Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 830 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 830.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 830 provides for consideration of H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes two small changes clarifying the funding in the bill is subject to appropriations and making a purely technical correction to the section numbering in the bill. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Stark, as well as Representatives Eshoo, Honda, Woolsey, McNerney, Lofgren, Napolitano, and Speier, for their work on this bill and efforts to address the Bay Area waters' needs.

I also commend Senators Feinstein and Boxer for introducing identical legislation in the Senate and their leadership on this issue.

As the elected Representative from Sacramento, and as a farmer's daughter from the Central Valley, I understand that water is critical to our State's economy and our way of life. After 3 years of drought, pumping restrictions and lost jobs from the valley to the coast, there is no doubt that improving the capability of water recycling will help address these problems and lessen the burden on the bay-delta ecosystem.

While recycling is not the only way to meet the Bay Area and California's water requirements, it must be part of our comprehensive solution. Effective water use will help keep California's agricultural water economy strong and the delta healthy, and ensure that the needs of northern California businesses, farmers and residents are not ignored.

Under the Title 16 water recycling program, H.R. 2442, would authorize six additional water recycling projects for the Bay Area that would provide 7.2 million gallons of water daily and serve more than 24,000 households. Collectively, these projects will save 2.6 billion gallons of water per year in the region, offering a new water supply of treated wastewater for industrial and irrigation use.

Specifically, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act would authorize $38 million in Federal assistance under the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation for the design, planning, and construction of these new water projects. It would also expand the authorization for two existing projects.

H.R. 2442 would stipulate that the Federal share of the cost of the projects not exceed 25 percent of the total cost and bars the Department from funding operation or maintenance of the projects. It is important to note that this legislation has been endorsed by the Association of California Water Agencies, commonly called ACWA, which includes every major agricultural and urban water agency in the State and represents the largest coalition of public water agencies nationwide.

Additionally, the WaterReuse Foundation, which serves more than 180 public water agencies, cities and major engineering and technology firms, has urged that we move expeditiously on the bill. These groups understand that no one wins when these kinds of local projects are held hostage because of

disputes over the operation of Federal water projects.

We all know that there are some serious concerns about the water crisis in California. I was back home in my district over the weekend, Madam Speaker, and everyone at home was talking about a water deal trying to be negotiated by the legislature and the Governor.

From local and State levels all the way here to Washington, there are a number of different ideas about how to address our water issues in California. Some of them I prefer more than others, and some of them are preferred more than others by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

But one thing is for sure: limiting our State's water supply by holding up recycling projects like those in this bill will not solve anything. In fact, it will only prolong our collective efforts to seek solutions to California's water problems.

For these reasons, I strongly support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Miller and the committee for their work on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mrs. Napolitano.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just want to say that I know that my colleague on the other side of the aisle is upset because his amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee was not allowed on the floor. The fact is his amendment was not germane to the underlying bill and not related to water recycling.

Blaming the Endangered Species Act by waiving it for 2 years to prevent implementation of certain biological opinions will not put his constituents back to work. More importantly, such an initiative would not turn on the water pumps for the Central Valley.

To address the drought--the real cause of the water shortage in the region and the State--we must work collectively toward a solution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind everyone here that earlier this year several other local water measures were resoundingly approved by the House. They include the South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act, which was in Representative Calvert's district; the Lake Hodges Surface Water Improvement Act in Representative Bilbray's district; the Magna Water District Reuse and Groundwater Recharge Act in Representative Chaffetz' district of Utah; the Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling project in Representative Gallegly's district; the Hermiston water recycling and reuse project, Representative Walden of Oregon; the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act in Representative Nunes' district.

Until it was caught up in partisanship, H.R. 2442 would have followed the same procedure. H.R. 2442 is no different than any of these bills. What is different is politics.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that five amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for this bill. All five were nongermane. Not a single amendment would be allowed on this floor under an open rule.

I reserve my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, we are in a drought. We are in a drought. That's a fact. And this legislation will help ensure that future droughts in California will have less of a damaging impact. When water is used more efficiently, droughts like the one we are currently experiencing become less severe because we have built in defense mechanisms.

