Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 711, I call up the bill (H.R. 2828), to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. R. 2828.

Mr. Speaker, today's consideration of this bill is a giant step forward in resolving California's water supply problems.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from

California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I make a statement about this bill, I want to also thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for all her great work on this bill. She has spent many hours and days traveling across the State of California. I think we probably were in most congressional districts throughout California as this process took place. Certainly I thank her for her great work in this legislation.

This bill represents great progress in helping solve the water problems of the west by making California more self-reliant and carefully using its own water supply. We have come a long way over the last few years. The Subcommittee on Water and Power conducted three field hearings in California, a legislative hearing, two mark-ups, and too many meetings to count to get where we are today.

Individually, many of the members of our committee have helped to shepherd often contentious quantification settlement agreements, for instance, that was delayed, but we finally came to a decisive conclusion. My friends in the upper-lower basin States should know that this bill today is another positive step in California weaning itself from historically overdrafting the Colorado River.

As we have found with the plumbing in California's water system, everything in the world of water is related to everything else. Thus, achievements like the quantification settlement agreement helped us conclude the carefully balanced agreement on CALFED that we have before us today. Water is not and should not be a partisan issue. I worked constructively with the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), Senator Feinstein, as I mentioned, the ranking Democratic member; the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano); the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley); the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza); of course, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and the full committee ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and many, many more to make sure this bill before us is a consensus that I believe that it is.

I am proud to have many Democratic members of the Committee on Resources supporting this bill. The original intent of CALFED was to provide balance to a complex water delivery system, to ensure that everybody gets better together. That is what this bill does. H.R. 2828 simply and truly means that the environment, recreation, drinking water, agriculture and industries gets better together.

As our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) said, This bill makes historic strides in water quality improvements in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. Improved water quality helps everyone across the board. We have also created new water supplies for southern California through my friend, the gentlewoman from California's (Mrs. Napolitano) water recycling amendment, and we enhanced surface storage to improve water quality for families in our colleagues' district in the Bay area and beyond as evidenced by the support of such water districts as the Northern California Water District, Contra Costa Water District, Central Contra Water District and many others.

We have created a right to know provision by making Federal agencies report how they will spend the money. Congress and the American taxpayer deserve government accountability and this bill provides it.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to bring ultimate resolution to this bipartisan effort. Our bill includes and supports a diverse approach to solving our water problems, including conservation, reclamation, desalinization, conjunctive use, ground water storage and, of course, surface storage options that have been carefully studied and negotiated down to the bare minimum.

We have made significant progress and we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. With today's vote, we will pass this bill and we will make that light shine even brighter. I urge support.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself what time I may consume for a short comment.

Congressional approval of water projects from planning through construction is not a new concept. The Corps of Engineers has authority through the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, to implement projects following a favorable Chief's, or some people call it feasibility, report.

Through WRDA, Congress approves projects from planning through construction, subject to the conditions stated in a favorable Chief's report. Numerous examples of the corps' projects can be found in WRDA 1996, WRDA 1999, and WRDA 2000 which authorize construction following a favorable Chief's report.

In the last three WRDAs, over 50 projects were approved from planning through construction, with conditional authorization subject to a favorable Chief's report. New projects were conditionally authorized, and there were additional project modifications that were conditionally authorized.

WRDA projects conditionally authorized included the Bel Marin Keys Unit, California, well over $100 million; Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey navigation project, $325 million authorization to $750 million; the Savannah Harbor Expansion navigation project $230 million, and I can go on and on and on.

Are my colleagues saying we should replace the 120-day congressional authorization which is in the present bill with extensively used WRDA language that Congress has accepted and continues to support?

H.R. 2828 includes provisions that approve water recycling projects from planning through construction which was proposed by the Southern California Democrats. By the way, these four projects that are in this bill are in the Record of Decision which has been negotiated over the years, as all my friends know, and a very difficult negotiation, to bring this process of CALFED in a balanced manner forward.

So I would say to my colleagues, this is nothing new. People would like to see these projects built if, in fact, they are feasible; and all the environmental processes, NEPA, CEPA, Endangered Species Act, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, must be met to make sure that these projects are viable and feasible under the law.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her support and inquiry.

