Turn on the Pumps Act

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4252, the Inland Empire Perchlorate Ground Water Plume Assessment Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of water resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin in the State of California, and for other purposes.

I would like to also thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Doc Hastings, and my good friend, chairwoman from the Water and Power Subcommittee, Grace Napolitano, and the ranking member, my good friend from the State of California, Representative Tom McClintock, for their support of this legislation.

And I want to thank Representative Bordallo from Guam for speaking in support of this much-needed legislation.

I also want to take the time to thank my colleagues in the House of Representatives for their bipartisan support on an important bill, not only the Inland Empire, but it will also give us a study in terms of the effects it has on many cities too as well.

In addition, I want to commend the city of Rialto and the Perchlorate Task Force, city Councilman Ed Scott and Rialto Mayor Pro Tem Joe Baca, Jr., for their hard work and dedication in protecting families.

The city realizes that the water from over 20 wells was contaminated by perchlorate. I state, 20 wells were contaminated by Perchlorate. Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive, an unstable organic compound that has been found to be harmful to humans because it interferes with the thyroid function. And you know when it interferes with the thyroid function it affects many women and others in that area.

I'm very familiar with the water contamination. My family lives in the city of Rialto. My children, my friends and close neighbors know what it's like to live with water that is contaminated.

When we first learned that our water was not safe to drink, we were all very much scared in terms of the water and the quality that came out and the neighbors and the people in that area. We wondered how long this water was bad. We worried about the damage caused by poor quality water. We were nervous because we drank the water, cooked with the water, bathed our children with the water.

Therefore, I drafted this bill to make sure that other families and neighboring cities will not have to suffer or have that kind of fear.

This bill is requesting that the plume in the Rialto-Colton basin is studied, and I state studied. Plumes are underground pockets of water, and some are pools of water. Some travel like underground rivers.

In Rialto, the plume has perchlorate in it. We know that the water in this plume is moving. The contaminated water is traveling underground. We don't know how big it is or how fast the water is moving. We need to know more about the plume to permanently the fix the problem.

The research established by the study in H.R. 4252 will guarantee that the problem will be identified. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey is not something done lightly. It is an intense research endeavor.

As the Nation's largest water and earth and biological science and civilian mapping agency, the U.S. Geological Survey collects, monitors, analyzes and provides scientific understanding about the nature of the resource, the conditions, the issues, and the problems. The diversity of the scientific experts enables them to carry out large-scale investigations and provide impartial scientific information to resource managers, planners, and other customers.

As an unbiased science organization that focuses on biology, geography, geology, and water, they are dedicated to the timely, relevant, impartial study of the landscape, our national resources, and the natural hazards that threaten us.

The USGS study will reduce the perchlorate problems in my area that have caused heartaches, frustration, and fear. Fortunately, under the city council of Rialto's zero tolerance policy, the city does not blend any detectable level of perchlorate into the water system. They are all making sure that water is safe by conducting well-head treatment.

But what about the cities that do not have the policies or the treatment facilities to clean their water? How will those people be affected? How will the children be affected--how will those be affected by it?

We are very familiar with the wealth of water problems in California, as described by my colleague on that side, not only in the northern portion of California, where water is very much needed in that area. Apart from those problems, water contamination is one that can be prevented.

I ask that all Members vote in support of this legislation, not because it is a California issue, but because it is a national issue that could impact anyone. It is a way to help correct a wrong and to prevent further problems.

Commissioner Connor from the Department of the Interior stated that the directives in this bill are within the USGS's jurisdiction. The USGS has found that ground water constitutes about 79 percent of the drinking water supply in the entire Inland Empire. A study by the USGS is long overdue.

We have learned that perchlorate contamination began in 1940 through the actions of the U.S. military and continued to 1960 through the work of U.S. defense contractors, and was made worse by fireworks companies.

Some cities in the area discovered the high level of perchlorate contamination in drinking water in 1996. Since that time the USGS has not made the plume a priority. I state: It has not made the plume a priority.

Water managers need to know the source, and the fate, and the transportation of perchlorate within the Rialto Colton Basin and the adjacent basin in order to effectively mitigate the contamination. That is why I drafted this bill. That's why I'm grateful that we are here today.

In the administration's written statement regarding this legislation, they indicated that the citizens relying on water from the Rialto- Colton Basin would have to compete with other administrative priorities for funding.

The message you will be sending to USGS by voting in support of this study will be that families deserve clean drinking water throughout our country, and especially those areas like mine that are being affected. Families that rely on drinking water from the tap should not have to drink contaminated water, or wonder what's going to happen to their child or fear to give that water to their children or have to go out and purchase additional water to make sure that the thyroid does not affect that woman or that child or the individuals in that home.

This is a national issue, and it's a basic right for our citizens and their families. When someone has contaminated the only source of drinking water for the community, this issue becomes a national issue.

These families should not suffer from health problems associated with perchlorate. It is common knowledge that perchlorate affects the thyroid in our body. Women and infants are at greatest risk.

I want to let you know the hardship faced by people living in the area and why this bill is important. The people are innocent victims. Others misused the land and left us with a legacy of contaminated water.

