) by striking ``anadromous fish, except that such'' and 
     inserting ``anadromous fish. Such'';
       (iv) by striking ``Instream flow'' and inserting 
     ``Reasonable instream flow'';
       (v) by inserting ``and the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service'' after ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service''; 
     and
       (vi) by striking ``California Department of Fish and Game'' 
     and inserting ``United States Geological Survey'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``primary purpose'' and inserting 
     ``purposes'';
       (ii) by striking ``but not limited to'' before ``additional 
     obligations''; and
       (iii) by adding after the period the following: ``All 
     Central Valley Project water used for the purposes specified 
     in this paragraph shall be credited to the quantity of 
     Central Valley Project yield dedicated and managed under this 
     paragraph by determining how the dedication and management of 
     such water would affect the delivery capability of the 
     Central Valley Project during the 1928 to 1934 drought period 
     after fishery, water quality, and other flow and operational 
     requirements imposed by terms and conditions existing in 
     licenses, permits, and other agreements pertaining to the 
     Central Valley Project under applicable State or Federal law 
     existing on October 30, 1992, have been met. To the fullest 
     extent possible and in accordance with section 3411, Central 
     Valley Project water dedicated and managed pursuant to this 
     paragraph shall be reused to fulfill the Secretary's 
     remaining contractual obligations to provide Central Valley 
     Project water for agricultural or municipal and industrial 
     purposes.'';
       (C) by amending paragraph (2)(C) to read:
       ``(C) If by March 15th of any year the quantity of Central 
     Valley Project water forecasted to be made available to water 
     service or repayment contractors in the Delta Division of the 
     Central Valley Project is below 75 percent of the total 
     quantity of water to be made available under said contracts, 
     the quantity of Central Valley Project yield dedicated and 
     managed for that year under this paragraph shall be reduced 
     by 25 percent.''.
       (2) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Satisfaction of purposes.--By pursuing the activities 
     described in this section, the Secretary shall be deemed to 
     have met the mitigation, protection, restoration, and 
     enhancement purposes of this title.''.

     SEC. 106. RESTORATION FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 3407(a) of the Central Valley 
     Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4726) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``There is 
     hereby''.
       (2) By striking ``Not less than 67 percent'' and all that 
     follows through ``Monies'' and inserting ``Monies''.
       (3) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Prohibitions.--The Secretary may not directly or 
     indirectly require a donation or other payment to the 
     Restoration Fund--
       ``(A) or environmental restoration or mitigation fees not 
     otherwise provided by law, as a condition to--
       ``(i) providing for the storage or conveyance of non-
     Central Valley Project water pursuant to Federal reclamation 
     laws; or
       ``(ii) the delivery of water pursuant to section 215 of the 
     Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (Public Law 97 293; 96 Stat. 
     1270); or
       ``(B) for any water that is delivered with the sole intent 
     of groundwater recharge.''.
       (b) Certain Payments.--Section 3407(c)(1) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``mitigation and restoration'';
       (2) by striking ``provided for or''; and
       (3) by striking ``of fish, wildlife'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``of carrying out all 
     activities described in this title.''.
       (c) Adjustment and Assessment of Mitigation and Restoration 
     Payments.--Section 3407(d)(2) of the Central Valley Project 
     Improvement Act is amended by inserting ``, or after October 
     1, 2013, $4 per megawatt-hour for Central Valley Project 
     power sold to power contractors (October 2013 price levels)'' 
     after ``$12.00 per acre-foot (October 1992 price levels) for 
     municipal and industrial water sold and delivered by the 
     Central Valley Project''.
       (d) Completion of Actions.--Section 3407(d)(2)(A) of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act is amended by 
     inserting ``, no later than December 31, 2020,'' after ``That 
     upon the completion of the fish, wildlife, and habitat 
     mitigation and restoration actions mandated under section 
     3406 of this title,''.
       (e) Report; Advisory Board.--Section 3407 of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Report on Expenditure of Funds.--At the end of each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Restoration Fund Advisory Board, shall submit to Congress a 
     plan for

[[Page H1057]]

     the expenditure of all of the funds deposited into the 
     Restoration Fund during the preceding fiscal year. Such plan 
     shall contain a cost-effectiveness analysis of each 
     expenditure.
       ``(h) Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established the 
     Restoration Fund Advisory Board (hereinafter in this section 
     referred to as the `Advisory Board') composed of 12 members 
     selected by the Secretary, each for four-year terms, one of 
     whom shall be designated by the Secretary as Chairman. The 
     members shall be selected so as to represent the various 
     Central Valley Project stakeholders, four of whom shall be 
     from CVP agricultural users, three from CVP municipal and 
     industrial users, three from CVP power contractors, and two 
     at the discretion of the Secretary. The Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Commerce may each designate a representative to 
     act as an observer of the Advisory Board.
       ``(2) Duties.--The duties of the Advisory Board are as 
     follows:
       ``(A) To meet at least semiannually to develop and make 
     recommendations to the Secretary regarding priorities and 
     spending levels on projects and programs carried out pursuant 
     to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
       ``(B) To ensure that any advice or recommendation made by 
     the Advisory Board to the Secretary reflect the independent 
     judgment of the Advisory Board.
       ``(C) Not later than December 31, 2013, and annually 
     thereafter, to transmit to the Secretary and Congress 
     recommendations required under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Not later than December 31, 2013, and biennially 
     thereafter, to transmit to Congress a report that details the 
     progress made in achieving the actions mandated under section 
     3406 of this title.
       ``(3) Administration.--With the consent of the appropriate 
     agency head, the Advisory Board may use the facilities and 
     services of any Federal agency.''.

     SEC. 107. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Authority for Certain Activities.--Section 3408(c) of 
     the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4728) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Contracts for Additional Storage and Delivery of 
     Water.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to enter 
     into contracts pursuant to Federal reclamation law and this 
     title with any Federal agency, California water user or water 
     agency, State agency, or private organization for the 
     exchange, impoundment, storage, carriage, and delivery of 
     nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, fish 
     and wildlife, and any other beneficial purpose.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     deemed to supersede the provisions of section 103 of Public 
     Law 99 546 (100 Stat. 3051).
       ``(3) Authority for certain activities.--The Secretary 
     shall use the authority granted by this subsection in 
     connection with requests to exchange, impound, store, carry, 
     or deliver nonproject water using Central Valley Project 
     facilities for any beneficial purpose.
       ``(4) Rates.--The Secretary shall develop rates not to 
     exceed the amount required to recover the reasonable costs 
     incurred by the Secretary in connection with a beneficial 
     purpose under this subsection. Such rates shall be charged to 
     a party using Central Valley Project facilities for such 
     purpose. Such costs shall not include any donation or other 
     payment to the Restoration Fund.
       ``(5) Construction.--This subsection shall be construed and 
     implemented to facilitate and encourage the use of Central 
     Valley Project facilities to exchange, impound, store, carry, 
     or deliver nonproject water for any beneficial purpose.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 3408(f) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Interior and Insular Affairs and the 
     Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries'' and inserting 
     ``Natural Resources'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period 
     at the end the following: ``, including progress on the plan 
     required by subsection (j)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``The filing and 
     adequacy of such report shall be personally certified to the 
     Committees referenced above by the Regional Director of the 
     Mid-Pacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation.''.
       (c) Project Yield Increase.--Section 3408(j) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4730) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G), respectively.
       (2) By striking ``In order to minimize adverse effects, if 
     any, upon'' and inserting ``(1) In general.--In order to 
     minimize adverse effects upon''.
       (3) By striking ``needs, the Secretary,'' and all that 
     follows through ``submit to Congress, a'' and inserting 
     ``needs, the Secretary, on a priority basis and not later 
     than September 30, 2013, shall submit to Congress a''.
       (4) By striking ``increase,'' and all that follows through 
     ``options--'' and inserting ``increase, as soon as possible 
     but not later than September 30, 2016 (except for the 
     construction of new facilities which shall not be limited by 
     that deadline), the water of the Central Valley Project by 
     the amount dedicated and managed for fish and wildlife 
     purposes under this title and otherwise required to meet the 
     purposes of the Central Valley Project including satisfying 
     contractual obligations. The plan required by this subsection 
     shall include recommendations on appropriate cost-sharing 
     arrangements and authorizing legislation or other measures 
     needed to implement the intent, purposes, and provisions of 
     this subsection and a description of how the Secretary 
     intends to use the following options--''.
       (5) In subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and construction of 
     new water storage facilities'' before the semicolon.
       (6) In subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end.
       (7) In subparagraph (G), by striking the period and all 
     that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting 
     ``; and''.
       (8) By inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
       ``(H) Water banking and recharge.''.
       (9) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Implementation of plan.--The Secretary shall 
     implement the plan required by paragraph (1) commencing on 
     October 1, 2013. In order to carry out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall coordinate with the State of California in 
     implementing measures for the long-term resolution of 
     problems in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 
     Delta Estuary.
       ``(3) Failure of the plan.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of Federal reclamation law, if by September 30, 
     2016, the plan required by paragraph (1) fails to increase 
     the annual delivery capability of the Central Valley Project 
     by 800,000 acre-feet, implementation of any non-mandatory 
     action under section 3406(b)(2) shall be suspended until the 
     plan achieves an increase in the annual delivery capability 
     of the Central Valley Project by 800,000 acre-feet.''.
       (d) Technical Correction.--Section 3408(h) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (h)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (h)(i)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
       (e) Water Storage Project Construction.--The Secretary, 
     acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, 
     may partner on the water storage projects identified in 
     section 103(d)(1) of the Water Supply Reliability, and 
     Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108 361)(and Acts 
     supplemental and amendatory to the Act) with local joint 
     powers authorities formed pursuant to State law by irrigation 
     districts and other local water districts and local 
     governments within the applicable hydrologic region, to 
     advance these projects. No Federal funds are authorized for 
     this purpose and each water storage project is authorized for 
     construction if non-Federal funds are used for financing and 
     constructing the project.

     SEC. 108. BAY-DELTA ACCORD.

       (a) Congressional Direction Regarding Central Valley 
     Project and California State Water Project Operations.--The 
     Central Valley Project and the State Water Project shall be 
     operated pursuant to the water quality standards and 
     operational constraints described in the ``Principles for 
     Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of 
     California and the Federal Government'' dated December 15, 
     1994, and such operations shall proceed without regard to the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or 
     any other law pertaining to the operation of the Central 
     Valley Project and the California State Water Project. 
     Implementation of this section shall be in strict conformance 
     with the ``Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta 
     Standards Between the State of California and the Federal 
     Government'' dated December 15, 1994.
       (b) Application of Laws to Others.--Neither a Federal 
     department nor the State of California, including any agency 
     or board of the State of California, shall impose on any 
     valid water right obtained pursuant to State law, including a 
     pre-1914 appropriative right, any condition that restricts 
     the exercise of that water right in order to conserve, 
     enhance, recover or otherwise protect any species that is 
     affected by operations of the Central Valley Project or 
     California State Water Project. Nor shall the State of 
     California, including any agency or board of the State of 
     California, restrict the exercise of any valid water right 
     obtained pursuant to State law, including a pre-1914 
     appropriative right, in order to protect, enhance, or restore 
     under the Public Trust Doctrine any public trust value. 
     Implementation of the ``Principles for Agreement on the Bay-
     Delta Standards Between the State of California and the 
     Federal Government'' dated December 15, 1994, shall be in 
     strict compliance with the water rights priority system and 
     statutory protections for areas of origin.
       (c) Costs.--No cost associated with the implementation of 
     this section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any 
     Central Valley Project contractor, or any other person or 
     entity, unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary basis.
       (d) Native Species Protection.--California law is preempted 
     with respect to any restriction on the quantity or size of 
     nonnative fish taken or harvested that preys upon one or more 
     native fish species that occupy the Sacramento and San 
     Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries or the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Rivers Delta.

     SEC. 109. NATURAL AND ARTIFICIALLY SPAWNED SPECIES.

       After the date of the enactment of this title, and 
     regardless of the date of listing, the Secretaries of the 
     Interior and Commerce shall not distinguish between natural-
     spawned and hatchery-spawned or otherwise artificially 
     propagated strains of a species in making any determination 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) that relates to any anadromous fish species present in 
     the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries 
     and ascend those rivers and their tributaries to reproduce 
     after maturing in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean.

     SEC. 110. AUTHORIZED SERVICE AREA.

       The authorized service area of the Central Valley Project 
     shall include the area within the boundaries of the Kettleman 
     City Community Services District, California, as those 
     boundaries

[[Page H1058]]

     exist on the date of the enactment of this title. 
     Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of October 30, 1992 
     (Public Law 102 575, 106 Stat. 4600 et seq.), upon enactment 
     of this title, the Secretary is authorized and directed to 
     enter into a long-term contract in accordance with the 
     reclamation laws with the Kettleman City Community Services 
     District, California, for the delivery of up to 900 acre-feet 
     of Central Valley Project water for municipal and industrial 
     use. The Secretary may temporarily reduce deliveries of the 
     quantity of water made available pursuant to up to 25 percent 
     of such total whenever reductions due to hydrologic 
     circumstances are imposed upon agricultural deliveries of 
     Central Valley Project water. If any additional 
     infrastructure or related-costs are needed to implement this 
     section, such costs shall be the responsibility of the non-
     Federal entity.