As the gentlewoman knows, I strongly support recycling as a way to reduce Southern California's dependence on imported water and help drought-proof the region. That is why I supported H.R. 1156, a bill championed by our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), whose district includes the Groundwater Replenishment System, and the gentlewoman here today from the 47th district.

I am fully supportive of House passage of H.R. 1156, H.R. 2991, introduced by our colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and other recycling bills reported by the House Committee on Resources, but I know that it is up to the leadership on both sides of the aisle to determine which bills are debated on the House floor.

In the meantime, I will continue to strongly support H.R. 1156, and I thank the gentlewoman's support for H.R. 2828.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support of the Salton Sea. I would like to assure him that I and many of our Southern California colleagues, including the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) and certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), continue to strongly support the restoration of the Salton Sea, and we will work with him and others in our delegation to continue these efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the gentleman's question is: No.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close, and I want to again thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for her good work and her dedication on this legislation. She spent many hours and much of her time traveling through the State of California and throughout the western United States as we came to understand the issue of water.

There are very few subjects that bring out more emotion and passion than water, and certainly I have grown to understand the subject much better over the last number of years. I am looking forward to passing this bill today and moving ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have been working hard to improve this bill since its introduction. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is a bipartisan amendment that has been carefully crafted based on input from Senator Feinstein and her staff, the administration, the State of California, and water groups. This amendment was not crafted in a vacuum, and I believe it addresses many concerns voiced over the last several weeks.

Reflecting the dynamic that differing regions of California represent, as opposed to the whole State, the amendment also includes necessary policy provisions:

Bay-Delta water quality protections: Bay-Delta water quality issues have not been adequately addressed in the past and they need to be fixed now. It is not fair that the constituents of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), or the constituents of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), or the constituents of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) should bear the highest water quality burdens because of circumstances outside their control.

These water quality provisions addressed in this bill are the results of discussions between water users throughout California, including in- Delta water uses. Most importantly, these provisions do not allow increased pumping unless water quality standards are met.

Water storage: Everyone wants to have more flexibility delivering water supplies throughout the State. Increased storage will give us more flexibility and improve water quality. In fact, my good friends in districts in the Bay area and beyond recently supported the Los Vaqueros expansion for these very purposes. My amendment provides that CALFED storage projects are subject to appropriate feasibility studies and if Congress does not act to disapprove them in 120 days, then construction is authorized.

Ensuring that adequate storage is part of a balanced CALFED is important here since CALFED expenditures so far have been imbalanced. This provision helps develop CALFED storage, and in no way undermines the regulatory process, including the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, SEQA, the Clean Water Act, and a number of other Federal acts and laws. Furthermore, these projects are still subject to appropriations.

Ecosystem restoration: The amendment has a ``right to know'' provision on how taxpayer dollars are being spent on ecosystem restoration. These provisions ask the Federal agencies to submit a management plan for CALFED-related ecosystem projects. These management plans would require a cost analysis, possible alternatives, disclosure of impacts, and required mitigation. All other projects, like storage projects, require much more detailed feasibility reports. We are only asking for a management plan that sits before Congress, which has no veto authority over such a management plan. This is nothing more than a good government plan that in no way hinders ecosystem restoration.

Mr. Speaker, there has never been a water bill that everybody likes. God knows I know that. But this is getting close. We have worked hard to resolve concerns and will continue to work with my colleagues and stakeholders on these issues. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), knows, negotiating water agreements is not easy; and we have had numerous conversations about the subject of water over the years. And certainly he has a long history in water in the State of California. As everyone knows who has been involved in water negotiations, they are difficult. There are conflicts all over the place. One of the concepts that we took when we went down this road was balance; and the Record of Decision that was a difficult Record of Decision to come to a conclusion, part of that was water storage on four projects. There were a lot more water projects that were being considered in that Record of Decision, but it was weaned down in difficult negotiations to really a limited amount of water storage.