The families in my area are living under a median household income of $41,254, very low for the State of California; and 17.4 percent of these citizens live below the poverty line. People in the area have had double-digit unemployment rates for many months. This area has ranked in the top five consistently for having the highest foreclosure rate. These families already shoulder too much of the cost associated with trying to find a solution.

H.R. 4252 moves beyond finding those at fault. We need to know and fully appreciate the extent of the damage. We must do this to help isolate the problems and prevent other cities from suffering.

The contamination plume is moving and many other areas will suffer. The hot spot for contamination is in Rialto, California, which has an area that in 2009 was designated as a Superfund site. That shows how bad the problem is because it is very difficult to obtain this designation.

This Superfund designation will help take care of the hot spot. But what about the water traveling? What about the water traveling underground in the plume?

What about other cities that are impacted? What about my neighboring city and the City of Riverside? The contamination is spreading and no one knows exactly how much of the contamination is moving or where exactly it is going. The well-head treatment alone will not solve the problem because of the contamination in the ground.

The Rialto-Colton basin has a plume that is contaminated by TCE, perchlorate, and other harmful chemicals. Without treatment, the water is dangerous. I fear for the communities that do not have well-head treatment facilities. The study will identify the extent of the damage underground.

The bill does not violate PAYGO. I state the bill does not violate PAYGO requirements, but serves to notice and highlight that there is a plume in the Rialto-Colton basin that must be reviewed. We have an opportunity to be proactive. Your vote in support of this bill is proactive and will help families.

Again, I want to thank Rialto City Council member Ed Scott for coming in September of 2009 to testify in support of H.R. 4252. He spoke not only for his residents in the city of 96,000 people, but also approximately 400,000 residents who reside in the neighboring cities that are affected by the chemicals which have polluted the Rialto- Colton basin.

I want to thank the Association of California Water Agencies for writing a letter in support of the legislation. What we learn from the study in H.R. 4252 will help other areas where there is the hardship of perchlorate. There are many States who have perchlorate issues. This study will help them be aware of what could be happening underground.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4252.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Whereas, on May 25, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver

W. Wanger issued a ruling that directed the Bureau of

Reclamation to reduce water exports from the Sacramento-San

Joaquin River Delta to protect a three-inch minnow called the

Delta smelt;

Whereas, on December 15, 2008, the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service, based on the Wanger Ruling, issued a

Biological Opinion on the Delta smelt that permanently

reduced water export from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River

Delta which is traditionally delivered to cities and farms in

the San Joaquin Valley and the Los Angeles and San Diego

basins;

Whereas according to a University of California at Davis

study, based on the water reductions outlined in the Delta

smelt Biological Opinion, revenue losses in the San Joaquin

Valley of California for 2009 will be $2.2 billion and job

losses at 80,000;

Whereas according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,

the unemployment rate in the San Joaquin Valley has reached

the highest level in the Nation;

Whereas region wide unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley

of California is nearly 20 percent and some cities have an

unemployment rate of 40 percent;

Whereas thousands of people who once relied on employment

in the agricultural sector are now unemployed and struggling

to meet their most basic needs, such as providing food for

their families;

Whereas, on March, 1, 2009, the Sacramento Bee reported

thousands of people have been turned away from local food

banks as supplies are not ample enough to meet local needs;

Whereas, on April 14, 2009, the Fresno County, California,

Board of Supervisors proclaimed that the man-made drought has

created an economic crisis;

Whereas on June 4, 2009, despite the ongoing man-made

drought in California, the National Marine Fisheries Service

issued a new Biological Opinion on the spring-run Chinook

salmon, Central Valley steelhead, the southern population of

North American green sturgeon, and Southern Resident killer

whales which further reduces water supplies to Californians;

Whereas, on June 19, 2009, California's Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for Fresno

County, California, and petitioned President Barack Obama to

declare the county a Federal disaster area;

Whereas on June 28, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior Ken

Salazar visited Fresno, California, and held a town hall

meeting in which nearly 1,000 people attended to express

their dissatisfaction with the lack of action by the Obama

Administration;

Whereas, on July 6, 2009, the Los Angeles Times reported

that during Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's town hall

meeting on June 28, 2009, the Commissioner of the Bureau of

Reclamation, Mike Connor, pledged to provide financial aid to

starving families and an audience member replied ``we don't

want welfare, we want water'';

Whereas, on June 29, 2009, CBS 5 Eyewitness News reported

that hundreds of San Joaquin Valley farmers protested outside

the Federal Building Plaza in San Francisco which houses

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district office;

Whereas, on June 29, 2009, CBS 5 Eyewitness News reported

the protestors blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman

George Miller for the water shortage in the San Joaquin

Valley;

Whereas, on June 29, 2009, CBS 5 Eyewitness News reported

that protestors were holding signs that said ``ESA Puts Fish

Ahead of People'', ``Congress Created Drought'', and ``New

Endangered Species: The California Farmer'';

