Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2954) to authorize Escambia County, Florida, to convey certain property that was formerly part of Santa Rosa Island National Monument and that was conveyed to Escambia County subject to restrictions on use and reconveyance, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3964) to address certain water-related concerns in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, California's drought is nature's fault, but our failure to prepare for it is our fault.

In California, the ruling Democrats have not only obstructed the construction of new dams for the past 35 years but they have also actively sought to tear down existing ones. They have substituted conservation for desperately needed storage, and now that we face drought, we find that our few reservoirs are empty, and our conservation options are already exhausted.

Worse, in the first years of this drought, 1.6 million acre-feet of water was dumped into the Pacific Ocean for the care and amusement of the delta smelt. Mr. Chairman, 800,000 acre-feet--enough for 4 million Californians--was deliberately drained from our now empty reservoirs just several months ago, knowing that that water was desperately needed to support the threatened human population. Part of that water was taken from Central Valley farmers, who now face economic extinction. This bill corrects these tragic policies.

It is true, we cannot make it rain, but we can take measures to stop this lunacy, increase storage capacity, reinforce existing water rights, and ensure that we never again must face a crisis of this magnitude.

This bill allows for the expansion of Lake McClure by 70,000 acre- feet. It gives local water agencies the ability to store additional water at New Melones. It sets deadlines for additional storage. It authorizes local water districts to partner with the Federal Government to expedite expansion of existing reservoirs and construction of new ones, and it reverses

the policies that put the delta smelt ahead of the needs of thousands of farmworkers and millions of consumers.

Now, the people responsible for these policies say that this steals water from northern California. It does not. This is only water that would otherwise be lost to the Pacific Ocean. This bill restores the bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that guarantees the delta the water that it needs and grants a portion of any excess to the Central Valley. This historic accord was broken when Central Valley water was expropriated for the delta smelt. This bill restores that accord while making provisions to increase the overall supply.

The other outlandish charge is that this measure overrides State water rights. It does exactly the opposite. It specifically protects State water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy--local, State, or Federal.

We have listened to the environmental left for 40 years, and this is where it has gotten us. It is time to reject these voices and return to the commonsense and proven policies of abundance that produced the prosperity that we once enjoyed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 174-250 when the gentlelady introduced it in 2012, and it deserves a similar fate on the floor today. Let's be clear about what it does.

It singles out Central Valley Project participants who pay their Federal loans off early to a punitive surtax that is imposed on no other Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States. Their surtaxes will be passed on to consumers through higher prices. Now, the Central Valley Project was already singled out for a punitive tax-- about $50 million annually--by Congress in 1992 to fund an array of environmental slush funds.

I believe that beneficiaries should pay the cost of water projects but that they should pay only the costs of those projects and no more. These are not cash cows for the Federal Government to milk until they are dry. When the left speaks of corporate farms, they leave out the fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated, and that is who we would be singling out for this special tax. That tax is then paid in only one of two ways: by employees through lower wages or by consumers through higher prices.

I have a modest suggestion. Perhaps we should start putting people back to work rather than running them out of business.

I have often criticized the gentlelady and her colleagues for policies that have created the conditions that indirectly send water prices through the roof, but this proposal does so quite directly and dramatically. I think that is why so many of her colleagues on the Democratic side abandoned her 2 years ago and why they would be well advised to do so again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it ought to be obvious to everyone that, once you have paid off a loan, you don't keep paying interest on that loan. Why? Because you have already paid it off. That is what every project managed by the Bureau of Reclamation does. When they are given permission to prepay the loan--to pay off the loan just the way you would pay off your home loan early--they no longer are charged interest for it.

The gentlelady would single out the Central Valley--and the Central Valley alone--for this punitive surtax. I have often wondered why the policy seemed to be aimed at the Central Valley. I don't know what it is that my friends in the opposition have against the thousands of farmworkers whose livelihoods depend upon farming in that region, but they have been waging war on that hapless and helpless group for far too long. This is another example of singling them out for a special punitive tax paid by no one else in all of the Bureau of Reclamation experience.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, more than any other, focuses on the central issue surrounding this bill: What comes first-- families or fish?

In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act carved out 800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated for fish and wildlife purposes. That water came out of the allocations for the Central Valley that all sides had agreed to. At the time, it was promised that the water would be replaced. That promise is unfulfilled to this day.

Worse, the Federal Government began treating this allotment as a floor rather than as a ceiling. In the mid-1990s, a zealous official in the Department of the Interior preempted State water rights and ordered that more than 1 million acre-feet of water appropriated by the Central Valley Project be used for purposes not authorized under water rights permits issued by the State of California.

This bill reestablished the 800,000 acre-foot allotment agreed to by all sides when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt promised: ``A deal is a deal, and if it turns out there is a need for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal Government.'' This provision redeems the promise that was broken by Mr. Babbitt's deputy, and the provision that the gentlelady is offering would have us delete that provision.