Over $12 million has been spent to date on looking at the feasibility of these four projects. All of the environmental laws must be met, and that is considerable, before any of these projects could ever become feasible. And even then if in fact they are deemed feasible, you would have to go through the appropriation process.

As I would point out to my friends, the Auburn Dam is an authorized project. I doubt if it will ever get appropriations to build. Unless a project is feasible, unless it has the political support in order to build, it will not happen.

And so I would say this motion to recommit takes the balance out of the process that we put together, and I believe it would remove all support for this CALFED process to continue. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote ``yes'' on final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes so we can talk about H. Res. 711 which is providing for the consideration of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act. I was kind of hoping the gentleman might yield me 38 minutes instead of the customary 30 minutes; but then again, he is not in the chair so he is not able to do that today.

Mr. Speaker, what happened yesterday on this House floor was a disgrace. And the Republican leadership who run this House should be ashamed of themselves. The majority Members who allowed that to happen yesterday should also be ashamed of themselves.

The gentleman from Vermont along with several of his colleagues offered an amendment to strike a controversial provision of the PATRIOT Act. This provision allows authorities to demand library and Internet records of people who use our public libraries.

Three years ago, Mr. Speaker, I voted against the PATRIOT Act because it expanded the authority of the Attorney General and the FBI without requiring any corresponding accountability. And yesterday I voted for the Sanders amendment because it protects the American people and our public libraries and book stores from the overreaching arm of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the Sanders amendment won. And this deliberative body, in this place where democracy is the standard, the Sanders amendment won. And after 15 minutes there were 213 people voting for the amendment, and only 206 voting against it. That is a clear victory. One does not need a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure out that the Sanders amendment won, fair and square.

Yet the House Republican leadership held the vote open for 23 more minutes for a total of 38 minutes so they could twist the arms of their rank and file to change their vote so they could rig this vote. After these 38 minutes were over and the vote was finally closed, the vote was tied 210 to 210.

The Republican leadership did what they do best, they hijacked the democratic process and they did it. And they did it because they could, and they did it because they could get away with it.

What happened yesterday on the House floor was unique in only one respect, Mr. Speaker, and that is it happened in broad daylight. Usually, this heavy-handedness happens late into the night or in the early morning hours

so that nobody is watching, so that there is nobody in the press gallery who was watching, so that people at home are asleep. So what happened yesterday was unique only in that one respect.

Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Republican majority have diminished the people's House. They have made a mockery of democracy, and they have demonstrated a heavy-handedness that is becoming all too common here.

Yesterday, once again, the Republican majority demonstrated an incredible arrogance toward the American people. They demonstrated an incredible contempt for the Members of this House, Members of their own party who they intimidated into changing their votes.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they are unqualified to run this people's House. They have made a laughing stock of this place. They have turned this House into a national embarrassment. This is unacceptable. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. And the American people need to know what is going on here. This is not a deliberative body anymore. This is not a place of democracy. This is not a place where people can debate ideas, where people then can vote, Members can vote and then the majority wins. This place is not being run the way it is supposed to be run. It is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses an issue that affects the State of California--the distribution of water from north to south, and other related issues unique to California. However, I am concerned with many of the provisions in the bill and their potential to impact all of us. Specifically, I'm concerned about a seemingly technical provision in this bill that could have far-reaching effects on how water is used in California and how we conduct our business here in Congress.

Section 103(b)(5)(A) of this bill grants an ongoing, rolling authorization to the Federal Bureau of Reclamation to plan and build water projects in the California Bay-Delta area. In plain English, this means that Congress would be writing a blank check to the Department of Interior to build as many billion-dollar dams in central California as they want, even if these projects end up harming the environmentally sensitive areas we say we want to protect.

Mr. Speaker, the way our legislative process is supposed to work is that Congress writes the laws and sets the policies about how and where our tax dollars get spent. The job of the executive branch is to implement these laws through the various agencies of the Federal government.

This bill sets up a process that turns the legislative process on its head. It hands over the Congressional power to spend public funds to an unaccountable Federal agency. It tells officials in the Department of Interior they can spend billions of the taxpayers' dollars any way they want and then, only afterwards, check in with Congress. And if Congress doesn't act in 120 days, the Department can continue on its merry way, spending billions of dollars on dams and other water projects that may or may not accomplish the objectives of the CALFED water agreement.