Whereas, on July 1, 2009, the Fresno Bee reported that a

crowd of 4,000 marched through the streets of Fresno,

California, to demand that the Federal Government end the

man-made drought;

Whereas, on June 18, 2009, the Democrat leadership held

open Roll Call Vote 366 for the purpose of changing the

outcome of the vote;

Whereas during this vote, House Democrat leadership was

seen on the House floor pressuring Members of Congress to

change their Aye vote to a Nay vote in order to defeat the

Nunes Amendment which would have helped to relieve the water

crisis in California;

Whereas, on July 8, 2009, during the mark-up on the Energy

and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act, 2010, a debate was held on the Calvert Amendment which

would have restored water deliveries to Californians;

Whereas during the mark-up, the Chairman of the

Appropriations Committee, David Obey, said ``Recognize there

are certain actions, that if you take, this bill won't pass,

your earmarks in the bill won't become law'';

Whereas Chairman Obey violated Clause 16 of House Rule 23

by linking passage of the Calvert Amendment to loss of

earmarks;

Whereas, on July 14, 2009, despite historical tradition of

open rules during the appropriations process, the Rules

Committee blocked an amendment to the Energy and Water

Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

that would have restored water deliveries to Californians;

Whereas, for two years, the House of Representatives has

known about the man-made drought in California without taking

legislative action to resolve the crisis;

Whereas the lack of action by the House of Representatives

has demonstrated that fish are more important than families;

Whereas article 1, section 8 of the United States

Constitution enumerates that the Congress shall have the

power to provide for the general welfare of the United

States;

Whereas the House of Representatives has willfully and

knowingly failed to provide for the general welfare of the

San Joaquin Valley of California; and

Whereas the failure of the House of Representatives to

carry out its duties has subjected the House to public

ridicule and damaged the dignity and integrity of the House

of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Natural Resources is

instructed to discharge H.R. 3105, the Turn on the Pumps Act

of 2009, for immediate consideration by the House of

Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington.

Since this House is being denied the opportunity to debate legislation that would have a meaningful impact on the California water crisis, I think it is appropriate to take a closer look at the bill before us today. This bill funds a water recycling project for the Bay Area. That is it.

The sponsor of this bill pounds his chest and says he is providing 2.6 billion gallons of water for his constituents. Congratulations. What the sponsor will not disclose is that he has worked consistently to deny delivery of 200 billion gallons of water to an area that has 40 percent unemployment in some cases, that has folks standing in food lines, and land dry with tumbleweeds.

Now, it is ironic that this bill provides water only to one little area of San Francisco, the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, which already receives pristine water from a beautiful glacial valley that is not far from where I live in the Yosemite National Park called Hetch Hetchy. You heard me correct. The Bay Area gets water from one of the Nation's flagship national parks.

The City of San Francisco, knowing that it needed to provide water to its citizens, destroyed a portion of Yosemite National Park to construct its own water supply reservoir. I actually have a picture of what it looked like.

This is what it looked like before. If you have ever been to Yosemite, you can see that it looks very similar to Yosemite Valley. But now it is dammed up. It is dammed up to provide water to the people of San Francisco.

Now, that is really not the worst of it, because we hear so much about how the other side of the aisle cares so much about the fish and the poor fishermen that are losing their jobs because the water is not being delivered to the Delta to save all these fish that need to be saved.

Well, let's go back and look at a little map of Hetch Hetchy. This is Hetch Hetchy, Yosemite National Park. Here is the dam. And the water is piped. There is not a river. It is piped directly into the San Francisco Bay Area. This is the same water, Mr. Speaker, that would go down to save the fish that they care about so much. So do they honestly care about fish, or do they really just care about providing water to their people and serving their radical environmental friends that have worked for decades to cut water off to people that are just trying to provide food for America?

The leaders in the Bay Area and the surrounding region have used their muscle in the past to actually get by other environmental laws. They destroyed not only the beautiful national park when they needed water, they subsequently exempted their water project from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That is why they built the pipe, so they wouldn't even have to have a river.

When the Bay Area needed to add to its runway, they exempted environmental laws to build a new airport in the beautiful San Francisco Bay, one of the greatest areas of California.

But despite their own record, when folks a mere two hours away are bled dry of water, they have opposed a temporary waiver to allow not 2 billion gallons of water like this does, but 200 billion gallons of water.

I support these water recycling projects, but I oppose this bill because the author of this bill is the leader of the effort to cut off 200 billion gallons of water that would serve the greater San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego. So absent the inclusion of language that will address this government-imposed drought, this bill should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my Democrat colleague on the other side of the aisle that there were two Presidents that were instrumental in building the water projects that turned a desert into the most productive agricultural land in the world. One was named Franklin Roosevelt and the other was named John F. Kennedy. Last time I checked, they were both Democrats. That was back when the Democrats cared about providing jobs to people instead of serving their radical environmental friends in the Bay Area. My, how we've gone a long ways in this Democratic Party. It's sad to see this.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, yes.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit I have is pretty simple. In fact, what we have before us is legislation that is identical to legislation that this Congress passed in 2003 with overwhelming bipartisan support, so I would hope that you would make it germane.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.