I might add that, also under this bill, the 800,000 acre-feet can be recycled by communities once it has met its environmental purpose rather than being lost to the ocean. To those who tell us they like recycling, this is the ultimate recycling bill. I might also point out that an amendment that had a very similar effect 2 years ago was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 178-247 in this House. I would recommend that we do so again today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from the Central Valley (Mr. Valadao), the author of this measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, like Tennyson's rotting mackerel in the moonlight, this amendment shines and stinks.

It states the obvious: the bill will not harm delta drinking water supplies. Well, of course it won't. After all, the delta counties are senior to the Central Valley in their water rights and so they have first call on that water. Under this bill, no agency of the State or Federal Government can take that right away.

Furthermore, under this bill, the delta counties can also reuse environmental water that otherwise would have been lost to the ocean, making this the ultimate water recycling bill.

This bill in no way affects the quality of drinking water in the delta or anywhere else. The proof of that is the fact that in the years following adoption of the Bay Delta Accord, which H.R. 3964 merely restores, never was it suggested by any water agency that drinking water or agricultural water was adversely affected in any way, shape, or form.

By placing this provision in the bill, it immediately opens it up to litigation that could tie it up in the courts for years. The mere allegation by a single litigant, no matter how outlandish, no matter how contorted, could stall these vitally needed reforms. It would also give this administration the ability to claim a right to nullify this law based on such a fiction.

A few years ago, when Central Valley water was being diverted for the delta smelt, I confronted the Secretary of the Interior in the Natural Resources Committee. I pointed out that with thousands of farmworkers unemployed, with a quarter-million acres of prime farmland destroyed, with food lines in the agricultural capital of the West, with unemployment in some of these communities reaching 45 percent, he had the authority to suspend the diversions and restore that water to the Valley to stop this human tragedy. He acknowledged that he had that authority, but he wouldn't use it, he said, because doing so ``would be like admitting failure.''

The amendment before us would give the same administration the excuse to ignore reality and act on ideological whim.

When this amendment was offered 2 years ago, it was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 177-243 in this House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), who introduced the predecessor to this bill 2 years ago.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to impose yet another environmental study that could lead to more water being diverted away from families and farmers and flushed out into the ocean. If you support throwing more stored water out to the ocean and making this crisis worse, then this amendment is another step toward that end.

Now, those who speak of ``resiliency'' and ``adaptability'' are using these terms to propose that dams evacuate more water storage earlier in the water year to account for faster snowmelt from the mountains and rain-based inflows. Now, just today, the East Bay Express reported that water managers deliberately dumped 800,000 acre-feet--as I said earlier, enough for 4 million Californians--into the Pacific Ocean that they knew was desperately needed as the drought continued to worsen.

Folsom Lake, the principal source of water storage for Sacramento and its suburbs, is nearly empty now because of those releases. We watched the Sacramento River at full flood all autumn and wondered what in the world were they thinking.

The fact is a hydrology consensus does not exist on this, and we should not be asking the GAO to investigate terms that are based on a lack of scientific consensus.

This amendment does nothing to restore water that continues to be lost to punitive Federal regulations and may, in fact, contribute to new regulatory overreach.

Californians are in a drought crisis now. It is time for action, not another bureaucratic study with no end in sight. This is why we must not impose studies in this bill or create steps to further erode water storage. We need to build more storage and capture more water, and that is precisely what this bill does. This bill is aimed at implementing a permanent solution to California's water crises so we can put people back to work permanently and restore balance back to California's water supply.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the gentlewoman is.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for making the point. I want people to look at the pictures of the empty reservoir at Folsom, the near-empty reservoir at Oroville and remember 800,000 acre-feet that could have been retained behind those dams was released by water officials for the environmental regulations that the gentleman defends. I think people need to reflect on that water that should right now be sitting behind those dams but for these regulations and realize what is exacerbating this terrible drought.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), my friend and neighbor.

Mr. Chairman, my objection to this amendment is similar to others of its ilk. It would allow litigation to block implementation of this bill indefinitely. There is, of course, nothing in this bill that would interfere with the State's water bond or its groundwater monitoring or groundwater conservation. Indeed, it will improve groundwater conservation since it brings balance back to surface water deliveries and restores the incentives for groundwater recharging.

The poison pill is not only the prospect of indefinite delay based upon the allegation of a single individual that can find the ear of a sympathetic judge. It is introducing the subjective standard of coequal goals for the delta.

The term ``coequal goals'' is something that is subjective. A term like this is subject to litigation not only at the State level but will be used as a means, if this amendment is adopted, to litigate this bill and delay the balance that it restores.

That balance was established by the bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that was hailed by all sides as a historic agreement to serve the coequal goals of human prosperity and environmental protection. When that agreement was signed, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt assured all parties that ``a deal is a deal, and if it turns out there is a need for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal Government.'' The water diversions for the delta smelt, based upon the same opportunity to litigate that this amendment renews, shattered that promise. This bill redeems it. The amendment should be rejected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the gentleman from California is.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has it exactly backwards. This prevents water from being stolen from northern California in violation of State water rights. It strengthens the water rights that exist in current law. It means that water cannot be stolen from northern California even by the State itself.