Supporters of this provision claim there are precedents for their so- called ``non-project-specific authorization'' language, but their precedents involve only small projects and small dollar amounts.

In the case of the CALFED Water Project, the public policy stakes are just too high for Congress to hand over our decision-making responsibilities to a Federal agency. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to make these kinds of decisions, and we shouldn't shirk those responsibilities by passing the buck to a Federal agency. The way the CALFED project is managed over the next 30 years will have a profound effect on the 35 million water-drinking citizens of the State of California, the State's agricultural industry, and some of our country's most fragile and endangered ecosystems.

And what about our responsibility to be careful stewards of taxpayer dollars? I constantly hear fiscal conservatives on the other side of the aisle complain about the lack of budget discipline. Prior to the recess, these fiscal conservatives led a charge trying to slow down Federal spending, and make it harder for Congress to spend taxpayer dollars. But this bill basically gives the executive branch a blank check to spend on potentially costly projects like dams and canals.

I hope that some of those same members join me today in expressing concern about a policy that allows an agency to ``Spend the money first, then check in with Congress later.'' That doesn't strike me as a policy that will help us get out of the deep budget deficit hole--a hole that has been deepened by President Bush and this Republican Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this provision is bad policy and this bill is poorly drafted. I will vote against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I would like to ask the Speaker how long he is going to keep this roll call open.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to avoid today the travesty which occurred on the House floor yesterday, I am going to urge my colleagues at the end of this debate on the rule to vote no on the previous question so that I will be able to offer an amendment that will state very simply that during consideration of H.R. 2828, a record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote.

So I will urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to inquire of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), I will be closing on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that there are no rules in this House of Representatives. Tradition and procedures of this House are routinely ignored. Members will be treated with disrespect, members even on the Republican side. This Republican leadership has diminished the people's House. It is shameful.

I appeal to Members on the Republican side to stand up to the bullying of their own leadership. This trampling of the rules and traditions of this House is not an isolated problem. It happens every day. And the only way it will stop is for good people to stand up and to say enough is enough.

I am urging Members to vote no on the previous question so I can offer an amendment which says simply that during the consideration of H.R. 2828, a record vote by electronic device shall not be held up for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. That is all it says. How can you be against that?

I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Vote yes on my amendment to stand up with us for what is right. We know what happened yesterday was wrong. Show some guts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the bill offered by my good friend from California and Chairman of the Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, Congressman Ken Calvert.

Mr. Speaker, on balance, H.R. 2828 is not a good bill for rural Northern California. While it takes some positive steps forward to improve the administration of CALFED by instituting greater financial accountability and ecosystem reporting requirements, it still allows the implementation of an expensive, and ill-advised program that has not produced storage nor positive results for Northern California. The bill basically adopts and focuses on the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) as a framework, which does not provide a comprehensive water solution for the State. CALFED has always been heavily weighted toward ecosystem restoration and increasing exports from the Delta. I don't see that changing sufficiently under this bill. New storage under CALFED has been only empty promises, and the language in H.R. 2828 doesn't ensure otherwise. The state should take a new direction that places a greater emphasis on water storage and constrains the ability of state and federal agencies to buy more land and water. In short, there is not much to be gained, but much to be lost under H.R. 2828 for our area. As such, I strongly oppose it.

I originally supported the CALFED program in concept. Recognizing the very serious water challenges facing our state, I shared the view held by many other Members of Congress from California that such a joint state-federal program could provide an opportunity for developing a framework to solve our water woes for the long-term. Unfortunately, rather than providing a realistic solution to allow the water

interests in the state to ``get well together,'' as CALFED had originally promised, the program has become heavily weighted toward ecosystem restoration and focused on buying land and water to shift around already constrained water supplies, rather than on developing new water storage to meet our state's growing water needs. In addition, there has never been sufficient local control. Instead, federal agencies have been empowered to make important decisions about land and water resources impacting communities.