     SEC. 111. REGULATORY STREAMLINING.

       (a) Applicability of Certain Laws.--Filing of a Notice of 
     Determination or a Notice of Exemption for any project, 
     including the issuance of a permit under State law, related 
     to any project of the CVP or the delivery of water therefrom 
     in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act 
     shall be deemed to meet the requirements of section 102(2)(C) 
     of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) for that project or permit.
       (b) Continuation of Project.--The Bureau of Reclamation 
     shall not be required to cease or modify any major Federal 
     action or other activity related to any project of the CVP or 
     the delivery of water there from pending completion of 
     judicial review of any determination made under the National 
     Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
       (c) Project Defined.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) CVP.--The term ``CVP'' means the Central Valley 
     Project.
       (2) Project.--The term ``project''--
       (A) means an activity that--
       (i) is undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public 
     agency, or that requires an issuance of a permit by a public 
     agency;
       (ii) has a potential to result in physical change to the 
     environment; and
       (iii) may be subject to several discretionary approvals by 
     governmental agencies;
       (B) may include construction activities, clearing or 
     grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and 
     activities or equipment involving the issuance of a permit; 
     or
       (C) as defined under the California Environmental Quality 
     Act in section 21065 of the California Public Resource Code.

                TITLE II--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION

     SEC. 201. REPEAL OF THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.

       As of the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary 
     shall cease any action to implement the Stipulation of 
     Settlement (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk 
     Rodgers, et al., Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S 
     88 1658 LKK/GGH).

     SEC. 202. PURPOSE.

       Section 10002 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended by striking 
     ``implementation of the Settlement'' and inserting 
     ``restoration of the San Joaquin River''.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 10003 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) The term `Restoration Flows' means the additional 
     water released or bypassed from Friant Dam to insure that the 
     target flow entering Mendota Pool, located approximately 62 
     river miles downstream from Friant Dam, does not fall below 
     50 cubic feet per second.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) The term `Water Year' means March 1 through the last 
     day of February of the following Calendar Year, both dates 
     inclusive''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) The term `Critical Water Year' means when the total 
     unimpaired runoff at Friant Dam is less than 400,000 acre-
     feet, as forecasted as of March 1 of that water year by the 
     California Department of Water Resources.''.

     SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATION.

       Section 10004 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``authorized and directed'' and all that follows through ``in 
     the Settlement'' and inserting ``authorized to carry out the 
     following:'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5);
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``(3)'' and inserting ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph 13 of the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part''
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) In each Water Year, commencing in the Water Year 
     starting on March 1, 2013--
       ``(A) shall modify Friant Dam operations so as to release 
     the Restoration Flows for that Water Year, except in any 
     Critical Water Year;
       ``(B) shall ensure that the release of Restoration Flows 
     are maintained at the level prescribed by this part, but that 
     Restoration Flows do not reach downstream of Mendota Pool;
       ``(C) shall release the Restoration Flows in a manner that 
     improves the fishery in the San Joaquin River below Friant 
     Dam, but upstream of Gravelly Ford in existence as of the 
     date of the enactment of this part, and the associated 
     riparian habitat; and
       ``(D) may, without limiting the actions required under 
     paragraphs (A) and (C) and subject to subsections 10004(a)(3) 
     and 10004(l), use the Restoration Flows to enhance or restore 
     a warm water fishery downstream of Gravelly Ford to and 
     including Mendota Pool, if the Secretary determines that it 
     is reasonable, prudent, and feasible to do so; and
       ``(3) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of this section, the Secretary shall develop and implement, 
     in cooperation with the State of California, a reasonable 
     plan, to fully recirculate, recapture, reuse, exchange, or 
     transfer all Restoration Flows and provide such recirculated, 
     recaptured, reused, exchanged, or transferred flows to those 
     contractors within the Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and 
     Buchanan Unit of the Central Valley Project that relinquished 
     the Restoration Flows so recirculated, recaptured, reused, 
     exchanged, or transferred. Such a plan shall address any 
     impact on ground water resources within the service area of 
     the Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit of the 
     Central Valley Project and mitigation may include ground 
     water banking and recharge projects. Such a plan shall not 
     impact the water supply or water rights of any entity outside 
     the Friant Division, Hidden unit, and Buchanan Unit of the 
     Central Valley Project. Such a plan shall be subject to 
     applicable provisions of California water law and the 
     Secretary's use of Central Valley Project facilities to make 
     Project water (other than water released from Friant Dam 
     pursuant to this part) and water acquired through transfers 
     available to existing south-of-Delta Central Valley Project 
     contractors.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Mitigation of Impacts.--Prior to October 1, 2013, the 
     Secretary shall identify--
       ``(1) the impacts associated with the release of 
     Restoration Flows prescribed in this part;
       ``(2) the measures which shall be implemented to mitigate 
     impacts on adjacent and downstream water users, landowners 
     and agencies as a result of Restoration Flows prescribed in 
     this part; and
       ``(3) prior to the implementation of decisions or 
     agreements to construct, improve, operate, or maintain 
     facilities that the Secretary determines are needed to 
     implement this part, the Secretary shall implement all 
     mitigations measures identified in subsection (d)(2) before 
     Restoration Flows are commenced.'';
       (5) in subsection (e), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (6) in subsection (f), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     all that follows through ``section 10011'' and insert ``this 
     part'';
       (7) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``the Settlement and'' before this part; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``or exchange contract'' and inserting 
     ``exchange contract, or water rights settlement or holding 
     contracts'';
       (8) in subsection (h)--
       (A) by striking ``Interim'' in the header;
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``Interim Flows under the Settlement'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration Flows under this part'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C)--

       (I) in clause (i), by striking ``Interim'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration''; and
       (II) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;

       (iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (iv) by striking subparagraph (E);
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``Interim'' and inserting ``Restoration'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (A); and
       (iii) by striking ``(B) exceed'' and inserting ``exceed'';
       (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Interim'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration''; and
       (E) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Claims.--Within 60 days of enactment of this Act the 
     Secretary shall promulgate a rule establishing a claims 
     process to address current and future claims including, but 
     not limited to, ground water seepage, flooding, or levee 
     instability damages caused as a result of, arising out of, or 
     related to implementation of subtitle A of title X of Public 
     Law 111 11.'';
       (9) in subsection (i)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``the Settlement and parts I and III'' and inserting ``this 
     part'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (iii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``additional amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated, including the'';
       (II) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and

       (iv) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (10) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(k) No Impacts on Other Interests.--No Central Valley 
     Project or other water other than San Joaquin River water 
     impounded by or bypassed from Friant Dam shall be used to 
     implement subsection (a)(2) unless such use is on a voluntary 
     basis. No cost associated with the implementation of this 
     section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any 
     Central Valley

[[Page H1059]]

     Project contractor, or any other person or entity, outside 
     the Friant Division, the Hidden Unit, or the Buchanan Unit, 
     unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary basis. The 
     implementation of this part shall not result directly or 
     indirectly in any reduction in water supplies or water 
     reliability on any Central Valley Project contractor, any 
     State Water Project contractor, or any other person or 
     entity, outside the Friant Division, the Hidden Unit, or the 
     Buchanan Unit, unless such reductions or costs are incurred 
     on a voluntary basis.
       ``(l) Priority.--All actions taken under this part shall be 
     subordinate to the Secretary's use of Central Valley Project 
     facilities to make Project water available to Project 
     contractors, other than water released from the Friant Dam 
     pursuant to this part.
       ``(m) In General.--Notwithstanding section 8 of the 
     Reclamation Act of 1902, except as provided in this part, 
     including Title IV of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys 
     Water Reliability Act, this part preempts and supersedes any 
     State law, regulation, or requirement that imposes more 
     restrictive requirements or regulations on the activities 
     authorized under this part. Nothing in this part shall alter 
     or modify the obligations, if any, of the Friant Division, 
     Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit of the Central Valley Project, 
     or other water users on the San Joaquin River or its 
     tributaries, under orders issued by the State Water Resources 
     Control Board pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality 
     Control Act (California Water Code sections 13000 et seq.). 
     Any such order shall be consistent with the congressional 
     authorization for any affected Federal facility as it 
     pertains to the Central Valley Project.
       ``(n) Project Implementation.--Projects to implement this 
     title shall be phased such that each project shall follow the 
     sequencing identified below and include at least the--
       ``(1) project purpose and need;
       ``(2) identification of mitigation measures;
       ``(3) appropriate environmental review; and
       ``(4) prior to releasing Restoration Flows under this part, 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) complete the implementation of mitigation measures 
     required; and
       ``(B) complete implementation of the project.''.

     SEC. 205. DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY; TITLE TO FACILITIES.

       Section 10005 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the Settlement 
     authorized by this part'' and inserting ``this part'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``The Secretary''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the Settlement authorized by this part'' 
     and inserting ``this part''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``through the exercise of its eminent 
     domain authority''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this 
     part''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 10009(c)'' and 
     inserting ``section 10009''.

     SEC. 206. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW.

       Section 10006 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``unless otherwise 
     provided by this part'' before the period at the end; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, unless otherwise 
     provided by this part'' before the period at the end;
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 10004'' and 
     inserting ``this part''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``this part''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by inserting ``, including without limitation to 
     sections 10004(d) and 10004(h)(4) of this part,'' after 
     ``implementing this part''; and
       (B) by striking ``for implementation of the Settlement''.

     SEC. 207. COMPLIANCE WITH CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT 
                   ACT.

       Section 10007 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
       (A) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting 
     ``enactment of this part''; and
       (B) by inserting: ``and the obligations of the Secretary 
     and all other parties to protect and keep in good condition 
     any fish that may be planted or exist below Friant Dam 
     including any obligations under section 5937 of the 
     California Fish and Game Code and the public trust doctrine, 
     and those of the Secretary and all other parties under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).'' 
     before ``, provided''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, as provided in the 
     Settlement''.

     SEC. 208. NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

       Section 10008(a) of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``not a party to the Settlement'' after 
     ``person or entity'' ; and
       (2) by striking ``or the Settlement'' before the period and 
     inserting ``unless otherwise provided by this part. Any 
     Central Valley Project long-term water service or repayment 
     contractor within the Friant Division, Hidden unit, or 
     Buchanan Unit adversely affected by the Secretary's failure 
     to comply with section 10004(a)(3) of this part may bring an 
     action against the Secretary for injunctive relief or 
     damages, or both.''.

     SEC. 209. IMPLEMENTATION.

       Section 10009 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) in the header by striking ``; SETTLEMENT FUND'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this 
     part'';
       (ii) by striking ``, estimated to total'' and all that 
     follows through ``subsection (b)(1),''; and
       (iii) by striking ``, provided; however,'' and all that 
     follows through ``$110,000,000 of State funds'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A) In general.--The 
     Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``Except as provided in the Settlement, 
     to'' and inserting ``To''; and
       (ii) by striking ``this Settlement'' and inserting ``this 
     part'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``In addition'' through ``however, that 
     the'' and inserting ``The'';
       (B) by striking ``such additional appropriations only in 
     amounts equal to''; and
       (C) by striking ``or the Settlement'' before the period;
       (4) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this part'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``from the sale of 
     water pursuant to the Settlement, or''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``the Settlement'' 
     and inserting ``this part'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement and'' 
     before ``this part''; and
       (5) by striking subsections (d) through (f).

     SEC. 210. REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT 
                   OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

       Section 10010 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(D), by striking ``the Settlement and'' 
     after ``this part''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``the Settlement and'' 
     after ``this part'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3);
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``the Settlement'' in 
     both places it appears and inserting ``this part'';
       (4) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Interim Flows or Restoration Flows, 
     pursuant to paragraphs 13 or 15 of the Settlement'' and 
     inserting ``Restoration Flows, pursuant to this part'';
       (ii) by striking ``Interim Flows or'' before ``Restoration 
     Flows''; and
       (iii) by striking ``the Interim Flows or Restoration Flows 
     or is intended to otherwise facilitate the Water Management 
     Goal, as described in the Settlement'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration Flows''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``except as provided in paragraph 16(b) of 
     the Settlement'' after ``Friant Division long-term 
     contractor''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the Interim Flows or Restoration Flows 
     or to facilitate the Water Management Goal'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration Flows''.

     SEC. 211. REPEAL.

       Section 10011 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is repealed.

     SEC. 212. WATER SUPPLY MITIGATION.

       Section 10202(b) of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Interim or 
     Restoration Flows authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and 
     inserting ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Interim or 
     Restoration Flows authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and 
     inserting ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``meet the Restoration 
     Goal as described in part I of this subtitle'' and inserting 
     ``recover Restoration Flows as described in this part'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) by striking ``the Interim or Restoration Flows 
     authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and inserting 
     ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, and for ensuring appropriate 
     adjustment in the recovered water account pursuant to section 
     10004(a)(5)''.

     SEC. 213. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.

       Section 10203 of the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 111 11) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``section 10004(a)(4)'' and inserting 
     ``section 10004(a)(3)''; and
       (B) by striking ``, provided'' and all that follows through 
     ``section 10009(f)(2)''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c).

