Providing for consideration of 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.

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.

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 would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the House considered, under suspension of the rules, H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009. But the bill failed to get the necessary two-thirds to pass.

The reason that bill failed was not because Members objected to the substance of the legislation, but because the majority leadership brought forth the underlying legislation that provides water projects for the San Francisco area for consideration by the House while blocking the House from debating the desperate need for water in another part of California, the San Joaquin Valley.

On numerous occasions, my colleague from California, Mr. Devin Nunes, has submitted amendments to the Rules Committee so that those amendments could be debated and voted on by the full House. His amendments would restrict the implementation of the December 15, 2008, biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the June 4, 2009, biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. However, the majority on the Rules Committee routinely blocked consideration of the amendments, twice on the Interior appropriations bill and three times on the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

The reason Mr. Nunes has so steadfastly sought to have the House debate the restriction on those two opinions is that they have diverted water from the San Joaquin Valley, practically turning that area into a dust bowl.

Madam Speaker, why should Congress be concerned with what may look like a simple water issue? The valley is home to a $20 billion crop industry, and the region produces more in agricultural sales than any other State in the country. It can be argued that no agricultural area in the country is more productive and is, therefore, more important to our Nation's food security. If we continue to allow the diversion of water from the valley, food prices are going to increase; and we are also going to put our food security, national security in jeopardy.

According to a recent University of California Davis study, the water reductions have led to revenue losses of over $2 billion, and this year will lead to 80,000 jobs lost. The area now has an unemployment rate of about 20 percent. Some of its communities have an unemployment rate of nearly 40 percent.

Today, the majority comes to the floor with a rule that the House will once again consider the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act without giving the House the opportunity to consider amendments, including those proposed by Mr. Nunes. That is most unfortunate.

It is time that the House be given the opportunity to debate the San Joaquin Valley water issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue that's been debated, one thing continues to come to mind: the merits of this issue, this water issue of such importance to people in the San Joaquin Valley in California, have been debated during this rule debate because there is no other option.

The substantive legislation, two amendments that Mr. Nunes came to the Rules Committee and asked to be authorized for debate by the House, they were denied; they were not made in order. So there is no other option but during the time when we are debating the rule, the terms of debate for an underlying bill that will subsequently be debated, this is the only time when Mr. Nunes and the others who know this issue so intimately and feel it, appropriately, so passionately in representation of their constituents, it's the only opportunity that they have to be able to bring out the issue, to educate us. And it's a shame because the Congress as a whole, the House as a whole, should be able to debate this issue and consider it and decide it.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have written and called many of us and made their opinions known at meetings asking us whether we pledge to read bills before we vote on them. The reason is that many people were outraged when they found out that the majority leadership forced the Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or even to read the bills.

For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus bill and on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on a cap-and-trade bill. I remember that one was presented to us at three in the morning in the Rules Committee, and a few hours after that we had it here on the floor. All those bills were passed without Members being able to read them, having time to do so. That's no way to run the House, and so our constituents are rightfully upset.

You would think that this issue of sufficient time to read legislation should not be controversial. The distinguished Speaker stated, and I quote, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration,'' and yet that has not been the case time after time after time.

So 182 Members have signed a discharge petition at the front desk that

would require all legislation to be available to Members of Congress for at least 72 hours before the legislation is brought to the House floor for a vote.

So, accordingly, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend the rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, House Resolution 544, a bipartisan bill by my friends and colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson.

Now, with regard to any Members being concerned that that may jeopardize consideration of the underlying legislation, I want to make it clear that this motion provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can vote on this underlying legislation, the water bill, and then once we're done, consider House Resolution 544.

Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I want to thank Ms. Matsui, Ms. Slaughter, and the entire Rules Committee for their support.

Today's bill responds to a request for assistance from the State of California and local water managers to expand the supply of water in our drought-stricken State. It does no more than that. It is good for our economy. This bill will create thousands of jobs. It will reduce the stress on our oversubscribed fresh water system. This bill expands the water supply of six Bay Area communities, including my own congressional district.

This bill authorizes additional water recycling through the successful Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI program. Title XVI allows local water managers to treat wastewater and use the clean recycled water for other purposes within their jurisdiction. This bill would add 7.2 million gallons of water per day to California's water supply, enough water to meet the needs of 24,000 households.

My bill is one of a series of water recycling bills that have been approved by the House this year and in recent years to expand the water supply in Republican and Democratic districts alike throughout the West and the Southwest. They have been passed without controversy, without amendment, without debate on the larger California water policy needs.

This year alone the House has passed by voice vote and overwhelming majorities five local water bills the same as this legislation to provide for this recycling and this reuse. Why has the House done that? Because across the State of California, the water users in that State recognize the extent to which we can recycle and reuse water. We take immediate pressure off of the entire California water system, both the Federal system and the State system.

This is an investment in which there is unanimity that it must be made. When you talk about doing this, you are talking about helping the Central Valley, because you release the pressure. When you do this, you are talking about helping the Delta.

Clearly the cities, the agencies in southern California, believe this is important to their future. That is why the cities have put up the money to match the Federal effort. That is why my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come forward and asked for this legislation. That is why they have been approved overwhelmingly on a unanimous bipartisan basis, because they are critical to the long-term water needs.

You cannot help the Central Valley if you cannot relieve the stress on an oversubscribed system. It is just that fact. The pumps are on. The pumps have been on for months. But what they would suggest you do is, you devastate the San Francisco Bay Area. We have already lost tens of thousands of jobs, from the fisheries, from the ice stores, from the gas stations, from the tourist businesses, from the loss of the salmon running from Monterey, the midcoast, all the way up to the Washington border. Those jobs have been impacted.

This is not a good situation. That is why I said I haven't lost many lawsuits that I have supported. The point was to check your guns at the door and see if we could work together. And this has agreement--it has unanimous agreement of the water agencies across the State that this is helpful. This will make a difference. That is why they have supported all these projects.

We can start to work together, water agencies that today are down at the Department of the Interior trying to see if we could get things done that the last administration prohibited the Bureau of Reclamation from doing, such as entering new fish screens within the Delta that we think will save 250,000 acre-feet of water. 250,000. Does that sound familiar in the valley?

But the last administration would not let the Bureau of Reclamation take those projects, even though they would be paid for by State funds. That is the importance of this legislation. This is about whether or not we as a State come together from the Oregon border to the Mexican border and solve this problem across all of our needs, which is agriculture, which is business, which is municipal use of water.

We have the potential to do that, and these pieces of legislation are critical. That is why, up until now, the House decided on a joint bipartisan basis that we would get these bills as fast as we can to the Senate and hopefully get action and get these projects underway, because the cities have already put up the money, the engineering is done, the projects are cleared. That is why many of them were eligible for stimulus money, because they are ready to go. They have been waiting to go. They have been waiting, in fact in many cases a number of years, because the administration wouldn't put up the money until the stimulus bill of this year.