California faces a water deficit of potentially crisis proportions. The water supply in the state is already stretched to its practical limits. To put the current situation in perspective, recognize that the State Water Project was constructed when California's population was only 16 million people. Today it is over 34 million, and growing at a rate of roughly 600,000 new citizens a year. Yet California's water supply yield has increased by a mere 2 percent over the last 20 years. And the California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98 from a few years ago indicates that existing supply shortages will get appreciably worse over the next 20 years as the state's population continues to increase. Water deficits are projected to reach approximately 2.4 million acre feet in an average water year and 6.2 million acre feet in drought years by the year 2020. If history is any guide, Californians are likely to face major drought conditions not unlike the 500-year drought that is currently plaguing the Colorado basin states some time in the near future. Yet despite this pending crisis, the central focus of the CALFED program has been a plethora of costly environmental projects and plans to increase ability of the State and Federal water projects to move more water to Southern California,

CALFED has failed to make the hard decisions necessary to meet this incredible challenge. While it publicly recognizes water shortfalls, the storage solutions it has proposed will not provide sufficient supply benefits. A new Sites Reservoir, raising Shasta Dam and augmenting Los Vaqueros could be essential pieces of our water puzzle, but my concern is they really won't inject significant additional water ``yield'' into the system. CALFED has taken solutions such as an Auburn Dam, a Yuba Dam, and other on-stream reservoirs off the table because of the environmental controversy they might cause, despite the fact that they present opportunities for new cost-effective water supplies, and provide other benefits like flood control, electricity generation and recreation.

Our current situation is so desperate, and the possible impacts to the economy and public safety of another sustained drought so horrific, that we're not in a position to take these options off the table because they're politically unpalatable. To the contrary, we should be vigorously pursuing them, setting deadlines and goals, streamlining environmental review requirements, and updating federal laws to ensure cost-effective, feasible projects will actually be built and provide water to communities and farmers. Yet, despite several years and millions of dollars of investments from the state and federal government, CALFED has only studied and restudied a limited number of small storage options, without moving the ball down the field. Meantime, our water needs continue to grow dramatically. Fundamentally, when the problem is too many people and not enough water, I believe the answer is to create additional water storage, not sacrifice some parts of the state, including California's thriving agriculture industry, so others can get better. Carving up and reallocating an already constrained water system will not allow everyone to ``get well together.''

The ``Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act'' takes some positive steps forward in some areas, and will institute some accountability into a program that desperately needs it. For example, CALFED has spent taxpayer dollars without Congress or the public knowing or understanding where those funds have gone, and what the benefits for the state have been. H.R. 2828's financial reporting requirements will help Congress better track those expenditures. In addition, the annual reporting requirements for ecosystem restoration provided for in the bill will help Congress better monitor those projects, including land and water purchases. The bill also clarifies that local fish screen projects are a legitimate and helpful way to help local farmers meet federal and state endangered species requirements. I believe each of these program changes represent positive steps forward.

That being said, I do not feel this bill goes far enough to fix a program that is fundamentally flawed and moving in the wrong direction. While its expedited ``preauthorization'' process for CALFED storage projects elevates storage as a principle and could set an important new precedent for future infrastructure development, it appears to authorize only those projects approved pursuant to the CALFED ROD. I have long argued that CALFED's storage proposals are woefully insufficient to address our state's water needs. According to some estimates, a small Shasta raise, a new Sites Reservoir and a project at Los Vaqueros--the CALFED ROD's storage projects--the approximate yield would be only about 300,000 acre feet--far short of addressing a water shortfall in the millions of acre feet.

The bill also does not require expedited consideration for these projects. We have seen time and again how CALFED has dithered and stalled in pursuing new storage. In my view, a responsible CALFED should set hard and fast deadlines and move storage forward on an aggressive schedule. Moreover, the federal environmental review process, as we have seen on forest health projects, can take years and cost millions of dollars, only to be obstructed in the end by radical environmentalists through appeals and court challenges. The bill does not recognize and address those hard realities. In my view, it doesn't do enough to streamline the environmental review process, or to address the obstacles that unbalanced environmental laws are likely to pose to their ultimate development.

