Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, immigration is one of the more important issues that we must face around here. It is one we take seriously. This debate, sadly, is more about politics, in my view.

Our decisions affect people's lives and America's future. We must stop these partisan ``gotcha'' bills, empty-messaging resolutions, and ideological hijacking of our policy discussions. Rather, we must come together and do our work and create a fair and effective immigration system, one that reflects our values.

We must have and we need bipartisan, comprehensive immigration laws to fix our broken immigration system, much like was done in 2013. Unfortunately, it didn't pass. Then we must smartly enforce it.

We have big challenges. We must take care of the Dreamers stuck in DACA limbo; we must reunite families who are separated, secure our borders--yes, we must--using every effective means possible; and we must bring undocumented neighbors out of the shadows.

I will vote for this resolution, but it is not about abolish or support ICE.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution, but it is not about abolish or support ICE. I respect the need for interior and immigration enforcement, and I have concerns about how this administration is doing it.

Enough of political games, catering to the loudest and most extreme voices in both parties. Let's check our ideology at the door. Let's get to work on bipartisan, commonsense immigration reform. That is what the people want us to do.

Mr. Speaker, I draw attention to the human right to have water to sustain ourselves.

Benjamin Franklin once said about this precious resource, water, that ``When the well's dry, we know the worth of water.''

In the San Joaquin Valley, I can tell you we know the worth of water. It is the lifeblood of our Valley communities and our agricultural economy. We like to say, Where water flows, food grows.

The Valley is one of the most advanced agricultural regions in the world. We produce over 250 crops that provide over 50 percent of the United States' fruits and vegetables on America's dinner table every night. The bounty of nature of food that we produce is coaxed out of the ground by some of the hardest working people you will ever meet, farmers and farmworkers, and it relies on a clean and reliable water resource.

And America's food supply, make no mistake about it, is a national security issue. I have spent decades working for commonsense short- and long-term solutions to address California's broken water system. When I served in the California legislature, I carried multiple bonds that were passed that provided over $2 billion for crucial water projects.

While in Congress, I have advanced legislation that have improved water supplies and funding for projects in many different ways: The North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program, which helps irrigate over 44,000 acres in western Merced and Stanislaus Counties with local and recycled water, and the San Luis-Delta Mendota Intertie project, which brings up to over 35,000 acre-feet of water annually to most of our rural Valley communities to advance efforts that are so important, that make a difference.

In addition, that doesn't include the success of the WIIN Act, bipartisan legislation which I helped lead through 4 years of tough negotiations. It became law in 2016. The WIIN Act creates more flexibility to move water based on real-time water realities and provides authorization for $563 million in Federal funds for water projects, like expanding Shasta Reservoir, like raising San Luis Reservoir, and like creating Temperance Flat.

Just this month, legislation I introduced to allow local water districts to improve the efficiency of dams passed the House. I call on the Senate to move this bill to the President's desk.

In the Valley, this would allow the Merced Irrigation District to advance a project to raise the spillway at New Exchequer Dam. This would increase the supply of water, over 56,000 acre-feet of water-- much needed.

However, it seems like every time we are able increase our drought resilience, State or Federal regulators decide that they need to take more water from the Valley. It is wrong and it is unfair.

The most recent attempt to repurpose the Valley water supplies came earlier this month by the California State Water Board. Staff released the final draft of a plan that is simply unacceptable. And I must say, it is pretty easy to reallocate water when it is not your water supply. That is what the State board did.

The plan, if adopted, will effectively double the amount of water that must

remain in the San Joaquin River tributaries. This will force thousands of acres of farmland out of production, ravaging communities across the Valley, and weakening America's food security and its supply.

The board staff claims these changes are necessary to prevent total collapse of the fisheries in the Delta But this plan will not save fish, sadly. It does not address the other problems that faces the fisheries; namely, rising water temperatures, lack of food, habitat, and increased predators, none of which have anything to do with the water flows.

This plan is in direct conflict with another California law that mandates we must use our groundwater more sustainably, which must be done. We must come into balance. However, it is impossible to use groundwater sustainably when we must pump groundwater to replace the surplus water that is being taken away. These actions are in conflict. It doesn't make any sense.

Our agricultural economy is showing tremendous innovation, growing twice as much food on a fraction of the water that we used to receive. But we have reached the tipping point--a point where the taking of the resource outstrips our ability to innovate.

Without water, we cannot feed America or maintain our quality of life, our sustenance. Our Valley and our Nation need long-term solutions that provides for reliable sources of safe drinking water, water for agricultural industries, as well as for our cities.

We, in the Valley, the San Joaquin Valley will continue to fight for the water we need to grow America's food. Because, in the Valley, we know the worth of water. We know it when the well runs dry, as Benjamin Franklin said.