We know that the drought, and not the Endangered Species Act or House leadership, is the real reason why so many individuals are suffering in California's Central Valley. In fact, according to Ron Milligan, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operations manager for the Central Valley Project, the average delta water exports prior to 2008 were 5.7 million acre-feet. In 2009, the export fell to 3.6 million acre-feet. Of the 2.1 million acre-foot shortfall, 1.6 million is due to the drought. Only 500,000 of the decreased results are from the delta smelt ruling.

If anything, our colleagues who represent that part of the State should support H.R. 2442 as a means of fighting against the drought. They should also support it as a way to increase the amount of water available statewide for local agencies to access.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that further investing in water recycling is sound public policy. This bill would allow the Bay Area to reuse water. This legislation would not mandate additional water transfers or adversely affect California's Central Valley in any way. H.R. 2442 is a proactive step taken by our delegation to address California's water situation in a positive way.

I'd like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

The rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to make a strong Federal commitment to sustaining California's economy, water supply, and our environment.

This bill was reported unanimously by the National Resources Committee on September 29. It was voted under suspension on September 30. It was introduced in May. There has been ample time for the minority to review this legislation. Now is the time to act on it.

The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act would lessen the limited demand for fresh water by the region and the State. It is critical that we avoid partisan debate and disagreements over water issues and pass this legislation.

Moreover, the House has already expedited similar measures for a bipartisan collection of congressional districts across California. The south Orange County recycling project was passed in February in Mr. Calvert's district. The Lake Hodges Surface Water improvements was passed in April in Mr. Bilbray's district. The Calleguas Municipal Water District recycling initiative was approved in September for Mr. Gallegly. The Magna Water District Reuse proposal in Utah was passed for Mr. Chaffetz's district. The Hermiston water recycling and reuse project in Oregon was passed for Mr. Walden's district. And the Tule River Water Development Act was passed by a vote of 417-3 in July for Mr. Nunes' district.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that local water projects typically have bipartisan support here in the House of Representatives. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have set aside that tradition, forcing us to bring this rule to the floor today.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

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

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of

this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention

of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the

consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the

Rules of the House of Representatives to require that

legislation and conference reports be available on the

Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and

for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the

Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative

day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order

without intervention of any point of order or demand for

division of the question, shall be considered as read and

shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain

instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of House Resolution 554.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 830, I call up the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2442.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power.

Madam Chair, I appreciate your support for my legislation for helping to expand California's water supply. Is it true when the House considered the water recycling bill for Mr. Gallegly of California just last month no amendments were sought by the minority and none were included, in his water recycling bill, and that was approved by a voice vote?

Madam Chair, is it also true that so far this year the House has approved five water recycling or water reuse bills for Members of the minority party and that no amendments at that time were sought for any of those five bills, that those five water bills were each approved under suspension of the rules, either by a voice vote or by a substantial majority vote?

I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Chair, if I can pursue further, finally, is it true that when my bill, H.R. 2442, was considered by the Water and Power Subcommittee in the full Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, no amendments were offered by the minority or the majority and the bill was reported out by unanimous consent?

I thank the gentlewoman for engaging me in this colloquy, and I also want to thank her for her groundbreaking work in bringing water recycling and reuse to the forefront of the consideration by the Bureau of Reclamation as an important source of new water in California and throughout the west and southwestern United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I have no further speakers, so I'll reserve until time to close.

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

First of all, I want to begin by thanking Chairwoman Napolitano and Chairman Rahall, the Chair of the full committee, and Chairwoman Napolitano of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, for their support of this legislation for supporting the expansion of water supplies in drought stricken regions of our country.

At the end of the day, after all of the debate, this is legislation to provide for water reuse and recycling. Water reuse and recycling is desperately needed in our State of California. This is a policy that is supported throughout the entire State, including the valley, throughout southern California and northern California. Every part of the State understands the extent to which we can continue to create new supplies of water through use and reuse, recycling, that the entire State benefits.

Someone said, well, I was here in the drought and it wasn't this bad. We've added almost 16 to 20 million new people to the State of California since the last serious drought. We didn't do much about water policy during that time, but we've now put together a coalition from people who have battled over the years, Metropolitan Water District, Contra Costa Water District, L.A. County, San Diego County, the Central Valley.