There is nothing in the bill to prevent CALFED agencies from continuing to purchase land and water as proposed in the ROD. Indeed, the bill explicitly authorizes the purchase of land and water as an acceptable CALFED activity under existing authority. And while there are reporting requirements, the impetus is on Congress to specifically defund these agency-approved acquisitions, rather than on the agencies to ask Congress to specifically approve and justify them. Because of the community impacts and private property rights concerns of additional land and water acquisitions, it should be the other way around.

I am also concerned by proposals to place the burden of CALFED funding on the shoulders of Sacramento Valley water users, but I understand Chairman Calvert has attempted to address that issue. In accordance with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 2828, the ``beneficiary pays'' principle specifically applies to direct beneficiaries of projects that improve the Delta. According to this principle, project participants in the CALFED solution area are not considered direct beneficiaries of the CALFED program. Therefore, Sacramento Valley water users who participate in projects to improve the Delta are not subject to any fees or taxes imposed on beneficiaries of the CALFED program.

In closing, something needs to be done--and soon--about the water situation in California. It is only getting worse with each passing day. Today's legislation takes some positive steps forward and I commend my colleagues for their efforts in this regard. However, I fear that the task at hand is so great that unless stronger and more aggressive changes are made to the CALFED program, the state will fail to meet today's and tomorrow's infrastructure challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the terrific work they have done in crafting this legislation.

Obviously, one of the greatest challenges we face in California and, indeed, the entire west, is how do we provide adequate water for all of our needs, whether they be consumptive needs, as well as the environment. And this legislation is a step forward to providing greater certainty that in the future we will have the water resources that are needed for the expanding population. We will have the water resources that are needed for our agriculture sector as well as our industrial sector. Most importantly, it also ensures that we are going to provide the protection that our environment needs.

This legislation is clearly something that is going to meet the needs of all the citizens of California. And while there are some of our colleagues in California that do not think this is a perfect piece of legislation, I would agree with them that it might not be perfect but it would be foolhardy for us to not allow this legislation to move forward so that we could eventually see a compromise and a final consensus developed that will, in fact, contribute to the needs of California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act and commend the leadership of my subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert and Ranking Member Grace Napolitano for bringing this important legislation to its place on the floor today.

I also want to recognize the very significant role that the senior Senator from California has played in developing and moving a counterpart bill in the Senate on a parallel track, paving the way for a bill to become law later this year.

This bipartisan water bill has been long in the making. Federal authorization for funding the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, commonly referred to as CALFED, expired in 2000--the same year that a consortium of Federal and State agencies issued a Record of Decision (ROD) setting forth a 30-year plan for CALFED.

Since 2000, various versions of reauthorizing legislation have been under consideration by the Congress. Until today, however, none of the earlier versions was able to reach the House floor.

The fact that today we finally have a bipartisan CALFED bill on the House floor reflects the long and arduous process of seeking input, balancing interests and making compromises. Many, many stakeholders were consulted in the development of this bill, including representatives of agricultural, urban, environmental, fishery, and business interests. None of them are likely to say that this is the ``perfect'' bill from their individual perspectives. But the bill we now have before us represents a constructive effort to forge a thoughtful and balanced approach to the management of California's water supplies. It deserves our support today.

A sound bill when it was introduced last year, H.R. 2828 improved when it was marked up by the Resources Committee on May 5, and several provisions of Senator Feinstein's bill were incorporated. Additional refinements to the legislative language have been included in today's managers' amendment, enhancing the prospects for an expeditious conference with the Senate and enactment this year.

Many in this body are aware of the legal conflicts and tensions that have evolved over the years on California water issues. The intent of this bill is to reduce those conflicts and tensions by providing guidance and authority for improving water supply reliability and water quality, while at the same time enhancing the environment. The bill recognizes the CALFED 2000 Record of Decision as the framework for implementing the program, and ensures that implementation moves ahead on a balanced basis.

There are many important provisions in the bill. I will comment on only a few of them.