    TITLE III--REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT OF 
                           CONSTRUCTION COSTS

     SEC. 301. REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT 
                   OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

       (a) Conversion of Contracts.--

[[Page H1060]]

       (1) Not later than 1 year after enactment, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, upon request of the contractor, shall convert 
     all existing long-term Central Valley Project contracts 
     entered under subsection (e) of section 9 of the Act of 
     August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1196), to a contract under 
     subsection (d) of section 9 of said Act (53 Stat. 1195), 
     under mutually agreeable terms and conditions.
       (2) Upon request of the contractor, the Secretary is 
     further authorized to convert, not later than 1 year after 
     enactment, any Central Valley Project long-term contract 
     entered under subsection (c)(2) of section 9 of the Act of 
     August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1194), to a contract under 
     subsection (c)(1) of section 9 of said Act, under mutually 
     agreeable terms and conditions.
       (3) All contracts entered into pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) require the repayment, either in lump sum or by 
     accelerated prepayment, of the remaining amount of 
     construction costs identified in the most current version of 
     the Central Valley Project Schedule of Irrigation Capital 
     Allocations by Contractor, as adjusted to reflect payments 
     not reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for 
     ultimate return by the contractor, no later than January 31, 
     2013, or if made in approximately equal annual installments, 
     no later than January 31, 2016; such amount to be discounted 
     by the Treasury Rate. An estimate of the remaining amount of 
     construction costs as of January 31, 2013, as adjusted, shall 
     be provided by the Secretary of the Interior to each 
     contractor no later than 180 days after enactment;
       (B) require that, notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), 
     construction costs or other capitalized costs incurred after 
     the effective date of the converted contract or not reflected 
     in the schedule referenced in subparagraph (A), and properly 
     assignable to such contractor, shall be repaid in not more 
     than 5 years after notification of the allocation if such 
     amount is a result of a collective annual allocation of 
     capital costs to the contractors exercising contract 
     conversions under this subsection of less than $5,000,000. If 
     such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be 
     repaid as provided by applicable reclamation law, provided 
     that the reference to the amount of $5,000,000 shall not be a 
     precedent in any other context; and
       (C) provide that power revenues will not be available to 
     aid in repayment of construction costs allocated to 
     irrigation under the contract.
       (4) All contracts entered into pursuant to paragraph (2) 
     shall--
       (A) require the repayment in lump sum of the remaining 
     amount of construction costs identified in the most current 
     version of the Central Valley Project Schedule of Municipal 
     and Industrial Water Rates, as adjusted to reflect payments 
     not reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for 
     ultimate return by the contractor, no later than January 31, 
     2016. An estimate of the remaining amount of construction 
     costs as of January 31, 2016, as adjusted, shall be provided 
     by the Secretary of the Interior to each contractor no later 
     than 180 days after enactment; and
       (B) require that, notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), 
     construction costs or other capitalized costs incurred after 
     the effective date of the contract or not reflected in the 
     schedule referenced in subparagraph (A), and properly 
     assignable to such contractor, shall be repaid in not more 
     than 5 years after notification of the allocation if such 
     amount is a result of a collective annual allocation of 
     capital costs to the contractors exercising contract 
     conversions under this subsection of less than $5,000,000. If 
     such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be 
     repaid as provided by applicable reclamation law, provided 
     that the reference to the amount of $5,000,000 shall not be a 
     precedent in any other context.
       (b) Final Adjustment.--The amounts paid pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to adjustment following a 
     final cost allocation by the Secretary of the Interior upon 
     completion of the construction of the Central Valley Project. 
     In the event that the final cost allocation indicates that 
     the costs properly assignable to the contractor are greater 
     than what has been paid by the contractor, the contractor 
     shall be obligated to pay the remaining allocated costs. The 
     term of such additional repayment contract shall be no less 
     than 1 year and no more than 10 years, however, mutually 
     agreeable provisions regarding the rate of repayment of such 
     amount may be developed by the parties. In the event that the 
     final cost allocation indicates that the costs properly 
     assignable to the contractor are less than what the 
     contractor has paid, the Secretary of the Interior is 
     authorized and directed to credit such overpayment as an 
     offset against any outstanding or future obligation of the 
     contractor.
       (c) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any repayment obligation under 
     subsection (a)(3)(B) or subsection (b), upon a contractor's 
     compliance with and discharge of the obligation of repayment 
     of the construction costs as provided in subsection 
     (a)(3)(A), the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations of 
     any provision of Federal reclamation law shall not apply to 
     lands in such district.
       (2) Notwithstanding any repayment obligation under 
     paragraph (3)(B) or paragraph (4)(B) of subsection (a), or 
     subsection (b), upon a contractor's compliance with and 
     discharge of the obligation of repayment of the construction 
     costs as provided in paragraphs (3)(A) and (4)(A) of 
     subsection (a), such contractor shall continue to pay 
     applicable operation and maintenance costs and other charges 
     applicable to such repayment contracts pursuant to the then-
     current rate-setting policy and applicable law.
       (d) Certain Repayment Obligations Not Altered.--
     Implementation of the provisions of this section shall not 
     alter the repayment obligation of any other long-term water 
     service or repayment contractor receiving water from the 
     Central Valley Project, or shift any costs that would 
     otherwise have been properly assignable to any contractors 
     absent this section, including operations and maintenance 
     costs, construction costs, or other capitalized costs 
     incurred after the date of enactment of this Act, to other 
     such contractors.
       (e) Statutory Interpretation.--Nothing in this part shall 
     be construed to affect the right of any long-term contractor 
     to use a particular type of financing to make the payments 
     required in paragraph (3)(A) or paragraph (4)(A) of 
     subsection (a).
       (f) Definition of Treasury Rate.--For purposes of this 
     section, ``Treasury Rate'' shall be defined as the 20-year 
     Constant Maturity Treasury rate published by the United 
     States Department of the Treasury as of October 1, 2012.

 TITLE IV--BAY-DELTA WATERSHED WATER RIGHTS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION

     SEC. 401. WATER RIGHTS AND AREA-OF-ORIGIN PROTECTIONS.

       Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, Federal 
     reclamation law, or the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') is 
     directed, in the operation of the Central Valley Project, to 
     strictly adhere to State water rights law governing water 
     rights priorities by honoring water rights senior to those 
     belonging to the Central Valley Project, regardless of the 
     source of priority;
       (2) the Secretary is directed, in the operation of the 
     Central Valley Project, to strictly adhere to and honor water 
     rights and other priorities that are obtained or exist 
     pursuant to the provisions of California Water Code sections 
     10505, 10505:5, 11128, 11460, and 11463; and sections 12200 
     to 12220, inclusive; and
       (3) any action that affects the diversion of water or 
     involves the release of water from any water storage facility 
     taken by the Secretary or the Secretary of the Department of 
     Commerce to conserve, enhance, recover, or otherwise protect 
     any species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall be applied in a manner that is 
     consistent with water right priorities established by State 
     law.

     SEC. 402. SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS.

        In the implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), in the Bay-Delta and on the 
     Sacramento River, the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce 
     are directed to apply any limitations on the operation of the 
     Central Valley Project or to formulate any ``reasonable 
     prudent alternative'' associated with the operation of the 
     Central Valley Project in a manner that strictly adheres to 
     and applies the water rights priorities for ``Project Water'' 
     and ``Base Supply'' provided for in the Sacramento River 
     Settlement Contracts. Article 3(i) of the Sacramento River 
     Settlement Contracts shall not be utilized by the United 
     States as means to provide shortages to the Sacramento River 
     Settlement Contracts that are different than those provided 
     for in Article 5(a) of those contracts.

     SEC. 403. SACRAMENTO RIVER WATERSHED WATER SERVICE 
                   CONTRACTORS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b) and the absolute 
     priority of the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors to 
     Sacramento River supplies over Central Valley Project 
     diversions and deliveries to other contractors, the Secretary 
     is directed, in the operation of the Central Valley Project, 
     to allocate water provided for irrigation purposes to 
     existing Central Valley Project agricultural water service 
     contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed in 
     compliance with the following:
       (1) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in a 
     ``Wet'' year.
       (2) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in an 
     ``Above Normal'' year.
       (3) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in a 
     ``Below Normal'' year.
       (4) Not less than 75% of their contract quantities in a 
     ``Dry'' year.
       (5) Not less than 50% of their contract quantities in a 
     ``Critically Dry'' year.
       (b) Protection of Municipal and Industrial Supplies.--
     Nothing in subsection (a) shall be deemed to (i) modify any 
     provision of a water service contract that addresses 
     municipal and industrial water shortage policies of the 
     Secretary, (ii) affect or limit the authority of the 
     Secretary to adopt or modify municipal and industrial water 
     shortage policies, (iii) affect or limit the authority of the 
     Secretary to implement municipal and industrial water 
     shortage policies, or (iv) affect allocations to Central 
     Valley Project municipal and industrial contractors pursuant 
     to such policies. Neither subsection (a) nor the Secretary's 
     implementation of subsection (a) shall constrain, govern or 
     affect, directly or indirectly, the operations of the Central 
     Valley Project's American River Division or any deliveries 
     from that Division, its units or its facilities.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``existing Central Valley Project agricultural 
     water service contractors within the Sacramento River 
     Watershed'' means water service contractors within the 
     Shasta, Trinity, and Sacramento River Divisions of the 
     Central Valley Project, that have a water service contract in 
     effect, on the date of the enactment of this section, that 
     provides water for irrigation.
       (2) The year type terms used in subsection (a) have the 
     meaning given those year types in the Sacramento Valley Water 
     Year Type (40 30 30) Index.

     SEC. 404. NO REDIRECTED ADVERSE IMPACTS.

       The Secretary shall insure that there are no redirected 
     adverse water supply or fiscal impacts to those within the 
     Sacramento River watershed or to the State Water Project 
     arising from the Secretary's operation of the Central Valley

[[Page H1061]]

     Project to meet legal obligations imposed by or through any 
     State or Federal agency, including, but not limited to those 
     legal obligations emanating from the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or this Act, or actions or 
     activities implemented to meet the twin goals of improving 
     water supply or addressing environmental needs of the Bay 
     Delta.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANOUS

     SEC. 501. PRECEDENT.

       Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) coordinated operations between the Central Valley 
     Project and the State Water Project, previously requested and 
     consented to by the State of California and the Federal 
     Government, require assertion of Federal supremacy to protect 
     existing water rights throughout the system; and
       (2) these circumstances are unique to California.

     Therefore, nothing in this Act shall serve as precedent in 
     any other State.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112 
405. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112 405.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under 
the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 24, strike ``CONTRACTS'' and insert 
     ``CONTRACT''.
       Page 4, starting on line 7, strike ``, and renew such 
     contracts for successive periods of 40 years each''.
       Page 4, after line 9, insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Administration of Contracts.--Except as expressly 
     provided by this Act, any existing long-term repayment or 
     water service contract for the delivery of water from the 
     Central Valley Project shall be administered pursuant to the 
     Act of July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483).
       Page 4, line 10, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 11, line 21, strike ``.00''.
       Page 12, line 3, strike ``, no'' and insert ``no''.
       Page 16, line 18, strike ``submit to'' and insert ``submit 
     to the''.
       Page 16, line 23, strike ``options--'' and insert 
     ``options:''.
       Page 19, line 3, after ``may partner'' insert ``or enter 
     into an agreement''.
       Page 19, line 11, after ``No'' and before ``Federal funds'' 
     insert ``additional''.
       Page 19, lines 11, strike ``this purpose and'' and insert 
     ``the activities authorized in sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i), 
     103(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108-
     361.''.
       Page 19, lines 11 and 12, before ``each water storage 
     project'' insert ``However,''.
       Page 19, line 12, after ``water storage project'' insert 
     ``under sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i), 103(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 
     103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108 361''.
       Page 20, line 10, strike ``valid''.
       Page 20, line 17, strike ``valid''.
       Page 25, line 16, insert a period after ``inclusive''.
       Page 26, line 4, insert a colon after ``Settlement''.
       Page 37, line 22, insert ``the first place it appears'' 
     before ``and''.
       Page 38, line 1, strike ``, provided;'' and insert 
     ``provided''.
       Page 39, line 19, strike ``after'' and insert ``before''.
       Page 39, line 21, strike ``after'' and insert ``before''.
       Page 49, line 12, insert ``Central Valley Project'' before 
     ``water''.
       Page 52, line 12, after ``Sacramento River'' insert ``or 
     San Joaquin River''.
       Page 52, line 21, strike ``MISCELLANOUS'' and insert 
     ``MISCELLANEOUS''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses two concerns 
that have been raised by opponents of the bill during the committee 
markup and here on the floor today.
  A great deal of time during that markup and more today was spent 
addressing concerns that the bill provides for 40-year contracts that 
can be renewed each year. The minority charged that this amounts to de 
facto privatization of a public resource.
  Well, we have tried over and over to explain to them that 40-year 
successive renewal contracts are the rule in Western water law, and the 
25-year provision for the Central Valley Project was actually the 
exception. Indeed, the CVP used to operate with a 40-year provision 
until that was changed in 1992.
  This amendment makes it absolutely crystal clear, I certainly hope, 
that the contract provisions for the Central Valley Project must be in 
conformity with the act of July 2, 1956, that amended the Reclamation 
Projects Act of 1939. These provisions govern all reclamation projects 
throughout the western United States and treats the CVP contracts no 
differently. I hope that this provision settles this issue.
  The second substantive provision, also included in deference to 
opponents of the measures, arises from an amendment that intends to 
expedite four CALFED surface water projects. It was charged that the 
wording would have interfered with authorization of the project.
  This amendment makes it crystal clear that these four projects are 
authorized as long as non-Federal financing is used. This clears the 
way for local, State, and private funds to be applied immediately to 
the construction of these facilities.
  The rest of the amendments are technical. They remove superfluous 
language, correct misspellings, and correct inadvertent omission.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Who seeks recognition in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on this 
issue.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague has said, his 
amendment makes technical changes to the legislation, but it leaves in 
question and very much in doubt--although it says the 40-year rule in 
Western water is standard--but is this in perpetuity?
  I would like a response on that, if I may involve myself in a 
colloquy with my colleague, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman may proceed.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is this a renewal every 40 years, or is it in 
perpetuity?
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Let me read directly from the act of July 2, 1956, 
governing all reclamation contracts, including those under this 
legislation:
  The Secretary of the Interior shall include in any long-term 
contracts--
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to 
know of '56. I wish to know what your amendment does.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. This amendment applies the act that I was just 
reading to the Central Valley Project. I was specifically answering the 
gentlelady's question by quoting directly from the text of the act that 
this proposes.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would ask again, is it in perpetuity?
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. No. It has to be negotiated. In fact, just read the 
text. I think this will answer the question.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. Reclaiming my time, the 
technical memo also makes some standard corrections to the language 
passed out in committee. While we were not consulted in the drafting of 
this amendment, we don't oppose the amendment, as it does nothing 
substantial.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, if I could now answer the question of 
the gentlewoman that she didn't seem to want to hear, it is this:
  This act applies--the act of July 2, 1956--to all contracts in the 
CVP under this legislation. That legislation states:

       The Secretary of the Interior shall include in any long-
     term contract hereafter entered into, if the other 
     contracting party so requests, for renewal thereof under 
     stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the 
     parties.

  And I repeat: under stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to 
the parties.
  This is not automatic renewal. This is negotiated anew between the 
government and the contractor. The only exception to that act under 
this bill is to accommodate the early repayment of Federal loans, which 
would be a boon to the cash-strapped Federal Treasury.
  Mr. Chairman, as we have repeatedly tried to explain to the minority, 
this measure simply applies the same

[[Page H1062]]

standards to the CVP as are applied to all other water contracts 
throughout the western United States.
  It was a punitive act by this Congress in 1992 that reduced the 
amount of time in these contracts from 40 years to 25 years exclusively 
for the CVP. This legislation sets that right and returns the CVP to 
equal treatment with any other water project in the western United 
States.
  I reserve the balance of my time, unless the gentlelady has closed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair wishes to clarify, the gentlewoman from 
California is not in opposition to the amendment but has yielded back 
the remainder of her time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I wish to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized.

                              {time}  1540

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I just want to thank my colleague on the other side 
for clarifying that, and I would like to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. There is always the rest of the story. And while this 
amendment deals with one of the pernicious parts of the legislation 
that would have been a perpetual contract, it does not deal with the 
remaining pieces of the Central Valley Improvement Act, which dealt 
with the issue of how those contracts were to be renegotiated at the 
end of 40 years. In fact, those parts of the Central Valley Improvement 
Act said that, in the renegotiation process, the Federal Government 
needed to take into account the issues of water availability. You know, 
maybe there's not that much water available and we need to downgrade, 
or maybe we need to increase the amount of water, take into account the 
environmental issues. So those very, very important qualifications on 
how the contracts would be renegotiated disappeared in the underlying 
bill.
  You did deal with one of the problems, and that is the perpetuity 
issue, and we understand that. But, nonetheless, there is a very, very 
serious problem that remains in the negotiation or the renegotiation of 
the contracts; and, therefore, the amendment, while dealing with one 
problem, allows the remaining problems to exist. And those remaining 
problems are how and under what circumstances is the Federal Government 
to carry out the negotiations; that is, do we take into account 
environmental issues, fish in the river or not, and availability of 
water or not.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, to answer the gentleman very 
specifically, the contract negotiations are conducted in precisely the 
same manner as every other contract in the Western United States.
  I would remind the gentleman and the gentlelady who carried the 
legislation, this Congress approved a 50-year contract for Hoover power 
users. And I would remind my friend, the gentleman from California, 
that during the markup, he specifically said that he could probably 
live with 40 years. I hope that is still the case. I hope that these 
amendments assuage his concerns, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Thompson of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112 405.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE CONDITIONS.

       Notwithstanding sections 104, 105, 110, and 111 and title 
     III, nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall take effect until the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary 
     of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, certifies that the 
     provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act 
     will not result in the loss of agriculture, agriculture-
     related, fishery, or fishery-related jobs or revenue in 
     California counties north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River 
     Delta.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  The Thompson-Eshoo amendment states that nothing in this bill can go 
into effect if the Secretary of the Interior determines that any 
agricultural, fishery, or related jobs will be lost in northern 
California counties as a result of this bill. I represent a community 
with varied economic interests: agriculture, fisheries, and tourism. 
Our amendment would protect these jobs from this politically driven 
legislation that would divert water to south-of-delta private 
agricultural interests.
  Proponents of this bill claim that the bill protects jobs. The bill 
does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. It's a job-killer 
bill. It creates economic winners and losers based on south-of-delta 
interests. The livelihoods and concerns of individuals outside of this 
limited area are ignored in order to support well-heeled agricultural 
interests south of the delta.
  In my home district, over 2 million acres of farmland support a 
greater than $1 billion market value of products. Over 10 percent of 
these farms depend on irrigation. I do not believe that these farmers 
are less important than the south-of-delta farmers. Their jobs, their 
income, their families should not be sacrificed.
  However, this is not simply a northern farmer versus southern farmer 
issue. Fishermen on the north coast of California saw the result of 
politically driven water resources decisions in '08 and '09, and they 
paid the price in almost 5,000 jobs and the economic loss of over $534 
million.
  The Thompson-Eshoo amendment would prevent any provisions of this 
bill from going into effect that would result in the loss of jobs in 
northern California. Join me in protecting jobs from this politically 
driven bill that prioritizes the agricultural economies south of the 
delta over all others.
  And I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Eshoo), my friend and colleague.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support 
of the amendment. Why? Because it states that if any fishery-related or 
agricultural job is lost as a result of this act, the bill will not be 
enacted. And I think that really sets down where we are.
  We need jobs in this country and not job-killing legislation. Now 
this legislation would undo years of negotiations reached by the State 
of California, local ranchers, farmers, and other users of water from 
the San Joaquin River. It would set up a new round of water wars, which 
means more employment for lawyers but not much for anyone else.
  My congressional district, which includes Silicon Valley and the 
fishing community of Half Moon Bay, is not in the delta, but my 
constituents oppose this legislation because their communities, their 
livelihoods, their resources will also be negatively affected by this 
bill.
  Now listen to what the Silicon Valley Leadership Group says, over 350 
major companies in Silicon Valley:

       We believe that H.R. 1837 would be counterproductive to the 
     development of a comprehensive solution to the Golden State's 
     water programs as it overrides many existing regulations and 
     laws concerning the delta ecosystem and undermines years of 
     collaboration and goodwill developed by a broad coalition of 
     actors and experts.

  And this mention of broad coalition, it's why this bill stinks, in 
plain English, because there's not a coalition. You have to build from 
the ground up with the stakeholders. That's why there's such a problem 
with it.
  Listen to what the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
Associations says, and they're the largest commercial fishermen 
association along the Pacific coast:

       Make no mistake, this bill will only preempt State law; it 
     will destroy jobs. One of the west coast's oldest industries, 
     our salmon fishery, along with the fishing communities and 
     the economy and heritage it represents, is threatened with 
     extinction by this audacious bill.


[[Page H1063]]


  We need to protect our citizens from further economic hardships by 
defending American jobs and enacting legislation that will help, not 
harm.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for Representative 
Thompson's amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing the inconsistencies in the 
amendment itself. Here the gentlelady is talking about San Jose, yet 
San Jose is south of the area we're talking about, and yet Silicon 
Valley receives water exports from the delta.
  But let's take a different inconsistency. I represent Stanislaus 
County, which is north of Stockton. Maybe we need to look at a map. We 
actually have Stanislaus County that reaches up past Stockton, San 
Joaquin County, the Sacramento area, and yet we're going to be 
excluded.
  So it's one thing to pick winners and losers in this, but what we try 
to do is not pit north versus south. We're trying to use natural 
resources in the best option available.
  I find interesting another inconsistency: This amendment, does it 
include forestry, which resides under the jurisdiction of USDA? Are the 
authors not concerned about the devastating effects of the timber 
industry and how it's suffered due to the ESA issues associated with 
the spotted owl?
  There are many inconsistencies here. Pick your battle.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of the 
legislation.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) 
just made a very important point. Silicon Valley gets their water from 
Hetch Hetchy. San Francisco gets their water from Hetch Hetchy. What's 
Hetch Hetchy? Hetch Hetchy was dammed up. It's in Yosemite, and they 
pipe their water. So if they care about the fish and the fishermen, 
tear down the dam, send their water out to the delta. But they don't 
want to do that.
  Now I have a lot of my respect for my friend from northern California 
(Mr. Thompson). We've worked together on many issues. But I have to 
remind the gentleman that the salmon fishermen were bailed out. They 
were given $230 million in payments.

                              {time}  1550

  I think there needs to be a GAO study on where this money went to 
because we don't know where this money went. There's never been any 
report to show where this money went--$230 million. But it was the 
Federal Government that told the fishermen not to fish. And I would 
hope that the gentleman would actually support this legislation because 
what we have here is the fish that are killing the salmon are the 
bass--the bass fish do that. So let's let the fishermen go fish. And 
here's the gruesome picture again. I know you don't like to see it. 
Let's go get the bass that are eating the smelt so that then the salmon 
don't have anything to eat. The bass is a nonnative species. So this 
bill allows fishermen to go back to work.
  I would hope that the gentleman would support this bill because we 
need to get the fishermen back to work. I agree. We don't want to spend 
$230 million after the Federal Government tells the fishermen, no, you 
can't fish, and then pays them not to fish. That is insanity.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of comments on 
some of the previous speaker's remarks. I'm glad to add forestry in one 
of the areas if there's any jobs lost that the bill won't go into 
effect if that would garner my friend's support of this amendment. And 
as he mentioned, he said it himself: it creates winners and losers. 
That's not what we're about. We're about creating jobs, not moving jobs 
from one area to another.
  My friend from California mentioned that there was no salmon fishing 
and it caused these problems. Well, there's no salmon fishing because 
the last politically motivated water policy killed 80,000 spawning 
salmon. It shut down the season--it shut it down. It cost people their 
boats, and it cost people their jobs. Motels, gas stations, bait shops, 
grocery stores--everybody was hurt tremendously by that matter, and now 
we're back at it again trying, once again, to politically move water 
from one portion of the State to another.
  It's a job killer and it preempts State law. It's a bad bill, it 
ought to be killed, and this amendment ought to be added to it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the 
balance of the time to a member of the committee and somebody who has 
worked on this legislation, Mr. McClintock.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the Interior Secretary to 
suspend this bill if he finds that one job is lost north of the delta. 
Well, this is the same Interior Secretary who appeared before the 
Natural Resources Committee in 2009. At the time, thousands of 
farmworkers were thrown into unemployment by the water diversions. 
Hundreds of thousands of acres of productive farmland were turned into 
a dust bowl.
  And in the midst of the crisis, he admitted that as Interior 
Secretary, he had the authority to stop the diversions and end the 
agony of the Central Valley, but he chose not to do so because, in his 
words, ``It would be like admitting defeat.'' And this is the man that 
the gentleman from California would give the power--upon finding a 
single lost job in northern California--to plunge our State into 
another government-created dust bowl? I don't think so.
  The Northern California Water Association represents the farms and 
communities of northern California and they write of this bill:

       The bill, if enacted, would provide an unprecedented 
     Federal statutory express recognition of and commitment to 
     California's State water rights priority system and area of 
     origin protections. This is important for the region to 
     provide sustainable water supply for productive farmlands, 
     wildlife refuges and managed wetlands, cities and rural 
     communities, recreation and meandering rivers that support 
     important fisheries.

  So speaks northern California.
  Mr. Chairman, fewer Americans are working today than on the day that 
this administration took office. We will not put in the hands of that 
administration the power to destroy still more jobs, which this 
amendment cynically seeks to do.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112 405.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE CONDITIONS.