Why are they coming together? Because they recognize how valuable reuse and recycling will be in the State of California going forward to meet the needs of its growing economy, of its diverse economy, of the importance of agriculture, of the importance of bringing new businesses to California, of developing and make sure we have clean water available for high technology industries throughout the State. That's why this bill, this policy speaks.

It speaks to so many areas of the State. It speaks, this policy speaks to Orange County and San Diego County and L.A. County and Riverside County and Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County and Monterey County and Alameda County and San Joaquin County. Why? Because it's important that we take the pressure off a system that's oversubscribed not just in drought years but every year. But we can get by in a normal year. We can't get by in the third year of the drought.

Now, my colleagues have suggested that somehow this is the bill in which we should settle California water issues. I find it rather interesting in February of last year when we passed the South Orange County Recycled Water plan for Mr. Calvert there was no discussion of this. There was no suggestion of amendments. There was no suggestion that this was high noon on California water.

When we passed the Lake Hodges Surface Water Improvement Act in April for Mr. Bilbray, no discussion of amendments, no need to settle these issues here. They never asked for time. They never asked for amendments. They didn't ask for a vote. They did it unanimously and by voice vote.

The Magna Water District for Mr. Chaffetz in Utah, no suggestion that we should take the Utah bill and battle it out over California water. No suggestion that somehow we were going to do something other than that.

In September, just a month ago, with Mr. Gallegly, for the Calleguas Municipal Water District, no suggestion of this. No requests for amendments. No debate in the committee on this.

And then, again, last month, Mr. Walden from Oregon, no suggestion we're going to take the Oregon bill and settle the California issue. Why? Because we know what's going on in California. We have a very difficult complex problem. The legislature, our State legislature, has been struggling with it for 2 years. They're in special session right now. They're locked in, and they don't know whether they will have the votes or not to do that. But people are getting together to try to solve it.

When this new administration came in, because I don't remember you asking for this in the first year of the drought or the second year of the drought or going into the third year of the drought, but Mr. Obama's been in town, what, 10 months, and somehow it's his problem. But when his administration did come to town, and when he did have a Secretary of the Interior and he did have a Secretary of Commerce, they immediately focused their attentions on this problem. And what did they do? They met with a cross section of our delegation to see how they could bring the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior together, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They sent millions of dollars to the valley to try to give relief to the farmers. They've supported our efforts.

I've supported the efforts to change the law that I wrote 10 years ago, 20 years, so we can have water transfers from east to west in the valley. That's people working together. That's not people just standing back and sniping at bills as they come through and pretending like they want to make policy or they want to change policy that's just political sniping. But it's interesting that they chose not to snipe on any Republican bills. They just decided they would snipe on this bill.

But at the end of the day, at the end of the day, this legislation is about whether or not we can move California into the future, whether or not we can continue to have economic growth, whether or not we can use the technology that's now available to us to provide for recycling, to provide for reuse of water. This bill alone supplies enough water for 24,000 households. That's not counting the legislation that we've provided for southern California, for Orange County, for San Diego, for San Bernardino and the projects that are waiting.

This bill was criticized because there's a $600 million backlog because the last administration would never release any money. We would have loved to have had the attention. We would have loved to have had the attention of the Bush administration's Secretary of the Interior to help solve this problem. What did she do? What did he do? They let some Under Secretary wander around changing the science, so we lost almost 18 months and we had to go back to redo all of the science because they changed it and they got caught at it. Criminal charges were pending at one point.

So what are we talking about here? The suggestion that somehow this all comes together around this bill is to forget history, to forget the inattention to this problem we've dealt with over the last 8 years, and to suggest that somehow that this can all be settled here. What this bill can do is make a major contribution to relieving the urban pressure on the system by creating this reuse and recycling of water.

And that's what the projects that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that's what they were contributing. This was one piece; we hope it grows. We think it will become more valuable.

It is bipartisan and has been from the very beginning. When I asked for stimulus money to go to recycling, I asked the administration, I said, do it on the

basis of their priorities, do it as they're standing in line. Some cities have been waiting a long time for this; they may be further along. Just let them come as they come up in line.