This amendment offered by my friend is a variation of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera) earlier. It gives the Secretary of the Interior the ability to suspend most provisions of this law until she certifies it will have no adverse effect on delta agricultural water. Well, the same points apply. Despite the fact that this bill strengthens water rights in which the delta is senior to the Central Valley, this bill would give the Secretary, on whim, the power to ignore this law even in wet years, an authority her predecessor has already emphatically proven can and will be abused.

I will challenge the gentleman to cite one example of a complaint that agricultural water in the delta was adversely affected during all the years the Bay Delta Accord was in effect. This bill merely restores the Bay Delta Accord while strengthening northern California water rights. If he cannot cite even one example, he must admit that this amendment is a hoax designed to nullify the law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close if the gentleman is.

Mr. Chairman, I remind the House that this same amendment was brought up 2 years ago and rejected, once again, on a bipartisan vote of 177-243.

I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, California has been plagued by litigation and regulation, delay and obfuscation on its water policy, and we are now living with the result of that.

The gentleman offers us an amendment that is more of the same--in fact, in this case, delaying the bill until the Federal Government measures the water content of clouds. Enough is enough. It is a time now for action, and this bill calls for action.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of the measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would invite my colleague to visit southern California to check with the rest of California on how we are handling the drought.

Ninety-eight percent of California, as shown by this map, is in drought. We are entering the third year of drought, the driest on record in California.

This bill, H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act, targets California's Central Valley only and was introduced 1 week ago with no hearing, no markup, no conversation, nothing, a partisan bill, introduced only by California Republicans, with no meaningful conversation or cooperation with the rest of the California Members, who are all facing similar drought impacts. It is similar to H.R. 1837 from 2011 in the last Congress, and it died in the Senate, as was pointed out.

According to the California Department of Water Resources, the snowpack in the Sierras, the largest reservoir in the Central Valley Project System, was 6 percent of normal. Last week, the National Drought Monitor found that 98 percent of the State is experiencing moderate to severe drought--so dry in California that in the first 18 days of January, the State saw 289 fires that burned 721 acres, including the Colby fire partly in my district.

The State has hired nearly 100 more firefighters and used a super water scooper airplane, at a time when California should be experiencing its wettest month.

California Natural Resources Secretary Laird said it best in a letter: ``This bill falsely holds the promise of water relief that cannot be delivered because, in this drought, the water simply does not exist.''

This legislation, instead, reallocates water in a way that erroneously elevates junior water rights uses above all other water needs, including municipal, fisheries and environmental uses.

It repeals existing State law for water use in California, establishing a very harmful precedent for other States. It repeals sections 104, 107, 108, 110, 204, and 401 that explicitly waive State law or reclamation law. It repeals historic California water rights and decades of carefully balanced water compromises. It undermines California and other States' abilities to manage its own resources. It overturns nearly 20 years of environmental and conservation protections under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, CVPIA, and the Endangered Species Act, and ignores the best available science demonstrating the negative effects on species. We are, in fact, a species too, the human species.

It repeals the Federal and State agreement on the court-ordered San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act. It prohibits Federal or State governments from exercising valid water rights in order to conserve, enhance, recover, or otherwise protect any species that is affected by operations of the CVP or State Water Project. It also reallocates water for junior water rights holders in the Central Valley and ignores the needs of southern California and other water users while privatizing a public resource for a select few.

It does not--I repeat--does not create any new water to solve the drought. It completely eliminates the coequal goal of protecting the environment and allowing water deliveries. It eliminates that coequal code. It puts jobs at risk, not only for fishermen but also the economy. It would revert contract renewal terms to 40 years instead of the current 25.

Mr. Chairman, the severity of this legislation benefits a very small group. It does not benefit all of drought-impacted California. It needs the cooperation of a bipartisan solution for all of the State, including southern California.

Water bonds in the past have favored northern California. The levee funding favored the Bay Delta, and H.R. 3964 favors Central Valley farmers only.

Southern California wants and needs to be included in a dialogue and be part of the solution. We are currently in dialogue with the Senators on a drought bill.

Title XVI, which is recycled water, WaterSMART, Republicans have been stonewalling ideas. They are not allowing bills to be given the courtesy of a hearing in the subcommittee or full committee.

The Bureau of Reclamation is working with WaterSMART project funding of only $27.5 million and water recycling project funding, Title XVI, of $21.5 million, with a backlog of $400 million in congressionally approved projects.

Mr. Chairman, I will submit letters in opposition: from the White House, a statement and a veto threat; from the Governor of California, Governor Brown; from the California Department of Natural Resources Secretary John Laird; from California Attorney General Kamala Harris; and from 34 diverse California environmental groups.

The Western States Water Council indicates their opposition has not changed to the provisions that preempt states' rights. The bill will just create more litigation over water and not solve anything. We need to work on a bipartisan basis on putting that forth. H.R. 3964 is not such an attempt. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3964.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Office of the Governor,

February 3, 2014.