       Notwithstanding sections 104, 105, 110, and 111, and title 
     III, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     take effect until the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with other Federal agencies with relevant 
     expertise, determines that this Act and the amendments made 
     by this Act shall not have a harmful effect on the quality or 
     safety of drinking water supplies for residents of the five 
     Delta Counties (Contra Costa County, Sacramento County, San 
     Joaquin County, Solano County, and Yolo County, California).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H1064]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm honored to represent much of the San Joaquin Delta, 
and the delta is a precious, precious resource that provides water for 
urban, industrial, and agricultural uses throughout the State of 
California. The delta flows through five northern California counties 
that are home to 4 million people. The delta region is home to big 
cities, small towns, and lush farmlands. Just like other Californians, 
the people of the delta deserve access to clean, safe drinking water. 
I'm deeply concerned that, as currently written, H.R. 1837 will 
severely erode the quality of our local water resources.
  This issue is important to public health and to local governments 
throughout northern California. This bill takes more of our freshwater, 
and what's left will be saltier and lower quality. Deterioration of 
delta water increases treatment costs by tens of millions of dollars 
and requires hundreds of millions of dollars in new capital 
investments. This bill will hurt the people.
  Unfortunately, many communities in the delta region are struggling 
with budget and public health challenges as it is. The last thing we 
need is for the Congress to pass a bill that threatens our well-being 
and forces us to spend millions more to just treat our water. It's bad 
enough to steal somebody's water; it's even worse to steal their water 
and then charge them millions of dollars for the privilege.
  This legislation we are considering today should not pass. It will 
harm the safety of drinking water supplies for delta communities. My 
amendment makes sure that, before this bill comes into effect, it won't 
burden the delta with heavy costs and new public health threats. I ask 
all of my colleagues to support my amendment, which will secure the 
safety and security of our drinking water.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). The gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, once again, I don't believe the other side 
has read the bill. This bill provides for the ultimate protections for 
delta communities--ultimate protections that guarantee their God-given 
right to their property and to their water. That's what this bill does. 
So if you vote against this bill, you're voting to continue the attack 
on farmers all over the State and communities all over the State. So, 
if delta farmers want to continue to take water out of the delta like 
they've been doing for 100 years--they have always had their 
allocation--this bill guarantees that.
  Now, I've been to the delta numerous times, and I've spoken to the 
communities there. Their number one concern is that they do not want 
the peripheral canal to be built. Well, if you vote against this bill, 
you are voting to ensure that Jerry Brown, the Governor of California 
who opposes this bill, gets his wish to build the peripheral canal that 
the delta farmers don't want. So if the gentleman wants the peripheral 
canal built, vote against the bill. If the gentleman wants to make sure 
that his farmers are not guaranteed their right for water, vote against 
the bill.
  But I find it ironic that the minority is arguing for the delta 
farmers and the delta communities, but at the very basic level the 
people who are behind this, the Governor of California, was just here 
the other day advocating to build the peripheral canal that the 
gentleman says his constituents don't want. Well, my constituents don't 
want it either. Neither do the people in the north. None of us wants to 
build a multibillion dollar project like this. And we don't have to 
because passage of this bill allows valuable water to be moved across 
the delta in a more equitable fashion to guarantee waterfowl and fish 
populations would increase, and guarantees rights to farmers and 
farmworkers and communities.

                              {time}  1600

  That's what this bill does. I would hope that folks in this body and 
the gentleman himself would maybe withdraw his amendment so that we 
don't have to take a vote on this because I would hate for the 
gentleman to vote on an amendment that would basically ensure that he 
would be supporting Jerry Brown and the Democratic administration that 
want to take his water away from him that he so cherishes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we need to slow down. I would 
hope that the other side would take a look at this bill and read the 
bill. Once they do, they will figure out that all the stakeholders were 
together in 1994 when everyone sat down to make this agreement. That's 
what this goes back to.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the passion of my 
colleague from California; but if this bill is beneficial to the delta, 
then why does every delta county oppose the bill? They made it very 
clear to me their concern: to protect the drinking water. The quality 
of the drinking water is something that everyone can understand.
  It seems to me what is happening is that the other side is saying we 
have the money, we have the votes, let's go get the water. Might makes 
right. We know in this country that might doesn't make right. We have 
laws that have been observed. We're working through processes now. To 
shortcut that process right now and start shipping all this water will 
devastate our community, and we're going to do everything we can to 
prevent it.
  I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Sometimes on this floor you just shake your head and 
wonder if you may have fallen down the rabbit hole and ``Alice in 
Wonderland'' is really real, where up is down and down is up, and left 
is right and right is left, and this confusion abounding.
  I just heard the most amazing argument I could possibly have 
imagined, that somehow this bill will stop the peripheral canal. I 
think not. Perhaps it will because it will totally destroy any 
opportunity that there may be for California to come together around a 
comprehensive solution to its water situation.
  It just makes me wonder what in the world is going on here, 
particularly my colleague from California who wants to represent this 
county of Tuolumne who may want to read his own bill where he wipes out 
all of the contracting provisions in the Central Valley Improvement Act 
in which the Tuolumne County Regional Water Agency is given the right 
to water out of the New Melones Reservoir. That is gone.
  By the way, if you happen to care about veterans who might somehow be 
placed in the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery, their 850 acre-feet 
of water is also wiped out.
  This bill has far-reaching effects. It has far, far-reaching effects 
in wiping out the Central Valley Improvement Act. It also wipes out the 
environmental laws, wipes out the water for the Central Valley National 
Cemetery, it wipes out the water for Tuolumne County. What effect it 
has on the peripheral canal, I just can't understand other than it will 
destroy whatever comity and working together there is in California to 
solve the overarching problems.
  By the way, you are stealing 800,000 acre-feet from the delta in this 
bill. That's water that the delta community needs. That's water that 
the delta community needs for its citizens, for water quality, and for 
agriculture.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, this debate is really incredible.
  There is nothing about veteran cemeteries in this bill. I can 
understand why the minority would want to talk about veterans, because 
we love our veterans in this country and we do everything to support 
them. But it is a stretch to say that a bill dealing with property 
rights somehow involves veteran cemeteries. Since we're talking about 
veterans, I will say when we send our veterans overseas, our men and 
women in the

[[Page H1065]]

military to protect this country, we have a right to protect people's 
private property. That's what this bill does.
  I know my other friends on the other side of the aisle who have 
continued to make this argument, they suddenly care about State 
preemption. They didn't care about State preemption in 1986, 1992, when 
they sat down in 1994, when they did their boondoggle in 2009. They 
didn't care about State preemption then. Boy, today, when we talk about 
guaranteeing people their right to their private property, they 
suddenly are the defenders of the Constitution. This is really 
stretching it.
  I know that the gentleman who was the under secretary at the time who 
made the deal in 1994, that was bragged about by not only the former 
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee at the time, bragged about 
the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994, not only the Under Secretary of the 
Interior and the Secretary of the Interior himself and President Bill 
Clinton. They all supported the '94 agreement. All this talk about 
comprehensive reform and getting people to the table, we've done that 
before. What that results in is the illegal taking of people's personal 
property.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112 405.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE CONDITIONS.

       Notwithstanding sections 104, 105, 110, and 111, and title 
     III, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     take effect until the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, determines 
     that carrying out this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall not have a harmful effect on water quality or water 
     availability for agricultural producers in the five Delta 
     Counties (Contra Costa County, Sacramento County, San Joaquin 
     County, Solano County, and Yolo County, California).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Someone needs to speak up for the delta communities.
  I rise to offer a second amendment to H.R. 1837, and I urge my 
colleagues to consider this amendment.
  As my colleagues now know, I'm very honored to represent the people 
of the San Joaquin Delta. The delta is a precious resource that 
provides tremendous economic benefits to my entire State. Preserving 
the delta should be a priority to all Californians.
  Agriculture is the backbone of the delta region, generating nearly 
$800 million in 2009 and sustaining thousands of jobs. Supporting delta 
farming is essential to the economic sustainability of the delta 
region. I'm deeply upset that as currently written, H.R. 1837 will ship 
vastly more water out of the delta, even though the current shipments 
are already threatening the water quality for local farmers.
  Simply put, this bill will steal water from northern California and 
devastate water quality for our delta farmers. Farmers need fresh 
water. They don't need salt water for their harvest. That is why I'm 
offering a simple amendment to make sure that the most harmful 
provisions of this bill do not come into effect until the Secretary of 
the Interior certifies that they will not harm the water quality or 
water availability for delta farmers.
  Proponents of H.R. 1837 claim their bill is pro-farmer, but the truth 
is far different. The bill steals water from one part of California to 
give it to another. If the authors of H.R. 1837 support farmers 
throughout the entire State of California, then they should support my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, you know, the last couple of amendments 
we've talked about the inconsistencies on how they affect other 
counties in the community. Certainly my county and Stanislaus County 
has been excluded, even though it certainly has impact in this area.
  But even San Joaquin County, this amendment contradicts itself, 
because West Side ag districts in San Joaquin County, West Side 
Irrigation District, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Del Puerto 
Irrigation District, their water is going to be shut off in prior 
years. Their water will be shut off this year with a 30 percent water 
allocation.
  The City of Tracy is important. They should have their water. Thirty 
percent water allocation is unacceptable. So the inconsistencies around 
the valley are certainly interesting as these different amendments come 
up.
  But why even divide a community that relies on the water that comes 
out of this allocation?
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his remarks. 
Drought affects everyone.
  My big concern here is protecting the water quality of the delta. 
Right now we see saltwater coming into the delta. We see farmers 
pumping water and having salt in it, not able to use it, needing 
additional treatments.
  All I'm asking is that the Secretary look at the bill and prevent 
parts of the bill that will deteriorate water quality from going into 
effect until we're sure that it's safe. We're not asking for anything 
other than that.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of 
this legislation.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, once again, I will say that delta 
communities are protected in this bill.
  They're concerned about water quality. This bill allows water to move 
through the delta.
  They're concerned about maintaining their ability to divert water. 
This bill allows them to do that. It ensures their private property 
rights and their rights to their water.
  The delta farmers want to make sure that they get conveyance through 
the delta so they can get their water. This bill does that.
  And, as Mr. Denham pointed out, the communities on the west side of 
San Joaquin County, I guess, perhaps they don't matter to the minority 
because, evidently, by supporting this and opposing this bill, you're 
basically guaranteeing that the City of Tracy and those districts, 
those water districts where those jobs are created, are going to be cut 
off of their water this year. This bill fixes that.
  And, once again, I will say that if the delta communities are worried 
about this peripheral canal, this is why the delta communities should 
be supporting this bill. But we don't hear anything about that. We hear 
about Jerry Brown, the Governor of California, opposing the bill and 
the attorney general of California opposing the bill.
  Why are they opposing the bill? Well, because they were just back in 
Washington 2 days ago lobbying for the construction of the peripheral 
canal.
  Now, perhaps the delta communities want the peripheral canal. Maybe 
that's a change. I don't know. I haven't been up there in the last few 
months. But last I heard, the delta communities do not want the 
peripheral canal to be built.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to drop his amendment 
and to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, right now the delta is in a serious 
decline. We're shipping more water south

[[Page H1066]]

than is good for the health of the delta. What this bill does is 
increases water shipments. So I don't see how we can put protection for 
the delta in a bill, in a provision, that increases shipments when 
we're already seeing decline in the delta.
  Again, as I said before, the other side sees they have the votes and 
they want to go take this water, and that's what this is about. It's 
about taking water. And our communities, the delta communities have 
rights to the water. We've been there for a long time. We've been 
farming this lush farmland. Our farms are very productive.
  What this will do is turn it into a salt, stagnant pool, and that 
will destroy a lot of agriculture, more agriculture than would be 
created in other areas. It'll destroy a lot of jobs. I don't see how 
people could support this sort of a provision.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McNERNEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, we only have one other 
speaker, and we have the right to close, so I'll reserve my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Well, as we've heard both sides, this is a complicated 
issue. We don't want farmers in any part of the valley to be hurt, but 
the delta has a long history of providing excellent farm products, $800 
million a year of agricultural output. This is at risk. This is what's 
at risk.
  My community is crying out to me. San Joaquin County is solidly 
behind my amendment. They're opposed to this bill. And I ask my 
colleagues to stand up and consider what this bill means for the rest 
of the country. If we adopt this, it sets a nasty precedent.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the 
balance of the time again to the author of this legislation, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, once again I want to talk about the water 
exports.
  You saw this earlier. Here are the water exports, Mr. Chairman, right 
here at the bottom. The green line represents the inflows to the delta. 
You can see that most of the water, in fact, 76 percent of the water 
that enters the delta ends up out in the ocean. Seventy-six percent of 
the water ends up out in the ocean.
  What this bill does, this allows the folks in the delta their rights 
to their water. So if you vote against this bill, you're voting to take 
those people's water away and their right to their water away.
  So if the gentleman's concerned about water quality, then he should 
support the bill, because this bill allows the water to move more 
freely throughout the delta because it gets rid of the problems that we 
have throughout the delta and the rigidness that was created when this 
Congress, in 1992, basically attempted to put farmers out of business 
and farmworkers in food lines. That's what this debate's about.
  And I would suggest, if the gentleman--we could have a unanimous 
consent agreement right now for an amendment, if the chairman of the 
committee would allow me.
  The City of San Francisco and Santa Clara and all over the bay area, 
many of the folks from the other side of the aisle who oppose this 
bill, why do they oppose it other than they want to construct the 
peripheral canal? They want to ensure construction of the peripheral 
canal like their Governor, Jerry Brown, wants to do.
  But also they don't like the dirty little secret--Yosemite. This was 
dammed up. Hetch Hetchy was dammed up. Here's the water that sits in 
Hetch Hetchy today. It was one of John Muir's favorite places on Earth, 
and this Congress dammed it up.
  But you don't see--in all this water that's here, this water would go 
out to the delta. So perhaps we could have a unanimous consent 
agreement to tear this down today. Let's dump all this water that goes 
to San Francisco and Silicon Valley, let's take all this water that 
would go to the delta, let's dump it down there. Let's save the fish.
  Let's go. Unanimous consent agreement. Will anybody agree to it?
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1620