This isn't partisan; this is about whether or not people want to solve problems. You want to make political points, all well and good; but the circumstances won't change, the circumstances won't change across our State.

H.R. 2442 is supported by a number of agencies, municipalities and organizations, including: Association of California Water Agencies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Dublin San Ramon Services District, City of Mountain View, Redwood City, City of Palo Alto, WateReuse Association, Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Iron House Sanitary District, City of Petaluma, Santa Clara Valley Water District, North Coast County Water District, and City of San Jose.

October 5, 2009.

Representative George Miller,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Miller: The Association of California

Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to write in favor of H.R.

2442, legislation to expand the Bay Area Regional Water

Recycling Program. As you know, ACWA's 447 public agency

members are collectively responsible for 90 percent of the

water delivered in California for residential and

agricultural uses.

Since H.R. 2442 contains local projects with regional as

well as national benefits, the legislation meets the criteria

established in our blueprint ``No Time to Waste: A Blueprint

for California Water''. In particular, the projects in H.R.

2442 will allow for a direct response to help mitigate

current and devastating drought impacts in California. In

this regard, ACWA encourages the House of Representatives to

move expeditiously and pass important water recycling project

legislation.

As California's water supply challenges multiply, ACWA

appreciates your efforts to provide federal resources for

local projects to assure water supply reliability. Thank you

for sponsoring this legislation.

Sincerely,

Timothy Quinn,

Executive Director,

Association of California Water Agencies.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order that the motion to recommit contains a nongermane instruction in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.

Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point of order. That action by the previous Congress does not make it germane to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday the House will not be in session. On Tuesday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday there are no votes expected.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills, as is the custom, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition to the suspension bills, we will consider H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009, the conference report on H.R. 2997, the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, and the conference report on H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010.

First of all, let me say that, as far as I know, we have no premise that we want to pursue of a government takeover of health care, so notwithstanding the characterization, we don't believe that what's being proposed does that, any more than Medicare, from our perspective, was a takeover of the health care system. Having said that, we are working, as you know, as the press is reporting, on seeing what alternatives are available. There are three committee bills that have been reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, had full markups, Ways and Means Committee, and the Education and Labor Committee. As you know, they differ in part, and so there are now discussions as to how you meld those bills together with the theory and intention of offering a bill from those three bills.

We would expect the Rules Committee, at some point in time, to effect that objective, as has been done in the past. Our expectation is that we will do that within the time frame that we're able to do it; that is to say, there's not yet a resolution of how that is accomplished, so we don't have a time frame.

And we haven't set a time frame, but we will do it when it's possible to put forward.

Lastly, I would say to the gentleman, he and I talked earlier this week, as he pointed out, and I look forward to sitting down with him next week to see if there are areas where we can agree. If there are, we'd like to do that. And I think the gentleman has expressed his desire to do so as well. On the other hand, as we know, there are areas of substantial disagreement. It's certainly not our view that we can start over again. It is our view that this matter has had over 90 hearings over the last couple of years; that we've had over 2,000 town meetings on this, and we've been really at this for about over a year now, with very substantial discussions during the Presidential campaign from all candidates on both sides of the aisle, as to the fact that health care reform was necessary, and we believe the overwhelming majority of the American people believe that. Obviously, the details are the critical issue, and I look forward to pursuing discussions next week with the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield.

I do not expect a bill to be on the floor within the next 2 weeks, if that's what the gentleman's asking. I think we'll have time to have discussions.

If the gentleman would yield, because I think probably--to complete the answer--the Speaker and I are both committed to giving substantial notice, not only of the bill, when a bill is put together, but also of any manager's amendment which may effect the resolution between the three committee documents. It is our expectation that there would be at least 72 hours for either the bill and the manager's amendment or, if they are separate, 72 hours for each.

Since I made that representation, I have, in fact, met with both not only Mr. Berman, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but also Mr. Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. As the gentleman knows, there are two sanctions bills. One is Chairman Frank's bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly last year, and provides authority to State and local governments to divest their assets from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. That is not as consequential, obviously, as Mr. Berman's bill. Mr. Berman's bill, as you know, requires any foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise assist such sales to be banned from doing business in the United States. Obviously, that has real teeth to it.