Re Opposition to H.R. 3964.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Peter DeFazio,

Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative DeFazio: California is

currently experiencing the worst water crisis in our modern

history. We are in our third consecutive year of extremely

dry weather, and our most recent snow survey found that the

Sierra snowpack--a source of water supply for 25 million

Californians--is 12 percent of the normal average, the lowest

ever recorded. Since declaring a drought state of emergency

on January 17th, state agencies have been working closely

with federal, local, and municipal agencies and others, to

respond quickly. We have taken unprecedented actions to deal

with the crisis, including allocating zero water deliveries

to water contractors from the State Water Project for the

first time in the project's history. Last week, California

also released a comprehensive plan for future water

management, including storage, conservation, recycling, water

transfers and other actions.

H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into

California's efforts to manage this severe crisis. It would

override state laws and protections, and mandate that certain

water interests come out ahead of others. It falsely suggests

the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible

given the scarcity of water supplies. H.R. 3964 would

interfere with our ability to respond effectively and

flexibly to the current emergency, and would re-open old

water wounds undermining years of progress toward reaching a

collaborative long-term solution to our water needs.

I urge you to oppose H.R. 3964.

Sincerely,

Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the committee.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from northern California (Mr. Costa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Congressman Thompson.

May I inquire the length of time remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Congressman Ami Bera.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

We have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

In closing, we have heard a lot of conversation about what is good and what is not good for my great State of California.

We continue to stress we need to work together. Mr. Bera said that. Mr. Denham says create your own.

Well, I thought this was the House of the people and that we are supposed to be working together. That is why we have such a low ranking in the view of the American public--we continually fight against each other.

We need to sit in dialogue and be able to converse--at least agree on things that are necessary--to be able to help our country back on its feet instead of fighting over what is not necessarily fightable about.

Mr. Hastings, the chairman, talked about the resolutions of past legislation. Like anything else, we don't get information about many of the bills until last minute. I cannot get any hearings on some of my bills, and neither can some of my members get hearings in the subcommittee or the full committee for being able to address some of these issues that have come up on water.

In summary, we have, of course, this bill that repeals historic California water rights; overturns 20 years of environmental and conservation protections; ignores best available science; repeals the court ordered San Joaquin

Restoration Settlement Act; preempts California State law; and creates no new water.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter a Statement of Administration Policy:

The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3964, the

Emergency Water Delivery Act, because it would not alleviate

the effects of California's current drought and would disrupt

decades of work that supports building consensus, solutions,

and settlements that equitably address some of California's

most complex water challenges. California is experiencing

severe drought conditions and low reservoir storage. The

urgency and seriousness of the situation requires a balanced

approach that promotes water reliability and ecosystem

restoration.

It ends with:

For these reasons, if the President were presented with

H.R. 3964, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto

the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this very dangerous precedent for not only my State of California but for the rest of the Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 3964 is very, very simple. It is an inconvenient

truth, however, that it creates a revenue stream to the Treasury by eliminating an irrigation subsidy which requires irrigators to pay project debt with interest--in other words, ending free taxpayer subsidy since 1902, which has been in place since reclamation was created. It requires that any new water contracts or renewed contracts must reflect the price of water with interest and repay the debt of the project to only the Treasury with interest. This will be of small assistance to balancing our national debt.

When reclamation was established in 1902, it was meant to deliver water to farms with approximately 160 acres. Subsequent congressional action has changed the acreage limitation along with the repayment contract for these projects. So, in 1982, acreage was increased to 960 acres. Congressional action has also made the repayment of project debt interest free for irrigators while municipalities, like my constituents--my water people--and power users pay the required appropriate interest. I wish other State water users were as lucky as these folks.

H.R. 3964 removes the role of the Federal Government in protecting environment and public good. That is not good. If we are removing the role of the Federal Government, then we should also remove the Federal subsidy associated with renewed or new water contracts.

My constituents and anybody else's must fairly and equally repay additional interest on any project, and they have. For over a decade, southern California foresaw needed infrastructure, and many local entities stepped up to the plate and provided some relief. We paid for and constructed new storage facilities, like the Diamond Valley Lake Reservoir, entirely paid for by local groups and without one Federal cent, adding 1 million acres of new storage. This is on top of the investments we have made in title XVI--recycled water, which has only a 25 percent Federal match--which created 680,000 acre-feet in California alone.

Let's end this interest-free subsidy at our taxpayers' expense, at all of America's taxpayers' expense. Eliminating this unfair subsidy will help to cut our deficit, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

With regard to a statement that was just made on the Bay Delta, it seems that Secretary Babbitt and the Secretary of Natural Resources were the ones who actually passed the Bay Delta Accord, and 3 years were spent by Mr. Garamendi in trying to implement this.

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

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, we can go on debating the issue, but everybody who takes a loan has to pay interest, and I don't see any reason why since 1902 our irrigators have been singled out for not having to pay that while the power marketing agencies and other water agencies do have to ante up that interest. They do pass it on to the consumer, but the consumer understands why.