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112 405.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 103.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I've heard some of the most amazing 
things in the last 20 minutes that I'm absolutely sometimes unable to 
even respond to them.
  First of all, let's get a couple of things straight before I go to 
the amendment.
  The water that is delivered by the Central Valley Project either 
under the CVPIA or under the original law is water that is under 
contract. It is not a property right. It is water that is granted by 
reason of a contract between the Federal Government and the individual 
water districts that take that water. It is not a property right.
  Now, certainly the farmers own their property, and that is a property 
right. But the water is not. And by the way, that water--on every one 
of those contracts, there is a shortage on most of those contracts, 
particularly the ones that are not replacing riparian water rights. 
Those contracts all have shortage provisions, so that when we have a 
drought--and we certainly have been in that situation in California 
today, and we were back in 2008 and 2007--there are specific 
requirements in the contracts to reduce the amount of water.
  So all of this poppycock that we've been hearing around here today 
about 100 percent, it's just not the way it has ever been and never 
will be unless the contract provisions remain, or if this bill become 
law, and that's where my amendment comes in. It simply removes from 
this bill the contract provisions in the bill and goes back to the 
original law.
  Now, the original law, which is the CVPIA, which amended the earlier 
law, has many, many provisions, and in fact it does provide up to 850 
acre-feet of water for the national cemetery in the San Joaquin Valley. 
That, by the way, is wiped out, and also wiped out by the proposed bill 
before us is the water for the Tuolumne County regional water agencies. 
So if I represented those counties, I might be concerned about what was 
happening here.
  Understand that many other provisions of this law are important. We 
did not know back in 1990 1992 what was going to happen with water. The 
State was in the process of adjudicating the water rights, the Water 
Resources Control Board, and so the law took into account their 
decision.
  Now, what's happening here in this bill is the removal of the power 
of the State to allocate its water, to look at the water resources and 
to make some sense out of what is happening with water. Apparently, 
we're not going to care about that anymore, and we're simply going to 
bring to the Federal Government the power to appropriate water in 
California. That's precisely what happens here.
  Now, there was an improvement. I'll grant the chairman of the 
subcommittee credit for eliminating the perpetual nature of the 
contracts that were in the original bill that was brought to the floor. 
Good as far as it goes. But all of the other requirements that are in 
the CVPI that are wise requirements about how the water is to be 
allocated from north to south, from the environment to the farmers, and 
among the farmers, are all removed. And the power of the State to 
allocate that water using the Water Resources

[[Page H1067]]

Control Board, which has been the traditional method, is also removed. 
Giving rise to this point that this bill overrides State law. And if 
you are any other State that has a reclamation project in it, beware. 
Beware what is happening here in the House of Representatives this day. 
You, too, could be at risk of some interest group in or out of your 
State seizing your water.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Perhaps my friend from California was not listening 
when I presented the manager's amendment which addresses this very 
subject.
  As I pointed out to him--apparently he has a short memory--he had 
objected to the successive renewal provision that he claimed was in the 
bill but very specifically said he felt he could probably live with 40 
years on the amount of time for these contracts. As I've tried to point 
out to him repeatedly, the measure, and explicitly as amended, does 
restore the contracting provisions used throughout the Western United 
States for contracts involving CVP water.
  The gentleman says that his amendment puts the contract provisions 
back to the original law. No, his amendment does not do that. This bill 
puts the contract provisions back to the original law. That's the 
reclamation law of 1939 as amended July 2, 1956, the very provisions 
that are restored in this bill.
  What his measure does is to continue to single out the Central Valley 
Project uniquely among all the reclamation projects across America as 
the one project that can only get 25-year financing. The problem, of 
course, with that is that these contracts require a degree of certainty 
over the long-term costs. That's why the 40-year contracts are in place 
with every other project of the Bureau of Reclamation in the United 
States, just as was the fact for the Central Valley Project until it 
was amended by Congress in 1992.
  The gentleman says this overrides State law. The CVPIA overrode State 
law, and the gentleman was very supportive of that at the time. He 
obviously has concerns over long-term memory loss as well.
  I would simply point out that this measure simply says that the CVP 
contracts will be treated on the same basis as every other contract in 
America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. You have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, first of all, if the gentleman would listen 
carefully, I was always referring not to the 1956 law but rather to the 
CVPIA, the 1992 law. Indeed, the 1992 law did change for the better, 
recognizing the unique situation in California where we had both a 
State and a Federal water project operating and many other 
appropriators operating on the rivers in California.

  Taking that into account, and taking into account the rapidly growing 
population and need in California and allowing the State to determine 
what might be done for the need of that water--I would refer the 
gentleman, if he cares to take a look, at section 3404, limitation on 
contracts and contracting reforms. This is what you've wiped out in 
your bill. It specifically provides that the California State Water 
Resources Control Board, in concluding their review of the California 
Court of Appeals--in other words, you have wiped out in your bill the 
ability of the State of California through the Water Resources Control 
Board to allocate the water, to take into account court decisions. The 
bill overturns 150 years of California water law and wipes it out.
  In fact, the CVPI took very specific account of California law and 
wrote it into the Federal law.
  What's wrong with that? Nothing that I could think about, because 
California is unique in so many, many ways, and the CVPIA allowed that 
to happen.
  Now, if I might just take a few seconds and clarify a few things.
  Yes, indeed, you were talking about the Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of Interior. That's me. I did conduct those negotiations.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
author of the legislation, Mr. Nunes of California.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman admitting that he 
was the Under Secretary at the time, and he failed to implement the 
agreement that everyone came together and agreed upon.
  Now, earlier, we had the gentleman from California, who was the 
author of the 1992 act, who came down to the floor, berated farmers, 
berated production agriculture, and admitted that it was his goal to 
get rid of production agriculture.
  So why did they, at the time, change from 40-year contracts to 25-
year contracts? Folks, I think this is something that the American 
people will understand. The American people right now from other States 
may not understand a whole lot about what we're talking about, but they 
will understand this, and farmers across America will understand this: 
that when farmers borrow money on their land, many times they have to 
do it under 30-year agreements with the bank.
  So I have to ask myself, why in 1992 did they move this from 20 to 25 
years?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. NUNES. Why did they move in 1992 to 25 years? Conveniently that 
made it very hard for farmers to get loans on their land, especially 
when they were not sure if they were going to have a water supply. 
That's what this bill tries to fix. That's why we should vote ``no'' on 
this amendment because I believe our Founding Fathers and previous 
Members of Congress who came before us knew at the time that a 40-year 
agreement would be enough for farmers and people trying to borrow money 
to go and borrow that money so they could put their families to work 
and provide for their families.
  So that's why we should vote ``no'' against this agreement, when we 
had the author down here berating production agriculture.

                              {time}  1630

  We know what the intent was of 1992, and we've seen the chaos that 
has been created since 1992, and that's what we fix in this bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) has 
30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. First, I want to correct one thing. I said that 40 
years is common throughout the western United States. I do need to 
point out again that the Hoover Dam was actually given a 50-year 
contract.
  The amendment fully addresses the concerns that were expressed by the 
gentleman over the successive renewal provisions in the contracts. I 
think we've made it very clear that the conditions of the contracts 
have to be agreed to by both parties. The gentleman, himself, in markup 
said he could live with 40 years. He has obviously reconsidered. This 
measure simply sets right a wrong that was done in 1992, and it treats 
the CVP as every other reclamation project.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112 405.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 15, after the period insert the following: 
     ``Charges for all delivered water shall include interest, as 
     determined by the

[[Page H1068]]

     Secretary of the Treasury, on the basis of average market 
     yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United 
     States with the remaining periods of maturity comparable to 
     the applicable reimbursement period of the project, adjusted 
     to the nearest \1/8\ of 1 percent on the underpaid balance of 
     the allocable project cost.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is a simple amendment. It creates a revenue stream through the 
elimination of debt without interest, in other words, ending free 
subsidy on $400 million. It requires that any new water contracts or 
renewed contracts must reflect the price of water with interest and 
repay the debt of the project, with interest, to the Treasury. It is a 
small, but very important, assist to continue to try to balance our 
Federal budget. We are always looking for ways to find these little--I 
call them ``pockets of money'' to be able to help out.
  Reclamation established in 1902 was meant to deliver water to farms 
with a maximum of 160 acres, and it was provided interest free on the 
cost of that project. That was in 1902. Times have changed. Subsequent 
reclamation reform acts have changed the acreage limitation along with 
the repayment contracts for these projects. Congressional action has 
also made the repayment of project debt interest free--I repeat, debt 
interest free--on $400 million for irrigators while municipalities, 
like my constituency and power users, pay all of the required 
appropriate interest. I wish our water users in southern California 
were as lucky.
  H.R. 1837 removes the role of the Federal Government in protecting 
the environment and public good. If we are removing the role of the 
Federal Government in protecting the environment and public good, as we 
plan to do, we should also remove the Federal subsidy associated with 
renewed or new water contracts. My constituency and anybody else's must 
be treated fairly and must be required to pay equally any additional 
interest on any future water contract and project.
  Southern California foresaw the need for infrastructure, so local 
entities stepped up to the plate. They paid for and constructed new 
storage facilities, like a dam, the Diamond Valley Reservoir. It was 
entirely paid for by our local folks without one cent of Federal 
moneys--no tax cuts, no free interest at taxpayer expense.
  Eliminating this unfair subsidy will help to cut our deficit. So I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to bring up this issue 
that the minority continues to ignore. They don't want to talk about 
this, and I don't understand why. They care about this freshwater. They 
also care about the environment, but they dammed up Yosemite. They have 
the water here, and they pipe it to their communities. They completely 
go around the delta so that none of this water ever makes it to the 
precious fish that they care about.
  We have this beautiful environment here, Mr. Chairman, that was 
destroyed by the Congress; but we don't see any amendments to fix this 
travesty, do we? It's interesting that the gentlelady from California 
wants to raise water rates. Do you know who pays the cheapest water 
rates in California or electricity rates and fees on that? Hetch 
Hetchy, the power generation at Hetch Hetchy.
  So perhaps we should have an amendment that would be offered that 
would make Hetch Hetchy pay today's fees, fees that all of the other 
folks in California are having to pay. If we want to do that, then 
everyone would be on a level playing field. But no. Instead, this is an 
attack, once again, as usual, on farm workers and farmers.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this bill saves $300 million, 
$300 million, this bill saves. So if the ratepayers in San Francisco, 
in Santa Clara, in Silicon Valley, and all over the Bay Area want to 
have their precious water, well, they ought to pay the same fees, too.
  I would suggest, and I would hope, that we come back at some other 
time and deal with the issue and with the unfairness of people who 
don't have any water in San Francisco who are so hell-bent on taking 
people's water away.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is my understanding, then, that my colleagues on 
the other side are arguing to keep a subsidy. That's news to us.
  Just as an aside, according to the California Department of Food and 
Agriculture, California agriculture experienced a 9 percent drop in the 
sales value of its products in 2009, which was at the height of the 
drought. The State's 81,500 farms and ranches received $34.8 billion 
for their output, down from an all-time high of $38.4 billion, which 
was reached in 2008.
  Despite the water supply shortages and regulatory restrictions, the 
State's agricultural sales for 2009 were the third highest recorded; 
2007, 2008 and 2009 were the years of the drought, and the three 
highest years of agricultural sales coincided with the three 
consecutive years of drought.
  With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We are going around and around here. At the end of the 
day, I think we need to step back from the heat of the debate and 
realize exactly what's happening here.
  In this particular amendment is an effort to try to make sure that 
the taxpayers of the United States are adequately compensated for the 
money that they have loaned for the development of the Central Valley 
Project and for the money that they have loaned for the specific 
elements within the Central Valley Project. These are the specific 
authorized sub-portions of the Central Valley Project. For example, 
with the San Luis Unit, the taxpayers loaned a vast amount of money.
  When you look at the details in this bill, you will find that there 
is a very artful way of avoiding the full cost of repayment through 
early repayments. The way in which the bill is written, the water 
districts are able to pay off their loans without having to pay off the 
interest, and then going forward, they're not having to share in the 
ongoing cost of maintenance of the major reservoirs and water 
facilities.