So, in conclusion, we must work together in California to fix our broken water system for the long-term benefits of America's food supply.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and colleague Nat DiBuduo as he retires from his position as president and CEO of Allied Grape Growers after 18 years of service to California wine grape growers. Under his exemplary leadership, Allied and its members have demonstrated perseverance in the face of economic hardship, achieved prosperity through innovative thinking, and shown integrity by holding their partners to the highest possible standards. It is both fitting and appropriate that we honor Nat today as he closes the chapter on a remarkable tenure with Allied Grape Growers.

After graduating from San Joaquin Memorial high school in 1968, Nat attended California State University, Fresno and obtained a degree in Plant Science and Business in 1973. Over the years, Nat has amassed experience within the industry by working in his family's winery, independent consultancy, and agricultural property management. Nat's passion for agriculture led him to the wine grape industry. In 2000, he was named president and CEO of Allied Grape Growers, a 500-member marketing association made up of wine grape growers across the country.

Through coordinated efforts with his board, Nat directed strategic planning and development to proactively respond to market challenges. With continual resilience against an unstable grape market in the early 2000s, Allied was able to prevail with significant financial leverage. By monitoring market changes and establishing strong communication among their growers and wineries, Nat successfully expanded membership and clientele and maximized the quality of harvests.

Given Nat's outstanding dedication to the wine grape market and San Joaquin Valley's agriculture, it is difficult to determine how Allied Grape Growers would have fared amid economic tumult without his guidance. Nat and his team's care and concern established Allied as a visionary organization within California's wine and agricultural industry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognition of my friend Nat DiBuduo's in honor of his remarkable career in California's agricultural industry. He is someone who has been an inspiration, not only through his professional achievements, but also through the relentless and spirited attitude he adopts against adversity. Nat will leave a robust foundation for Allied to continue to build on. I wish Nat and his wife Marilyn the very best as they enter this new phase of their life. I ask that you join me in wishing Nat and his family continued happiness and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon my colleagues to join me in addressing our Nation's rising debt. As of this week, our national debt is

over $21 trillion, with a T. When we allocate that to each man, woman, and child, it is $64,600--Mr. Speaker, $64,600 for every man, woman, and child.

We are this far in debt because of irresponsible governing and a lack of political courage, regardless of which party has been in control in recent years.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its long-term budget outlook last month. It showed that the Federal debt held by the public will approach 100 percent of our gross domestic product within the next 10 years if we keep heading down this path.

Sadly, this Congress has chosen to continue this irresponsible, unsustainable fiscal course. It is irresponsible.

The tax cut legislation that our Republican colleagues rammed through Congress last December is projected to add over $1.45 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years and $2.2 trillion to our national debt. Some estimate that it will even be more. This is unsustainable.

That is an additional $2.2 trillion that our children will have to pay unless we do something different. We cannot ask future generations to carry the weight of our shortsighted decisions and political cowardice. Not only is it unfair, but it is just plain wrong.

Yes, reining in our spending will be hard. It is always hard and difficult to make choices. We will get attacked by other political organizations and interest groups who dislike or disagree with our choices, but that is why we are here.

This happened in 2012, when the House had the opportunity to address the rising debt and deficit and supported a budget resolution by my colleague and good friend Congressman Jim Cooper from Tennessee. The resolution was similar to the recommendations made by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, and it would have reduced our debt by over $4 trillion over 10 years. It would just start to bend the curve. I stood with Congressman Cooper and 36 other House Members who supported the resolution, and a lot of groups attacked us.

President Kennedy, many years ago, wrote a book called ``Profiles in Courage,'' in which he wrote of individual Members of Congress who made politically tough choices. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of those political profiles in courage in Congress these days, sadly.

We were sent here to serve the American people, even when faced with difficult choices. We are not sent here to do the easy thing. We are sent here to try to do the right thing and to come together in a bipartisan fashion. That is the only way you are going to get these things done.

We must find the political courage to make the tough choices and create smart and fiscally responsible policies that will have real and lasting effects in reducing our national debt. This will require, again, that Democrats and Republicans work together, which is, in itself, sadly, too often in rare supply these days.

But if we don't put our partisan bickering and electoral fears aside long enough to do what is right for America, then when will we?

If we don't make decisions now to get the Nation's fiscal House in order, the programs on which Americans rely--important programs that most of us support like Social Security, like Medicare--will be impacted.

Mr. Speaker, on this day in 1974, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act became law. Forty-four years ago, the 93rd Congress came together to pass this law to strengthen our budget authority and to increase the capacity to make informed and independent decisions regarding America's budget to, in essence, put our fiscal house in order.

I stand here today, 44 years later, calling on the 115th Congress to use that information and capacity that we now have to make these difficult choices and have the political courage to put our Nation's fiscal house back on a responsible path. It is what our country needs; it is part of America's future; and, my fellow Americans, it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I remember very clearly when President Clinton asked Vice President Gore to conduct an effort to reorganize government at the Federal level, to make it more efficient, to look for ways in which we could cut down on bureaucratic red tape and to try to find other efficiencies that exist. This was but one of many recommendations that Vice President Gore and his group came up with.