We need to be transparent on the issue and be able to let people know really what we are paying for. Yes, we have the lowest priced crops in California, but we must be able to ensure that we let the rest of the Nation know why we need to move forward. The Central Valley Project, the CVP, was $1.78 billion. Only $236 million has been repaid, and $1.45 billion has not been repaid.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an amendment that is in order so as to begin trying to help balance our budget. We hope that we will get our colleagues to understand that all of us have to hurt a little bit, and I don't see why this does not have the merit that it should, so I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of two separate bills: H.R. 2954, which is the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, and H.R. 3964, which is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.

It provides for an hour of general debate, each measure equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order five amendments to H.R. 2954 and eight to H.R. 3964, and of those amendments made in order, nine are Democrat amendments. So this is a fair and generous rule. It will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of both of these important pieces of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

My good friend from Florida was correct in at least one aspect. There are two bills that are involved in this particular rule, one which involves 10 different sections dealing with land issues that are critical to 10 States chagrined that they have to come to Congress for redressing their grievances. The other one deals with water issues.

To explain that water issue, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the sponsor of that particular bill.

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

I appreciate the gentleman's frustration. Those very proposals were offered by Chairman Lucas in the farm bill and rejected by the Senate.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I go into complete pivot to nongermane issues, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) to talk about how the first bill deals with water diversions, not water consumption.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

If the Speaker would forgive me for trying to get us back on the subject matter of the bill in front of us, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) to talk about the water bill.

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

I have appreciated the tone and the tenor of today's discussion and all the words that have been said on all the bills that are before us.

We have the opportunity of making the desert bloom if we do things in the appropriate way. We have done it in the past. We can do it in the future.

I recognize that most of the debate has been on the one bill in this particular issue which deals with the issue of water in California. Totally ignored was the other issue that is equally significant, especially to the 10 States that have an interest in that, dealing with land policy.

You see, there is a role for government if government is efficient and effective and compassionate and uses common sense. As I have worked with individuals, both on the ground from the Forest Service and the BLM, who live in the communities and know those people, they are usually fair, efficient, and effective people. They get it. But the further they ascend or are removed from the people and go up into the hierarchy of the administration, as they tend towards Washington, D.C., they tend to forget people and the importance of helping people, and they become hamstrung, as agencies, with a blind obedience to policy and to regulation so that the agencies become inefficient and ineffective. They lack compassion, and they are certainly devoid of common sense.

For example, we have one of the titles here that deals with islands off the coast of Florida, in 1946, given to those counties. They were told, as they had done that, that they could not sell the land, they could only lease it, which means that homeowners and businesses on this island that had been Federal property can now pay no property tax that helps the entire community to defend not only those areas but also keep the public lands open. It is an unfair situation.

Now think of this: This is property the Federal Government does not own, they do not need, they do not use, and yet they still control, by policy, what they are doing on that land which, I am sorry, is a silly policy that simply hurts the people.

We have the same thing across the country in Alaska. In Anchorage, there are 3 acres--3 measly acres--in the middle of the city, a city surrounded by Federal land, and you have to come to Congress because the rules and policy of the administration--the agencies--hurt people and lack common sense by denying Anchorage the ability to use that land efficiently, as they wish. Once again, this is land the Federal Government does not own, they don't need, and they don't use, but they still control what the local government can do with that particular piece of property.

In Nevada, Fernley, Nevada, they are willing to pay the government just to leave them alone. All the land they

want is within the city boundaries of Fernley. Once again, in this case, the Federal Government does not need this property, and they don't use this property. They simply insist on controlling it. What we need to do is simply get them out of the way so we can help the community to move forward.

It seems amazing that at many of our land agencies we simply have a gridlock as we have a highly centralized bureaucracy that values power over the principle of actually helping people. If Congress has to be involved in moving 3 acres in the middle of one community, that is a preposterous situation which we find.

I recently read a book that dealt with my church members living in Communist East Germany who had a very difficult time finding places in which they could build chapels so they could worship. If they found an area, simply a vacant space, they had to find equivalent private property to give to the state because the state government in East Germany insisted there was no net loss of property by the state. What I find amazing is we in America, with these land agencies, have that exact same philosophy: there can be no net loss of property to the government. That means either we are wrong today or Communist East Germany was correct back then, and I really don't think it is the latter.

We have another piece of property in North Carolina. In 2007, the government came up with a management plan. It was agreed to by the community, not happily, but they agreed to it. They did a biological survey and they found out that this plan does nothing to impede or harm any of the species available at Cape Hatteras. Yet the next year there was a lawsuit, and the land agencies, instead of fighting for what they knew was right and they had agreed to, caved, in a sue-and-settle settlement, which harmed the people living in that area. It hurt those people who were making their livelihood after the tourism going to Cape Hatteras.

Yes, in this case, the Federal Government owns the property and uses the property, but their control of the property is a total lack of common sense and a total lack of compassion and hurts the people who live there.