As the gentleman also knows, October 1, discussions are underway with Iran for the first time in a long time. Furthermore, significantly, the administration is working with our allies, certainly with, as the gentleman knows, with Britain and France, but also engaged with Germany as well, and with Russia and with China, members of the P-5 plus 1, essentially, members of the Security Council plus Germany, on how we might respond to what the world has viewed as a violation of the U.N. resolutions and what Iran has been doing. The gentleman and I share a view that Iran's process is unacceptable, that Iran's pursuing of nuclear armed capability, weapons capability is unacceptable and dangerous to the region and to the international community.

The administration shares that view, and therefore, with respect to Mr. Berman's resolution, we are in contact with the administration, and Mr. Berman is prepared to bring that forward at a time when, based upon whatever may occur in the next week--I don't want to put a time frame on it--a week or two, that might indicate that we could get a broader international toughening of sanctions that now exist, with the agreement, particularly of Russia. As you know, President Medvedev has made some pretty strong statements about Qom and the findings there, and what he believes to be Iran's failure to keep the world informed and concern about what Iran is doing, which was a positive sign.

But with those considerations in mind, I know that Mr. Berman is very focused on this and ready to bring a resolution to the floor at a time he believes is consistent with the administration's trying to attain, with the international community, the strongest possible sanctions internationally, as well as our own sanctions.

If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate that, and I am confident that, as the gentleman points out, that we will move ahead in a bipartisan and overwhelming fashion on this bill. But I want to make it very clear: We don't have to wait for anybody. Having said that, the judgment of the chairman, in concert with the administration, is that we do want to see what developments occur in the very near term. And I think that's what I meant. Hopefully that's what I said. The gentleman's accurate; we don't have to wait, certainly for Russia or China or for anybody else, to take the action we deem to be appropriate.

As the gentleman probably knows, I have also indicated I thought General McChrystal ought to come to the Congress and testify, not only before the committees, but perhaps brief a bipartisan session. I don't mean an address to it, but a bipartisan briefing, either in the Armed Services Committee or on the floor here or in the auditorium. I think that's appropriate. As the gentleman knows, the President has been involved in very extensive consultation with the Cabinet members that deal with the national security issues, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen; General Jones, the National Security Advisor; Secretary Clinton; the Vice

President and others who are dealing with this issue.

As you know, there has been no specific request directed to the Congress at this point in time, either by General McChrystal, Secretary Gates, or the President, so that it may well be an issue of timing as to when they're ready to come to the Congress to lay out the specific plans that they believe we ought to pursue. But I think that everyone shares the conviction that this is a critical issue with which the Congress is going to deal, and that General McChrystal, who is the commander on the ground in Afghanistan, needs to come before the Congress and give us his best judgment as to how we can be successful.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And he's correct: we do have a different perspective on this. Of course, the gentleman supported economic policies in 2001 and 2003 that of course produced the worst job performance of any administration since Herbert Hoover. We lost 3.1 million jobs in the last 14 months of the Bush administration, lost an average of 680,000 jobs during the last 3 months of the administration that President Obama was faced with.

We acted decisively and boldly, in my opinion, under the President's leadership. In point of fact, we reduced the average of some 680,000 in the last 3 months of the Bush administration to, over the last 3 months, 350,000 and only 216,000 jobs lost. I say ``only.'' That relates to 741,000 jobs lost the last month of the Bush administration. That is a half a million fewer jobs. It's not where we want to be, but it is certainly a lot better.

Many economists in our party and, frankly, in your party, Mr. Zandi we refer to, estimate that we have over a million jobs more than we would have had had we not passed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There has been a 1.3 percent rise in consumer spending in August. It was the biggest increase since the 2.8 surge in October of 2001. The Labor Department released a report last week showing that during the previous week, the number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits fell for the third straight week, evidence that layoffs are continuing to ease at the earliest stages of the economic recovery.