For those of us in the Central Valley of California, this bill provides important assurances of improved conveyance of water supplies through the Delta. It authorizes evaluation and construction of much- needed new barriers and interties. It also recognizes the importance of

improving drainage in south Delta channels to minimize impact on drinking water quality. It thus requires implementation of a program to meet water quality standards in the San Joaquin River and the Delta prior to increased pumping or deliveries.

The bill is designed to give the Secretary more flexibility in meeting water quality standards in the Delta while reducing the reliance on the New Melones Project for meeting water quality and fish flows standards. To help meet this goal, the Secretary is authorized to use a variety of tools, including the purchase of water from willing sellers on the tributaries of the San Joaquin River. The legislation further allows the Secretary to use the CVP Restoration Fund to help pay for these water purchases and other designated actions.

It is important to recognize that water purchases and the use of the Restoration Fund monies are merely tools that the Secretary may use to achieve a goal. They are not mandates that supercede existing water rights or water supply contracts or replace existing Restoration Fund priorities. The Program to Meet Standards created by H.R. 2828 does not give the Secretary any new authority to acquire or re-allocate water from anyone but willing sellers.

On another issue--that of cost allocation--the Committee report on H.R. 2828 makes clear that the costs of implementing the CALFED program are to be allocated in a way that relates directly to benefits to be received. This ``beneficiaries pay'' principle precludes the imposition of water-use fee, tax or surcharge that would force water agencies or individuals to pay for CALFED projects or programs from which they do not benefit. Nothing in this legislation provides the basis for the imposition of such a fee or tax.

Some critics of this bill are claiming that it cedes congressional authority over water storage projects. I wish to make it clear that such a claim is not true.

The bill does give the Secretary blanket authority under the framework of the CALFED program to undertake feasibility studies for water storage projects. Such an authorization makes sense, given the fact that a Record of Decision for the CALFED program has already been issued and the extensive Federal-State-stakeholder consultation process within CALFED itself provides for due deliberation of project proposals.

If as a result of a specific feasibility study, the Secretary determines that a particular project is indeed feasible, the Secretary cannot simply move ahead, but first must submit a report to Congress identifying project benefits and beneficiaries and a cost allocation plan. Congress then has 120 legislative days--not calendar days, but legislative days--to consider the report and recommendation, and pass a disapproval resolution if we disagree with the Secretary's recommendation. Such a disapproval resolution procedure, as we all know, is not an uncommon procedure for congressional oversight of proposed administration actions. In addition to the 120-day layover period, congressional approval through the enactment of appropriations for the project must occur. We all know this is no small step.

So the bill does delegate more authority to the Secretary at the beginning of the feasibility process, enabling proposals to be explored and developed on an expeditious basis, but still retains the ultimate congressional authority to stop any particular water storage project as well as to determine its appropriations, if any. This process is thus a bit streamlined from the existing procedures for water storage projects. However, it provides adequate safeguards for congressional prerogatives while enhancing the expeditious consideration of worthy project proposals.

Before closing, I wish to thank the staff of the Water and Power Subcommittee, on both sides of the aisle, for their hard work and cooperation in helping us arrive to this point today. Their openness and professionalism are deeply appreciated by me and my staff.

Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation is long overdue. If we are to have any chance of CALFED being reauthorized in this session of Congress, we must pass this bill today and forward it to the Senate for its consideration. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the rules, it is impossible for those of us on our side to proceed without talking about the degrading spectacle of yesterday. It is particularly ironic that the Republican leadership chose to use extremely undemocratic tactics because there was a fear that democracy might break out in the law. What you had was a bipartisan coalition which formed a majority of the House seeking to change a provision of the PATRIOT Act.

Point of Order

I wish to be heard on the point of order and to contest it vigorously.

I understand the sensitivity of the author of the point of order to discussion of the events over which he presided yesterday, but we are talking about the rules of the House, and we were confronted with what we believed to have been a grievous abuse of the spirit of the rules of the House and we need some reassurance that we will not have a repetition of this as we go forward.