                              {time}  1640

  In other words, they are simply charged with the cost of the water, 
not for the ongoing operational repair and other costs. It's very 
interesting, very artfully done and, once again, provides an enormous 
subsidy to those who have had a very good subsidy for many years. It's 
not right. It ought not occur.
  The amendment before us simply says that, if you're going to get a 
loan, you are going to have to pay interest.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield that time to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You will hear this from the other side as they close, 
Oh, but you are going to be able to get some $300 million. Yes, that 
money will flow more quickly into the treasury to be sure because it 
allows the water districts, as a result of the way in which this bill 
is written, to achieve an enormous advantage. They will be able to get 
water into the future without having to pay the full cost of that 
water.
  So when you look at it from the total accounting procedures, you wind 
up with an additional subsidy going to these water districts. It's not 
right, and it's not fair to the taxpayers.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend 
from California (Mr. Nunes).

[[Page H1069]]

  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I will be very quick.
  The gentlelady from California is the biggest offender of the 
ultimate subsidy of all. Those are those mystery little Title XVI 
grants from the Bureau of Reclamation. They don't even charge interest. 
They just give those away. That's an outrageous subsidy that goes to 
communities in southern California and in the bay area of $1,500 an 
acre-foot.
  So, I guess we could offer an amendment to strip out all Title XVI 
money. I'd be willing to do that, too. Let's strip out all the Title 
XVI money, all the subsidies that go to Los Angeles, Hollywood, and San 
Francisco. Let's strip out the Title XVI money.
  Is the gentlelady willing to strip out Title XVI money?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the time of the gentlewoman from California has expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was rejected on a 
bipartisan vote when the gentlelady introduced it in markup, and it 
deserves a similar fate on the House floor. I mean, let's be clear 
about what this does. It singles out Central Valley Project 
participants to pay a punitive surtax that is imposed on no other 
Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States. This surtax would 
be passed on to consumers through higher prices.
  The Central Valley Project was already singled out for one punitive 
tax, about $50 million annually, by Congress in 1992 to fund an array 
of environmental slush funds. Now, I believe that beneficiaries should 
pay the cost of the water projects, but they should pay only the cost 
of those projects and no more. These are not cash cows for the Federal 
Government to milk until they're dry.
  When the left speaks of corporate farms, you know, they often leave 
out the fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated, and 
that's who we would be singling out for what amounts to a special tax. 
That tax can be paid in one of two ways: by employees through lower 
wages or by consumers through higher prices.
  I have a modest suggestion for the gentlelady. Perhaps we should 
start putting people back to work rather than running them out of 
business.
  I have often criticized her colleagues for policies that have created 
the conditions that indirectly send water prices through the roof, but 
this proposal is quite bold. This proposal does so directly and 
dramatically. That's why several of her colleagues on the Democratic 
side abandoned her in committee and why they would be well advised to 
do so again on the floor.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 112 405.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 105.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, once again we need to step back and 
really understand the full impact of this particular piece of 
legislation that is before us. It has profound impact on California. We 
heard earlier discussion about the delta, two amendments put forth by 
my colleague, Mr. McNerney, and as he spoke to the issues of the delta 
and the sensitivity of it.
  The delta is the largest estuary on the west coast of the Western 
Hemisphere, and it includes the San Francisco Bay. It's a very 
sensitive estuary. It's dependent upon a flow of freshwater at certain 
times of the year, and this legislation very artfully, in a very 
complex series of languages and changes in law and word, takes 800,000 
acre-feet away from the environment of the delta, that would be the 
aquatic environment, and delivers it to the water contractors, the 
south-of-delta water contractors. It's done in a way that it is hard to 
recognize; but when I asked the chairman of the committee what the 
purpose was, he stated unequivocably that it was to take the 800,000 
acre-feet of water.
  The impact of that will be profound. So whatever you may say about 
the species in the delta, the salmon, the striped bass, the smelt or 
any other species, this theft of 800,000 acre-feet of water will have a 
profound and negative effect.
  It's water that is there to be used certain times of the year to 
carry out the necessary protection of species, water that would flow 
down the river when the salmon want to migrate up the river, water that 
would be there for the smelt when they are breeding or when they are 
moving into their breeding habitat.
  It is one of the biggest water grabs, at least in the last half 
century, and it will have profound negative effects. When taken with 
the other provisions of the bill that wipe out entirely, entirely wipe 
out the Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 
EPA Clean Water Act, all of those are gone in this bill, and now you 
are taking the water.
  California protections for the environment, the California laws that 
replicate the Federal laws, they too are pushed aside by this bill. 
Then you wind up taking the water on top of it.
  What is left for the delta? What is left for the species in the 
delta, the fish, the aquatic? What is left for San Francisco Bay? Not 
much. Not much. That's why this bill is the worst environmental bill in 
many, many decades. Call it any other way you like, but that's exactly 
what it is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, more than any other, 
focuses on the central issues surrounding the bill. What comes first, 
people or fish?
  In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act carved out 
800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes 
temporarily. In fact, during a Senate debate, the floor manager of the 
conference report, Senator Malcolm Wallop, pointed out that that 
800,000 acre-feet of CVP yield is up-front water designed to deal with 
the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and delta requirements 
while the various mitigation actions are undertaken. The various 
mitigation actions were to build more supply so that that 800,000 acres 
taken from the farmers would then be returned to them.
  That 800,000 acre-feet came out of allocations of the Central Valley 
Project, were agreed to by all sides that were incorporated in the Bay-
Delta Accord, which this bill restores. But somewhere along the line, 
the Federal Government began treating this allotment as a floor rather 
than as a ceiling.
  Back in the mid-1990s, a zealous official in the Interior Department, 
under Bill Clinton, ordered that more than 1 million acre-feet of water 
appropriated by the Central Valley Project be used for purposes not 
authorized under water rights permits issued by the State of 
California.

                              {time}  1650

  That preempted State water rights laws, I might add, and I believe 
the gentleman from California knows him. In fact, I believe the 
gentleman from California is him.
  This bill reestablishes the 800,000 acre foot allotment agreed to by 
all sides when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt promised ``a deal is a 
deal.'' This provision redeems the promise that was broken by Mr. 
Babbitt's deputy, and this

[[Page H1070]]

is the provision that the gentleman would have us delete.
  I might also add that under this bill, the 800,000 acre feet of water 
can be recycled by communities once it has met its environmental 
purpose rather than being lost to the ocean. That's 800,000 acre feet 
of additional water for communities like his. Of that, a little more 
than one-tenth of 1 percent would have gone to the little town of 
Cattlemen City. That's irrelevant because this provision, too, the 
gentleman was proposing to strike.
  The contract holders that paid for this project gave up 800,000 acre 
feet of water with the promise it would be a temporary ceiling. One 
broken promise after another changed this to a permanent floor, 
claiming more and more water be expropriated from the people who paid 
for it and dumped into the Pacific Ocean. This measure sets that 
injustice right.
  With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. 
Chairman, and I heard the author of the amendment state something, and 
I will paraphrase, that he spoke to the chairman of the committee on 
the allocation of the water, and supposedly the chairman of the 
committee responded back ``take the water away.''
  Number one, I do not recall ever having that dialogue with the maker 
of the amendment. But had he asked me, my answer would have been an 
equitable distribution of the water. So I just wanted to set the record 
straight, Mr. Chairman, because that's what I heard in the debate just 
previously.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The chairman of the committee, if I did say the 
chairman of the committee, I believe I said the chairman of the 
subcommittee. In which case if I did, Mr. Hastings, you are quite 
correct; you were not there. The chairman of the subcommittee was to 
whom I was referring.
  With regard to the effect, you can try to spin this any way you like, 
but the reality is that in the Central Valley Improvement Act, 800,000 
acre feet of water was dedicated to the environment, and it was not 
temporary; it was part of what was to be done into the future. And the 
negotiations that ensued following the accord in 1994, those 
negotiations were specifically designed to reach an accommodation on 
how to meet all of the requirements of the Central Valley Improvement 
Act, including what to do with the 800,000 acre feet.
  I would point out to the opponents of this amendment that the accord, 
the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, was never intended to be permanent. It had 
in fact a 3-year limitation, which led to my involvement when I became 
deputy secretary to try to work out a solution. And in fact we did. 
Unfortunately, the Westlands Water District, one of the proposed 
signatories to the bill, walked away from the table when everybody else 
was ready to sign. And we have been involved in this imbroglio ever 
since.
  Now, the 800,000 acre feet is indeed taken away from the environment. 
No matter how you spin this, it's gone. It is the biggest theft of 
water perhaps in modern California water history--800,000 acre feet. It 
may be recycled, but the control of it for the environment is lost. The 
environmental protections that go along with that water are gone. Both 
the State and the Federal protections, the Clean Water Act, the 
National Environmental Protection Act, California CEQA, all of those 
are gone as a result of this bill. This is the most amazing override of 
environmental law that I have ever seen in the 37 years that I've been 
involved in water policy throughout this Nation. It is remarkable what 
is being attempted here, and we've got to stop this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's memory problems seem to 
have struck again. I do not recall making such a statement either, or 
intending to make such a statement. What I have said is that that 
800,000 acre feet, which now will become a ceiling rather than a floor, 
can provide the opportunity for recycling under this bill so that that 
800,000 acre feet, once it has served its environmental purposes, may 
then be used by communities throughout the bay area.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 112 405.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment along with Ms. 
Matsui and Mr. Thompson.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amend subsection (a) of section 108 to read as follows:
       (a) Operation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project 
     shall be operated in a manner that meets all obligations 
     under State and Federal law, with operational constraints 
     that are based on the best available science.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 566, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Our amendment is simple. It would ensure that State law is upheld and 
that the best available science is used when making decisions about the 
complex California water system.
  Instead of using cutting-edge science, the Republican bill would take 
us back to 1994.
  So let me ask you: Are you willing to give up your 2012 iPhone for a 
1994 brick of a cellular phone? How about giving up your Prius for a 
Yugo? Or using a phonebook instead of Facebook? Would you rather fold a 
map or use Google maps? The answer to those questions is easy.
  And so is this one: Would you trade the science of California water 
in 2012 for 1994 science? If your answer is no, if your answer is you 
want to use the best science, today's science, in order to ensure that 
we protect the water users and the environment, then vote ``yes'' on 
our amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Long ago my 
parents told me a truism that has been reconfirmed over and over again 
in my life. My parents both were raised on dirt-poor farms in North 
Dakota in abject poverty. And my father, who made a decent life for 
himself and for his family with hard work and struggle, told me as a 
child when we visited those farms, he said: Son, ordinary people are 
not going to live well in this country or any country unless there is 
an abundance of water and energy. And that's what all through my life 
I've seen; that those people who have had their water or energy 
restricted, it has hurt the ordinary people, the standard of living of 
the people of that country.
  What we have faced in this country is a good example of that. What we 
have got is a coalition of radical environmentalists who have over the 
years prevented America from having the energy we need to have a high 
and a good standard of living for our people. Ordinary people have 
suffered. The same is true when we are talking about water.
  Now, this radical coalition has never thought anything about 
constitutional rights and about whether it is States'

[[Page H1071]]