Without going into a lot more statistics, we do have a substantive difference as to whether or not our economy is getting better. The good news, from my perspective, is most economists agree with us that we've bottomed out and we're starting to come up. We're going to have unemployment figures tomorrow that will be announced. Hopefully, they're down even further.

The stock market, I will tell my friend, in the Recovery and Reinvestment he thinks hasn't worked is up from about 7,200-7,300 up to about 9,700. I will tell you that every American that opens their 401(k) or retirement plan thinks that progress has been made. I know I do when I open mine. I am very pleased to see that.

So we do differ. We differ not only on the success of the economic plan that was pursued for 8 years that led to the deepest recession that we have had in 75 years.

But the gentleman stands and asked me a question about adopting more of those policies, and with all due respect, my friend, we didn't think those policies were going to work, we don't think they did work, and, in fact, the policies that your party voted against to a person in 1993 produced exactly the opposite results: high employment, low deficits; in fact, a net surplus at the end of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, and a reduction in spending which you doubled in terms of percentage, 3.5 under the Clinton years and 7 percent under President Bush's years. So, yes, we have a difference of opinion.

We think we have pursued vigorously policies to create jobs, create economic stability, create growth in our economy, and we think it's working.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill. I say reluctantly, because I and colleagues on my side of the aisle do support water recycling. We think it's a valuable tool for providing water to our farmers and communities across America, just as water storage is, Mr. Speaker, a tool for providing water for our communities.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat sponsor of this legislation, and the manager of this bill, the gentleman from California, has said previously, and is correct, that Republican water recycling bills have passed this House. That's correct. The question is, then, why is this bill different?

And the answer, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. When there is an economic disaster occurring in the San Joaquin Valley of California, when man-made and government-enforced drought has dried up farm after farm in that valley, with 40,000 workers unemployed, standing in food lines and being ignored by the leadership in this House, when solutions to bring water and relief to this area have been blocked and stymied again by the leadership in this House, then a point comes, Mr. Speaker, when Members of this House have to say enough is enough.

The water recycling bill before us benefits the San Francisco Bay Area. The Speaker of the House represents the city of San Francisco, and one of her top deputies, who happens to be the sponsor of this bill, is also from the Bay Area.

This bill provides millions of Federal taxpayer dollars for the Bay Area while tens of thousands of their fellow citizens suffer economic devastation just a few hours south and inland in the San Joaquin Valley.

All that was sought by the two Republican Members from the San Joaquin Valley, with the express support, I might add, of one of their Members from California in the same area on the Rules Committee, was to a have a chance, just a chance, to make their case on the House floor and to vote for a solution to this disaster in the San Joaquin Valley.

Mr. Speaker, they didn't ask that the amendments that they wanted made in order be passed. They just asked for the ability to be heard so they could persuade others to perhaps vote with them. That is all any of us could ask. Mr. Speaker, that chance has been denied. It has been blocked. Their amendments were deemed nongermane. It has been labeled as irrelevant to the bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, might does not make right when it comes to who controls the House because what the leadership is unwilling to do is potentially provide relief to those that have been hurt by

this man-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley and the policies of this Federal Government.

It has been stated, also, that the drought disaster is a California issue. The implication of that is that this is not of concern to other Americans. Mr. Speaker, that simply is wrong. What is happening in the San Joaquin Valley of California does affect all Americans. If this water recycling bill to benefit the Bay Area is worthy of consideration by the representatives of all 50 States in this House, then so is the drought disaster issue.

Mr. Speaker, if this can happen in California, then what of the farmers in the central Washington district that I represent? Hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland are irrigated in my district with water delivered by Federal pumps and from Federal reservoirs. I do not ever want to see the day that a government-enforced drought devastates these communities that I represent.

This isn't the first instance when Federal policies have threatened to cut off water to tens of thousands of people. Earlier in this decade, the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was threatened with the loss of its water supply due to the presence of the silvery minnow. Congress acted rightfully to provide relief to New Mexico when the House and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, voted for a remedy to Albuquerque's problem. Today, unfortunately, there is no relief to come to the San Joaquin Valley as relief did come to those in Albuquerque.