We are, after all, now debating whether or not we will have a previous question motion. If it were to fail, we would then be able to offer some amendments that might prevent that kind of abuse. So I believe a discussion of the abusive pattern of behavior of yesterday is directly relevant to a discussion about whether we ought to go forward with a rule with a previous question or whether or not we ought to be allowed to propose some amendments to this rule that will protect us against the abuse of power of yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Speaker is offering this courtesy to Members in keeping the roll call open, but there will be no need to keep it open for too long because I assume the Speaker is aware that this time you are winning.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, it is now very clear we are talking here about whether or not we should keep open this rule to amendment, and the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts will offer will be to prevent keeping open the roll call for the purpose of manipulation.

Now, I was talking about that before, and I was told I was out of order. It is an interesting sequence. Yesterday, many of us thought we were changing a provision of the PATRIOT Act, which we find to be insufficiently cognizant of democratic values, and the majority then used what many of us believed to be very undemocratic procedures to prevent us from dealing with an undemocratic provision. And today, to complete the trifecta of disrespect for democracy, I was silenced when I tried to talk about, in an open forum, the undemocratic approach to yesterday's democracy.

Now, I know one of the things we are trying to do is to instruct the people of Iraq, to help the people of Iraq understand democracy. We want them to be open. We want them to fully engage debate, not to suppress dissension. And the only thing I can say is this, Mr. Speaker, and I know we are not supposed to address the television audience, so I address this to you.

I hope you will convey to any Iraqis who might be watching the proceedings of this House on television with regard to democracy, if they see what we are doing, please do not try this at home.

Now, let me explain why we are upset about the delay. It is not simply ``the delay.'' Delay is not bad. We will have a chance today to show, in fact, that we are prepared to delay things as well. The question is what happens during the delay.

The purpose of delaying a roll call, the reason the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will offer this amendment, is to preserve the integrity of the House, because here is what happens. We have a roll call and Members vote, and Members will have, in some cases, said to their constituents, I support this position and I will vote that way.

Then the vote tally is taken, and when the vote tally is taken, it turns out that the Republican side has lost. Then the roll call is held open, and that is why we want to prevent the reoccurrence and why we will be offering this amendment if the previous question is defeated.

What happens then is this: The roll call is held open indefinitely so that Members who have told people in their districts they will vote one way can be pressured into voting another way. That is the purpose of holding the roll call open, to orchestrate a scheme by which the voters are misled; to orchestrate a scheme in which people can take a certain position, with the silent footnote that that position that they are taking will hold only so long as it does not prevail. But if it looks as if what they have told their constituents will prevail, they are prepared under the pressure from their leadership to abandon it.

So we are not simply talking about the convenience of the House, we are talking about the integrity of the democratic process, because the sole purpose of that sort of delay, we are not trying to accommodate people just so they can vote, this is a very particular form of delay. It is a ``DeLay-delay.'' And this kind of ``delay squared,'' carried out at the behest of the majority leader, is to allow Members of the Republican leadership to press members of the Republican Party who have voted one way to now abandoned that position lest the way they voted prevail. And the only reason for that, as I said, is to perpetuate misinformation. So let us not have this situation.

By the way, there is one other thing the voters ought to understand, Mr. Speaker. What we used to have in this Congress was individual Members voting, they consulted with their party leadership and then they voted.

What has become clear now, and it was clear in the Medicare prescription drug bill, it is clear with the PATRIOT

Act, it is now clear the Republican leadership is not prepared to allow its Members to vote contrary to the Republican leadership position if it will prevail. Republicans are allowed by their leadership the freedom of their conscience, as long as it is not operative. But if, in fact, there is any danger that what they say they are for will, in fact, reach fruition, the rug is yanked out from under them and they have to change their position.

What it means is people should understand, come election, no matter who they think they are voting for, they are voting for the Republican leadership, because the Republican leadership is prepared to change the spirits of these rules, to hold roll calls open indefinitely, as long as it takes to pressure Republican Members who have voted one way, presumably having told people in their districts they will vote that way, to switch their votes.

The sole purpose of these open roll calls is to allow deception, to undermine democracy.

I hope that we vote down the previous question, that the gentleman's amendment is adopted, and that we restore the principle of intellectual honesty and integrity and democracy to this House.