During the Clinton administration, the Clinton administration identified land in the Federal Government control that was not needed and that was useless. However, trying to find what those lands are requires you to go to 150 different sites to look in 150 different books. Why would they not put that on a computerized system so that anyone can have access to it and there is transparency in what we do and do not have? Yet the agency simply says that, even though that is a good idea, they are simply quite too busy to actually accomplish that task. In a response that makes the rollout of ObamaCare look well- managed, why do we need to understand where these lands are?

I will take a simple example. The Forest Service had land in one of my communities that they had owned for 40 years and did not know they actually had; and when the community wanted to expand their cemetery and did the title search, we finally found out this actually was Forest Service land. Needless to say, even though the locals wanted this land transferred and they didn't need it and they hadn't used it in decades, it still took 4 years to try and get this Congress to actually authorize it to take place, and then the Forest Service still charged the community $6,000 to do the paperwork to transfer the land over.

We have, in the middle of one of our National Guard units, BLM land that they don't need and they don't use, and yet we are still trying to get them to transfer the land over to the State of Utah so they can build needed infrastructure on a National Guard base that is still owned technically by the BLM.

That is why we need to understand what this is. We have a simple system, but we have bureaucratic lethargy in this country.

We have a mountain lookout, a historical site in Washington that was historic before wilderness was created in that particular area, and to try to shore up that lookout so it doesn't collapse, they were then sued by an agency. And some judge back on the west coast decided you have to send helicopters in there to tear it down because you couldn't actually make those kinds of improvements in a wilderness area on a piece of property that is revered by that community and they want to keep it there. Even the environmental community uses that as a staging point for their hikes and trails in that area. But this is a decision that is silly, and we have to make that decision by this summer to save that historic site.

In Yosemite National Park in California, a horrific fire destroyed both public and private lands. We now look at the fact that most of the private lands are now 60 percent recovered. They have gone through to take out the dead wood and the dead timber. They are starting the reforestation process. But on the public side of that land, we are still going through an evaluation process that even under an expedited system simply means that it will be until late summer before they can actually finish that, and then the lawsuits get to start.

Now, look, if you don't remove that dead timber, that burned timber within a year, it is totally useless, and all it does is become infested and becomes a source and a fuel for a future fire in a State that we have already heard is in their third year of drought and desperately needs the water for other things rather than fighting a fire.

These bills in this section of land try and solve these problems so we finally force the agencies to do that which helps people instead of hindering people's process. We find a situation where the agencies, today, of our government are inefficient, they are ineffective, and they lack compassion, which actually hurts constituents, hurts people, and they do not have common sense. That is why this package is so important, and it is important to do it now to help people.

It is simply sad that we are in a situation where Congress has to push the agencies to do the right thing. We should be better than that. We can do better than that, and that is what these bills attempt to do.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate that this rule is fair, it is appropriate, as appropriate and as fair as are the underlying measures that are being presented to Congress in this rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 472 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

See. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

3370) to delay the implementation of certain provisions of

the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 3370.

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

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have real problems facing our Nation. The measures before us today are partisan and have no chance of becoming law. My friends across the aisle would rather pick political battles than propose real solutions. We worked together on the farm bill, on the budget, and on the omnibus appropriations bill, and I hope that soon we will pass a bipartisan Water Resources Development Act conference report. Instead of continuing in a bipartisan manner, however, we are here once again considering partisan bills that will not become law. For example, H.R. 3964 is a far-reaching measure of drastic and immediate consequences for its chosen winners, yet the bill was introduced only a week ago and with only Republican cosponsors.

California is in the middle of a terrible drought. Some Californians are already reporting that no water comes out when they turn on their taps. They need a real solution. We have got our water issues in Florida. There is not enough of it in places that need it and too much of it where it is not needed. Yet my friends across the aisle have decided to handpick when states' rights don't matter and to take the opportunity to blast California's prerogative.

California has a plan--the Bay Delta Conservation Plan--that has been worked on in a unanimously important way. Instead, this legislation has turned a legitimate crisis into a justification for a power grab, prioritizing junior water rights holders over those with senior rights. I respect my colleagues from California, but the Governor is responsible for the entire State, and he expressly rejects the measure before us today.

Mr. Speaker, Californians already have, as I have said, a water use plan in place. The plan is a result of long, detailed discussions and carefully crafted policy. Yet this bill would substitute--indeed, preempt--the will of the people with a reactionary Federal policy. Specifically, the bill preempts California law, eliminates Endangered Species Act protections for salmon and other fisheries, overturns existing Federal law, as well as undermines existing agreements and court orders related to water use in California.

Moreover, this bill will not fix the problem, which is simple--there is not enough water. H.R. 3964 will not end the drought. It will not create more water. Simply put, it will only decide who will go thirsty.

California's secretary for natural resources, John Laird, wrote to the relevant committees:

The bill falsely holds the promise of water relief that

cannot be delivered because, in this drought, the water

simply does not exist.

How and when to direct water is very similar to problems we face in the Everglades. Without an ongoing flush of water into the ocean, seawater intrudes upon the delta. You then wind up with saltwater inland, and then you might as well not have any water at all.