And the relief that is being sought, I might add, Mr. Speaker, is not a bailout. The amendments that were offered simply were a plea, and it was not a plea for stimulus funding or for any money. It was simply for an opportunity to allow the Federal Government to provide for water flow. It didn't cost anything. But yet it was not given an opportunity.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the House is going to provide authorization to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to provide recycled water to the Francisco Bay Area, then this House should be voting on legislation that brings relief to Californians suffering from this devastating man- made drought.

Mr. Speaker, it's on these grounds, even though I support the concept of water recycling, it's on these grounds that I have to stand here and urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, a former member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Calvert.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking Republican on the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the southern San Joaquin Valley, Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, reference was made as to why we are debating this bill on the floor, which obviously the concept of this bill brings forward water recycling and has broad support in this House. I certainly support that concept. But the inference was made that the only reason we are debating this is because of one Member--they didn't say where he is from, but I assume he is from California--who has been very, very outspoken about the economic disaster that is going on in the San Joaquin Valley of California.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that that individual is defending what he thinks is right for his constituents, and he is doing all the right things within the rules of this House to bring this issue forward so that we can have a debate.

The inference was also made by those remarks that this was partisan in nature. Well, I would just remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that on the rule, bringing this bill to the floor of the House had bipartisan opposition. As you know, when there are rule votes, they are generally along party lines. Yet, Mr. Speaker, 23 Democrats voted against this rule.

Now, I don't know the motivation of all of them, but I would certainly hope, and I would guess that they probably voted ``no'' because they felt this issue was worthy of debate. And, I might add, of those 23, four of them are from the Natural Resources Committee, in which this bill passed out of by unanimous consent, but there was some discussion in the subcommittee on the issue, and the cost, as Mr. McClintock pointed out so well.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this point: if somebody is accused of defending their constituents and that is done in a negative way, that is not what this House is all about. Every Member should be doing everything they can to defend their constituents.

So the debate on this really, I believe, is evolving into a bipartisan debate to have a debate on the underlying issue.

I yield myself another 30 seconds.

But we have been denied that. I would just hope that there will be some opportunity later on for us to revisit that and have these potential solutions that were brought forward by my colleagues that live in these areas in a bipartisan way to be debated.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the San Joaquin Valley, California (Mr. Nunes).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I stood up and asked my dear friend from California (Mr. Farr) to yield, and he said he didn't have time to yield, because I wanted to point out something that he had said and to clarify at least what I think is his interpretation of what he was saying.

He was saying that these water recycling bills are a 25/75 match, and that's

what the bill says. There's no requirement, however, in this bill for those recipients of these Federal dollars to repay these Federal dollars.

On the other hand, I come from central Washington, the Columbia Basin Project, Bureau of Reclamation area, irrigated by Grand Coulee Dam, and while they were built by the Federal Government, it's true, those monies have to be paid back by those irrigation districts. We don't get a 25 percent cut or a 50 percent cut. So I just wanted to point that out. We're not talking about apples and oranges, no pun intended on that.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, the reason that I reluctantly oppose this bill is because of what it does not do. And of course what it does not do is to provide for an opportunity to address a very, very serious economic problem in the San Joaquin Valley of California.

As I mentioned on the rule, there were 23 Democrats that supported Republicans on this. This would indicate to me, I would hope, that there is growing support for having this addressed in a manner in the House, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. I certainly hope that that is the case. And if opposition from me and others is a way to get to that point, I will be very, very proud of that.

But with that, Mr. Speaker, I have to stand up and reluctantly oppose this bill for the many reasons I said in my previous remarks.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will not be in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow, as is the custom.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009; the conference report on H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010; and quite possibly, assuming the conference is completed, the conference report on H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for coming by my office and spending time in discussion.

As the gentleman knows, health care has been the focus of this Congress for much of our present session; three committees have completed their work, ongoing discussions about how to put the work product of the three individual committees together. The Senate Finance Committee is, we think, going to vote on theirs next week. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has reported out a bill. So we have five committees that have essentially completed their work. There will be, obviously, once the bills are put together and all the suggestions are incorporated, a necessity to get a score from CBO. We expect that to take at least a week, 7 days, maybe more.