rights to this or that. That has made no difference to them at all. The 
central issue is there is a vision that the radical environmentalists 
have in which people are less important than fish or little insects or 
reptiles.
  The bottom line is ordinary people, ordinary Americans, should be our 
highest priority. What is it doing to their standard of living? And we 
have seen an attack on the standard of living of the people of 
California by depleting water resources that should go to them that 
instead are being committed to a tiny little fish that isn't even good 
enough for bait.
  Today, we are going to reaffirm in a very bipartisan fashion that no, 
the people of this body are elected to represent the well-being of 
ordinary Americans, to make sure that we have the energy and the water 
we need to fulfill the American Dream where everyone has a chance at a 
decent life.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson) so he can explain why the radical coalition that we have also 
includes the Governors of seven States that don't like this bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Governors of seven States, fishermen, hunters and farmers, a 
whole list of people, oppose this bill. Our amendment states that the 
Central Valley Project and State Water Project shall be operated in a 
manner that meets all obligation under State and Federal law with 
operational constraints that are based on the best available science. 
More than 750 plant and animal species depend upon the delta for their 
survival. Many of these then support important industries, such as the 
fishermen, hunters, recreational industries, and farmers that promote 
local and State economies.
  We've seen what happens when science is ignored and environmental 
protections are gutted for the sake of politics. In 2008 and 2009, 
salmon fisheries were forced to close because of low-water flows in the 
rivers. This resulted in the loss of over a half a billion dollars and 
nearly 5,000 jobs--the same number that the proponents of the bill 
claim that their bill would create.
  This bill would prevent the use of the best available science and 
adaptive management in the bay and delta by permanently limiting 
agencies from acting on new scientific information developed since 
1994. This alone ignores the last 15 years of the best available 
science.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and a ``no'' vote on this 
terrible piece of legislation.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from 
California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I just want to remind my colleagues of Dr. Peter Gleick--we haven't 
heard from him today--Dr. Peter Gleick, the man who comes to testify in 
Congress before the committee to tell us why it's so important that we 
take water away from farmers and families. Why have we not heard about 
Dr. Peter Gleick today? Because 2 weeks ago, Dr. Peter Gleick admitted 
to impersonating someone else on the Internet, stole information and 
then falsified the information and sent it out all over the planet. But 
Dr. Peter Gleick got caught. Dr. Peter Gleick got caught. The main man 
that they support got caught.
  Mr. MARKEY. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on 
either side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I have 
always said that solutions to our country's resource problems must be 
based on sound science. To do otherwise is simply foolish and severely 
shortsighted.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1837 ignores years of scientific research on the 
health of California's watersheds. This bill pretends that science does 
not exist. We don't believe the Earth is flat, and we don't believe 
that thunder is made by bowling balls. We know better. Science has 
given us the answers to so many questions about the world in which we 
live.
  We have used science and discovered the truth. H.R. 1837 will prevent 
the use of the best available science and adaptive management in the 
bay delta by permanently limiting agencies from acting on new 
scientific information developed since 1994.
  The amendment before us would require us to use the scientific 
research that we have on California's natural resources. It would allow 
us to acknowledge what the research has shown us to be true. This 
amendment is critically important, not only to California, but to every 
State in this Union.
  Mr. Chairman, lastly, I keep hearing that the Sacramento area 
supports this bill. I represent the Sacramento area, and I can tell you 
that both the city and county of Sacramento strongly oppose this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to reject the 
bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Would you be able to tell us, Mr. Chairman, who has the 
right to conclude debate?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to 
close.
  Mr. MARKEY. And could you again tell me how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself that 1 minute in order to just say this.
  If we don't do anything else here, at least we should say that we're 
going to use science, we're going to use the best available knowledge 
about science to ensure that this legislation does not invoke the law 
of unintended consequences, that we understand what we're doing. And I 
don't know why the Republicans have this aversion to using modern 
science; but I will tell you this, that this is going to be a defining 
vote here on the House floor. Do the Republicans actually believe in 
science? Do they want modern science to be used, or do they want some 
science from two decades ago to be used?
  The importance of using science is that it doesn't depend on one man. 
It relies on hundreds and thousands of scientists testing each other's 
works. The Republican bill would ignore 18 years of work by hundreds 
and thousands of scientists to reach today's consensus because they 
want that old science in order to take care of the special interests 
that cannot live within the advances made and the knowledge about the 
implications of what would happen under their bill.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the devastation of the Central Valley 
of California occurred because of the breaking of a Federal promise--a 
Federal agreement. The gentleman from California says, oh, it wasn't an 
agreement at all; it was just a suggestion. Well, that's not what the 
Interior Secretary said at the time. He said, a deal is a deal, and if 
it turns out there's a need for additional water, it will come at the 
expense of the Federal Government. The Senator who carried the 
conference report on the Senate floor said it was a deal, a temporary 
measure until additional water was brought online. This bill redeems 
that promise. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
would have us break that promise forever.
  As I stated earlier, we keep hearing, well, that was then and this is 
now. Science has changed and so should our policy. If that's the case, 
then the Federal Government's promises are worthless, and they mean 
nothing. That was a promise agreed to by all parties. It was broken by 
the Federal Government.
  What they're referring to is not science. It is ideology masquerading 
as science, so has said the Federal court. Now we have news from the 
Klamath that one of the scientists involved in the reports is now 
charging that the Department subverted science for political ends.
  It is time that the ideological zealotry that threw thousands of 
families into unemployment be replaced with practical and fact-based 
solutions that keep our promises. It's time that we placed a higher 
value on human lives than on the bureaucratic dictates of the 
environmental left. That's what this bill does, and that's what the 
gentleman's amendment would prevent.
  Finally, the gentleman would insert a requirement that the act 
require the

[[Page H1072]]

best available science to move forward. Well, the gentleman knows that 
what is termed ``best available science'' was literally thrown out of 
court with the court saying not only was it not the best available 
science; it wasn't science at all. The only practical effect of the 
provision is to provide employment for the only growth sector left in 
California's economy--environmental lawsuits intended not to win, 
because ultimately they do lose, but rather to delay projects 
indefinitely and make them cost prohibitive to pursue. But I compliment 
the gentleman on his creativity.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 9 will not be offered.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112 405 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Thompson of California.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. McNerney of California.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. McNerney of California.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mrs. Napolitano of California.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Thompson of California

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thompson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 239, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 83]

                               AYES--178

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     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
     Crowley
     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
     Kissell
     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)
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     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
     Walberg
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     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
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     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)
     Goodlatte
     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)
     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)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     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
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bass (CA)
     Boustany
     Cantor
     Davis (KY)
     Diaz-Balart
     Gohmert
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rush
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt

                              {time}  1737

  Mr. GRIMM, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Messrs. FARENTHOLD, ROONEY, and HALL 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. WATERS, Messrs. LIPINSKI and POLIS changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 242, not voting 13, as follows:

[[Page H1073]]

                             [Roll No. 84]

                               AYES--178

     Ackerman
     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
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     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
     Kissell
     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
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     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
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     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)
     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)
     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
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass (CA)
     Cantor
     Davis (CA)
     Gohmert
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rogers (KY)
     Rush
     Schakowsky
     Tierney


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1741

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 84, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 243, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     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
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     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
     Gibson
     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
     Kissell
     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
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     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)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--243

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Cooper
     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
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck

[[Page H1074]]


     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)
     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)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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 (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)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass (CA)
     Cantor
     Fortenberry
     Gohmert
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Rush
     Schakowsky
     Smith (NJ)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1744

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 83--Thompson/Eshoo 
Amendment, 84--McNerney Amendment No. 3, and 85--McNerney Amendment No. 
4, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 243, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               AYES--181

     Ackerman
     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
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     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
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     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
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     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)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--243

     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
     Cooper
     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)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     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)
     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
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bass (CA)
     Cantor
     Gohmert
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rush


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1748

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 250, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page H1075]]

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     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
     Crowley
     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
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     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
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--250

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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)
     Goodlatte
     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
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     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
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bass (CA)
     Cantor
     Gohmert
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rush


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1752

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 247, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               AYES--178

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     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
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     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
     Kissell
     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
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     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)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--247

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Cooper
     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
     Goodlatte
     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)

[[Page H1076]]


     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     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)
     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
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bass (CA)
     Cantor
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rush


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1755

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 244, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 89]

                               AYES--180

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     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
     Crowley
     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 (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     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
     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
     Sherman
     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)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--244

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Goodlatte
     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 (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     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)
     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
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bass (CA)
     Cantor
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Ribble
     Rigell


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1800

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gardner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1837) to address certain water-related concerns on the San Joaquin 
River, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 566, 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

[[Page H1077]]

                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1837 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       After section 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION AND STATES' RIGHTS.

       Consistent with the tenth amendment to the United States 
     Constitution, nothing in this Act shall preempt or supersede 
     State law, including State water law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to 
present this amendment. This amendment will not kill the bill nor send 
it back to committee, but it is an amendment that is important to every 
Representative in this House if you care about the 10th Amendment and 
you care about the ability of your State to set its own policies.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member in this House should be paying attention to 
this bill. We read the Constitution the first day of this Congress. The 
10th Amendment guarantees that the States have the ability to take care 
of their own water systems and many other issues that pertain to the 
States. This bill, this bill overrides State law in California. This 
bill sets aside numerous State laws in California. This bill overrides 
150 years of California water law set in place by the legislature, the 
governors, by the courts of California, and the Federal courts. This 
bill destroys the ability of California to conduct and to manage its 
own water.
  I put this map up of California so that you might contemplate for a 
few moments the impact and exactly what we're talking about. California 
is a big State, 38 million people, diverse, extraordinary water fights. 
There's a fellow who lived in California years ago, Mark Twain, and he 
said, ``In California, whiskey's for drinking and water's for 
fighting.'' And it's been true ever since.
  This is the Central Valley of California, the largest estuary on the 
West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It's where the Sacramento River 
and the San Joaquin River join together in an inland estuary, one of 
the few in the world. And also, San Francisco Bay. This bill will lead 
to the destruction of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the 
Western Hemisphere, and it does so by overriding California law and the 
California Constitution.
  The California Constitution holds the water of the State of 
California in trust. In trust. The State of California, the government, 
is responsible for the care of that water so that it can be 
appropriately distributed, not only for the beneficial use of 
consumptive users, cities and farmers, but also, also for the 
environment.
  This bill takes away the laws of the State of California that would 
provide for the protection of the environment. The California CEQA, 
Environmental Quality Act, the Air Quality Act, the Endangered Species 
Act of the State of California, are overridden by this bill. And by the 
way, the Federal laws also. It takes us back to 1994, to a period of 
time when we didn't know the science. We didn't understand what the 
full impact of water diversions and other contaminants and other 
species would be in the delta.
  Since 1994, we have seen the collapse of the delta fisheries. We have 
seen thousands upon thousands of fishermen, both commercial and 
recreational, unable to fish. The loss of much. There is a much talk in 
this House about a manmade drought. That's baloney. It was a real 
drought. And yes, there were environmental considerations that further 
reduced water. That water was reduced under contracts that called for 
shortages in the case of drought.
  So what are we talking about here with this bill? We're talking about 
the usurpation of power by the Federal Government, taking the basic 
ability of the State of California to regulate its water, to deal with 
its environmental issues, and causing this House, this Federal 
Government, to have that power.
  Think closely all of you who have a reclamation project in your 
district, and there are some 18 States, ranging from the Pacific to the 
Mississippi. You have reclamation projects. Think deeply. Think about 
what happens when the Federal Government goes to California, the 
biggest State, and says: We don't care what your laws are; we're going 
to tell you what to do. Think what that might mean to you in the future 
when somebody in your State has the power to put before this House a 
law that runs over the top of your State laws.
  If you care about the 10th Amendment, if you care about States' 
rights, you'd better be voting ``no'' because this is a precedent you 
don't want to ever see in your State, and we don't want to see it in 
California. Think deeply, Members of this House, think deeply about 
what's at stake here. I ask for this motion to pass.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, it is odd, very odd to hear the argument 
again in this Hall that a State's right to deny basic freedoms to its 
citizens trumps the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. The last time 
we heard this argument in this Hall, it involved citizens' civil 
rights. Now it is the citizens' water rights. But make no mistake: it 
is the same old saw.
  The reason we have a 14th Amendment to our Constitution is because 
its Framers recognized that States could become abusive of the rights 
of their citizens, including their property rights, including their 
water rights, and the Federal Government had a responsibility and a 
duty to protect them. A responsibility and a duty specifically vested 
in this Congress, a responsibility and a duty that we exercise in the 
bill that the gentleman from California would have us gut.
  Well, what does the Constitution actually say on the subject? It 
says:
  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
  And it grants Congress the power to enforce by appropriate 
legislation the provisions of this article.
  Let us turn to the provisions of the bill that the gentleman objects 
to. It is Title IV. It directs the Interior Secretary, in the operation 
of the Central Valley Project, a Federal project, I might add, to 
strictly adhere to State water rights laws and priorities. It doesn't 
trample State water rights; it invokes and enforces them.
  Title IV goes on further to direct the Secretary to strictly adhere 
to and honor water rights and priorities that were obtained or existed 
pursuant to various sections of California water code.

                              {time}  1810

  I repeat, it doesn't trample States' rights. It invokes them and 
enforces them. This sets no precedent for other States. California is 
the only State in the country with a coordinated operations agreement 
that combines a Federal project, the Central Valley Project, with a 
State project, the State Water Project, and does so, by the way, at 
California's request and with California's consent.
  In fact, Congress has a long history of citing that Coordinated 
Operations Agreement to invoke preemptive authority over this 
coordinated Federal and State project. The Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act in 1992 is replete with such preemptions.
  Mr. Speaker, fewer Americans are working today than were working the 
day that this administration was sworn into office. This 
administration's actions caused thousands and thousands of hardworking 
farm working families to lose their jobs. This measure solves that 
travesty. The same administration that is blocking the thousands of 
jobs that the Keystone pipeline would produce has also vowed to veto 
this measure. I think the American people are going to have a great 
deal to say about that in coming days.

[[Page H1078]]

  Ironically, the provision that the gentleman would have us remove was 
specifically placed in the bill because he and his colleagues objected 
that its original provision might cause the State government to 
actively undermine the rights of its senior water rights holders. Now 
that was a legitimate concern. Senior water rights holders in northern 
California were scared to death that they might have the State undercut 
their water rights, and this bill specifically addresses that concern. 
To address that concern, this provision was placed in the bill, and now 
the gentleman objects to it.
  The gentleman first attacked the bill because the bill lacked this 
protection, and now he attacks the bill because it has that protection. 
The gentleman knows what I'm talking about. The gentleman knows that I 
have great affection for him, but I must say he is becoming exceedingly 
hard to please.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the well 
while another Member is under recognition.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was 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 passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 248, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 90]

                               AYES--178

     Ackerman
     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
     Crowley
     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
     McIntyre
     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
     Ruppersberger
     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)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     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
     Goodlatte
     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
     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
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bass (CA)
     Cantor
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1830

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. 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 246, 
noes 175, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 91]

                               AYES--246

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Goodlatte
     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

[[Page H1079]]


     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
     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
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--175

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     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
     Crowley
     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
     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
     Ruppersberger
     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)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

     Shuler
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bass (CA)
     Cantor
     Lee (CA)
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1836

  Ms. BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 91, I was 
unavoidably detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________