I didn't have to deliberate long to decide against this bill. California, the State the bill supposedly helps, is strongly opposed to it. Let me be very clear. That means the Governor and those who are critical to it are opposed. I understand that there are members of the California delegation who do support this matter, and I respect that. I can't say it any better myself. The only way we are going to help California is to realize that you can't play politics with a person's drinking water.

Turning now to the other piece of legislation, H.R. 2954 is no better either substantively or procedurally. My friends across the aisle continue to play fast and loose with their pledge to address one issue at a time. That is what they said. H.R. 2954 is 10 unrelated bills stitched together. Some of the provisions we are looking at today are not controversial, but rather than pass noncontroversial provisions through less contentious means, my friends have packaged them together with partisan measures for rank political purposes.

It is Frankenstein's parliamentary monster.

The other day at the Rules Committee, my friends across the aisle talked about how much they love national parks, and shared their experiences hiking and visiting the parks with their families. Yet they are still bringing H.R. 2954 to the floor, a bill that would greatly hamstring the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the United States Forest Service in their capabilities to protect public land and endangered species.

These 10 bills are designed to influence or dictate management decisions about the conveyance or disposal of Federal lands. They tie the hands of public land managers and give away millions of dollars worth of Federal land to local governments without ensuring the land is used in the public's best interest.

They include drastic changes to regulations related to grazing policy and waive or undermine existing environmental law. Some of these provisions would be significantly less controversial were it not for the unnecessary provisions waiving environmental protections. It is no secret my friends across the aisle look to undermine, if not eliminate, the National Environmental Policy Act at every chance they can.

These are the kinds of policies that leave 300,000 West Virginians without

water to drink or bathe. We don't know the effects of the chemicals that spilled into the drinking water for 300,000 West Virginians. We don't know yet how much or even specifically what was spilled. The lasting damage to West Virginia's water supply can't be predicted. That is why it should be an exemplar for why we need to have careful environmental regulations everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, week after week, my Republican colleagues continue to bring up partisan bills that offer no relief to hardworking Americans. I believe that this institution is better than that and must change course.

I am astounded that we haven't authorized unemployment insurance.

Let me repeat that. I am astounded that we have not reauthorized unemployment insurance for now what is 1.6 million Americans. With each passing day, more families face the threat of losing their homes. With each passing day, our roads, bridges, schools, parks, ports, airports, and railways continue to degrade due to lack of adequate investment. With each passing day, Americans burdened by long-term unemployment see little, if any, action in the House of Representatives to give them hope.

With so many Americans and their families enduring difficult times, we cannot afford to wait any longer. Americans deserve peace of mind and a government that functions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), with whom I served previously on the Intelligence Committee and who is as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who is a member of the Education and Workforce Committee and a former chair of the relevant committee having to do with the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we gave the House an opportunity to consider flood insurance reform which the Senate has already adopted, but unfortunately it was denied. As incongruous as it might be, we consider it such an important issue, while we are here talking about an equally important issue, drought, to bring up this measure having to do with flood insurance. It is an important issue for families across the Nation, so today we will provide that opportunity again.

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to this rule to bring up a bill that will delay flood insurance premium hikes and provide financial relief to thousands of American families and, specifically, families in Florida.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), my good friend.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

I wish to make clear to my friend on the other side who continues to say that he wants to bring us back to the subject matter of this underlying bill that the minority has been granted a motion to recommit, and that motion to recommit is just as relevant as the underlying bill.

To speak to this issue, then, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia) who is a dear personal friend of mine. He and I share concerns about issues related to Florida as well as this Nation, as it pertains to flood insurance.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my friends across the aisle have failed to recognize the irony in bringing these bills together to the floor at the same time.

The California water bill is an acknowledgement of how important clean water is, while the public lands bill undermines our ability keep that water clean. It would be funny if it weren't the absolute truth of the matter.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, meteorologists are calling the high-pressure zone at the root of the drought in California ``the ridiculously resilient ridge.'' In that spirit, one could say that the Republicans' resistance to extending unemployment insurance, fixing our aging infrastructure, raising the debt ceiling, fixing flood insurance, and passing comprehensive immigration reform is also a resilience worthy of the same adverb.

I believe that it is time for Congress to get serious about moving our country forward. The motion to recommit is particularly relevant to all of us in this Nation as it pertains to flood insurance, and this underlying bill, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) said earlier, is horrible.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3964.

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

Mr. Chairman, the House today is considering H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.

Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent on irrigated water to support our local economic and agriculture industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable water supply, and I also understand the economic devastation that is caused when the water supply is shut off, particularly when the shutoff is avoidable.

California is facing an emergency situation. For years, San Joaquin Valley farmers have been fighting against Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits that have diverted water supplies in order to help a 3-inch fish. In 2009, there was a deliberate diversion of over 300 billion--that is ``billion,'' Mr. Chairman--gallons of water away from farmers. As a result, thousands of farmworkers lost their jobs, unemployment in some areas reached 40 percent, and thousands of acres of fertile farmland simply dried up.