In addition to that, the Speaker and I have both indicated that there will be 72 hours' notice of the bill and a manager's amendment. I want to clarify that. If they both come out at the same time, it will be one 72-hour period. If for any reason they come out separately, then we will make sure that the last issued will have 72 hours before we put the bill out on the floor.

In light of that, my expectation is certainly the bill will not be on the floor either the next week or early in the following week. The earliest, in my opinion, the bill could be on the floor would be the latter part of the second week from now.

I think that would be the earliest, as a practical matter, that we could put the bill on the floor with the notice that we have indicated we're going to give and, of course, with the CBO score.

At this point in time, these are still under discussion, and, therefore, I don't have a specific answer for the gentleman. But the Speaker's comments, I think, spoke to the fact that they are still under discussion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In terms of where the Speaker and I are, we have been consistently for, as you know, a public option. The Speaker and I continue to be for a public option, as is the President, and we believe the majority of the House is for that.

I will tell the gentleman that I think that in terms of the reimbursement rates, as I said, that's still under discussion, but I think there is consensus that a public option is something, as the President has indicated, as we have indicated, that will provide a competitive model to both bring prices down and to protect consumers. So I think the answer is that that's certainly still part of our plan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have talked to Mr. Berman. He is in discussions with the White House. Both you and I are strong supporters of the legislation, as is Mr. Berman. My expectation is he has indicated that he wants to consider this bill and bring it to the floor, and I have told him that as soon as it's ready to come to the floor, I will schedule it for the floor.

In addition, I will tell the gentleman that it is possible that we will have the sanctions bill out of the Financial Services Committee. As you know, there are two different bills. The Berman bill is the stronger of the two. But we may well move next week, may move next week, on the Financial Services sanction bill, which deals with, obviously, financial transactions.

My expectation is Mr. Berman is looking at this and does hope and expect to bring this bill out either at the very latter part of a couple weeks from now or perhaps the first week in November. But I know he's very much engaged in this, and we very much support moving on this.

Of course, the conference hasn't been held so I don't want to predict what's going to be in there or not. I will tell the gentleman, as the gentleman knows, the authorization bill, the conference report that we just passed does have within it, as you know, a prohibition on the release of Guantanamo detainees in the United States, territories, and possessions. In addition, it restricts detainee transfers to the United States or its territories or possessions until 45 days after the President has submitted a plan to Congress certifying that the detainees will pose little or no threat or risk to the United States if transferred. That language we just passed.

Now, I can't predict whether the appropriations conference will track that language or will have different language such as the language to which you just referred. But I expect there to be language on that issue.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As I have said before, my expectation is that Members ought to be planning on at least 4-day weeks in the first week in November and the third week in November. As the gentleman knows, Veterans Day falls in the middle of the second week of November, and my belief is it's going to be very difficult to get Members back for a day and a half--and very impractical and costly--then to have to go back for Veterans Day and then probably not come back doesn't seem to be a very useful use of time.

But I have caveated that with the issue of health care. Health care is, as I said, the major issue that we're focused on. We think it's critically important for the American people to have access to affordable, quality health care, which is our objective. As a result, that second week we haven't given it away yet, but my expectation is that we probably will not be meeting that week. My expectation is also--and my plan will be--not to meet Thanksgiving week. I think people ought to be home during Thanksgiving week and, again, I make the caveat as to where we may be on health care.

Now of course if we can get unanimous consent to put it on a consent calendar and pass it, maybe we can shorten the time. But absent that, I want to make sure that we all understand that if health care, for instance, was being considered that third week and we had to move into Saturday or Monday to pass it, we might do that.

But again, I reiterate that for November, my expectation is first and third week probably here at least Tuesday through Friday of each week, and with respect to the second week, probably not here and the fourth week probably not here.

Having said that, you asked for the balance of the year.

Again, it will depend upon whether we can complete our work within those 2 months. If we can't, we will clearly be here in December. Again, as someone who has served here a long time and has seen us meet as late as December 23 or 24, I think that's not good for our families, it's not good for the Members, and I certainly am not one that looks forward to that, and I am going to do everything I can to make sure that we get our work done no later than the end of the second week of December.