As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have traveled to Fresno, California, and seen the effects of natural and manmade drought firsthand. We have held multiple hearings and heard the pleas of communities that simply want the water turned back on and their livelihood restored.

We have seen farmers, Mr. Chairman, who normally help feed the Nation being sent to wait in line at food banks and, in some cases, being served carrots that are normally grown in this area that are from China.

That is why, last Congress, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation to restore the flow of water to avoid future droughts. In fact, the Senate did not take up a single water bill in this last Congress, even after we had passed our legislation.

So, once again, we are back here on the floor of the House with legislation to help California communities once again facing water shutoffs. But now, Mr. Chairman, the situation is much more dire.

The lack of rainfall has exacerbated the manmade drought, and last month, the California Governor declared a state of emergency. A manmade drought coupled with a natural drought equals disaster and requires immediate action. Of course, these conditions could have been partially avoided if only the Senate had acted on the House-passed legislation last year.

This comprehensive solution before us today, almost identical to what the House passed the last Congress, would restore some water deliveries that will be cut off due to Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits, ensure a reliable water source for people and fish, secure water rights, and save taxpayer money by ending unnecessary and dubious government projects.

Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that this crisis does not just impact California, but it has rippling effects across the entire Nation. California's San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl for the world and provides a significant share of the fruits and vegetables for our country.

Food grows where water flows. When there is no water, our food supply suffers, resulting in higher food prices across the country and increased reliance on foreign food sources.

This bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to end future manmade droughts, and to protect the jobs and economic livelihoods of farm families and their workers.

The people of the San Joaquin Valley cannot wait any longer, Mr. Chairman, for Congress to act. As the title of this bill suggests, it is truly an emergency for many, and time is running out. I sincerely hope that, unlike the last Congress, our Senate colleagues will take up this bill or propose a meaningful alternative to it, then we can come together and figure out where we disagree and then agree on a final package. These communities facing massive unemployment deserve nothing less.

This bill is supported, Mr. Chairman, by the entire Republican California delegation, and I commend my colleagues from California for their hard work in getting this bill to the floor today. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of this legislation, whose district has been heavily impacted by this manmade drought.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the committee who has worked very hard on this legislation in the last Congress and in this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), another member of the Natural Resources Committee and a Californian.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), another former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of the legislation that passed this House in a bipartisan way last time, which this bill emulates.

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

This debate, Mr. Chairman, is very interesting. And what we are presenting here today and what is being presented by my California colleagues is, from their point of view, a solution to a problem caused by a drought and caused by regulatory action in the State of California.

I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand up-- virtually everybody has said this. I know my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, said something that I will allude to in a moment. Mr. Costa said something about that. The ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee said something about what I am going to say, and, I dare say, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano) said the same thing.

The thread of what they all said is that there are solutions, and we need to work together. We need to find these solutions, to which our side says fine, this is our solution. We recognize you may not like it. We recognize that. But we also have one other point that we need to recognize, and that is the genius of our Founding Fathers. They created two branches of the legislative branch, the Congress: the House, in which we have the privilege of serving, and the Senate.

I made the observation in my opening statement that the Senate has not acted on any water bill laws at all. Well, finally somebody in this area is catching that message, because the Fresno Bee in California, which is right in the epicenter, if you will, of the San Joaquin Valley, editorialized last week that Senator Feinstein must step up and lead on the drought. What that means, of course, is step up and write a piece of legislation. I have heard my colleagues say we are working on a piece of legislation, maybe by next week.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make this point. This is very specific. Introducing a piece of legislation is not legislating. Legislating is when you pass a piece of legislation out of your respective House, and I think that is what the Fresno Bee is saying right here when they tell Senator Feinstein and others that they need to step up on this and pass some legislation.

Listen, I am sure that legislation will be different than this. We have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is fine. I can take it, and, I dare say, my California colleagues can take it, too, and then we can work out the difference. But we don't know what your position is.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good piece of legislation. The last Congress acted on it, and it should act on it again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to remarks that the previous speaker from California made about the potential danger in this bill as they relate to water rights in other States.

What the gentleman was alluding to is absolutely incorrect because the language in this bill is very specific; it is very specific as it relates to California.

We went through this process in the last Congress when we went through hearings because other States--my State included--was very, very concerned that whatever preemption had to do with water here would affect other States. Last year in this bill, the language is very, very specific: it does not apply to other States; it is California-centric only.

So I want to make that point, Mr. Chairman.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire of my friend if she has any more speakers; and, if not, if she is prepared to close, her side is prepared to close, I am prepared to close.

In that case, I reserve the balance of my time so you can close, and we will have one final speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member stated, this amendment states that the California Governor's declared drought emergency is considered a request to the Federal Government to declare a fisheries disaster. Under longstanding law, the Governor can make such a request by sending a letter to the Commerce Secretary.

The amendment does not change underlying law that requires the Commerce Secretary to determine whether a fisheries disaster declaration is merited. This amendment simply serves as a request, but the Commerce Secretary still has discretion to make a decision on this request. As such, we do not have any objections to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.