Mr. Speaker, the success of the Bureau of Reclamation to convert portions of the arid West into the largest and most advanced agricultural economy in the world cannot be overstated.

Nowhere is that more evident than in California's San Joaquin Valley, the most productive agriculture region in the world. We grow 60 percent of the Nation's fruits and vegetables, healthy diet, good nutritional food for America's dinner table, besides leading in so many other commodities that we grow.

As a matter of fact, it helps the balance of payments. California's agricultural economy, 44 percent of it, is part of our international trade.

It would not be possible, though, without the complex and well- planned set of dams, canals, and other structures that have operated successfully for generations--generations.

However, over time, the aging infrastructure needs to be repaired. It needs to be updated. Many of the reclamation projects, when they were originally authorized by Congress and the funds were appropriated, were intended to be turned over to local districts to operate once the projects were repaid, and that is an important caveat. Clearly, there was a requirement in the authorization that these projects be repaid, and many of these projects around the country are in various states of being repaid.

After the project's operation and maintenance responsibilities have been fully transferred, the actual ownership would then be transferred as well.

The transfer of title to local operators, I think, has numerous benefits to water users and to the taxpayers. It can reduce paperwork, staff time--both at the Federal and local levels--reduce Federal backlog of infrastructure repair projects, and help improve the environment for public safety because, yes, the environmental laws would still be in place.

I can tell you, in California, our environmental laws are stronger than at the Federal level, so I don't believe that is truly an issue.

And, frankly, we know what the status of our debt in this country is, and we know that so many of our departments and agencies--and in the case of Federal reclamation projects, there is not sufficient funding to do the repair and maintenance that is necessary. It is just very simple: The money is not there, and yet these aging projects are continuing to try to operate as best they can.

A transfer can also provide more flexibility to finance local upgrades and repairs because it provides an asset to be used as collateral.

When we passed the settlement agreement from the Friant water users, as an example, with the NRDC, part of the caveat was that Friant water users would be able to repair the Friant-Kern Canal.

Keeping water facilities in good condition, particularly those that recharge groundwater, is critical not only to the San Joaquin Valley that I represent that grows this abundant and incredible cornucopia of food that is on America's dinner table every night, but today there are large sections of the Friant-Kern Canal that stretch from the Friant Dam all the way down to Bakersfield that have less than 60 percent of their capacity to move water through.

So last year, when we had an abundance of water, almost 200 percent above average, that water could have been used to recharge the groundwater in parts of Tulare and Kern Counties. But because we couldn't move the water through that portion that has subsided, that has cracked, and that is badly in need of repair, we were not able to move the water that the facility initially had capacity to move.

That is one example. There are any other examples.

Importantly, a title transfer does not ultimately change the way facilities are operated; it just doesn't.

Since 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation, working with interested stakeholders, has worked to improve the title transfer process. But I believe it is very important to note that, however, specific congressional authorization--which this legislation attempts to provide some authorization--is still needed to transfer the title of any facility, no matter how small, unless a separate administrative process is established by law to allow the transfer of such ownership. That is what this legislation attempts to do.

This legislation, therefore, creates an administrative process while maintaining the ability of Congress to have the final word, and that is to disapprove of any proposed transfer by passing a resolution of disapproval.

So if the Secretary, in fact, worked such an agreement, moves forward with a transfer of the title, and Congress says, ``No, we want to determine these on a case-by-case basis,'' this legislation will allow that to happen. It gives Congress the final word.

And a NEPA-like process must be a part of that administrative effort to, in fact, successfully transfer the title. So it has got to be repaid; you have to have a NEPA-like process; and--guess what--Congress has the final word.

This legislation would significantly streamline the title transfer process, divest the Federal Government of unnecessary liability, and allow these projects to run, I think, more effectively and with better outcomes when local water districts that are publicly owned, that have their own elected boards, have their own fiduciary responsibility to provide water to the area they serve, to make good, cost-effective decisions on behalf of the water interests that they serve, whether they be farmers or whether they be communities. And it is all of the above.

So this legislation is supported by many organizations, it is bipartisan, and I thank the author of the legislation for helping facilitate legislation that will allow reclamation to improve a title transfer process, which is not a new idea. It goes back to the Clinton administration.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I support this legislation, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor All Dads Matter of Merced County. Administered through the Merced County Human Services Agency, All Dads Matter takes a proactive approach to social services by encouraging fathers to be active in the lives of their children through support programs and educational efforts. Since its inception 13 years ago, All Dads Matter has provided resources to new fathers to create healthy and cohesive families.

Research shows that children with engaged fathers or father figures have higher chances of positive developmental, social, and academic outcomes. All Dads Matter partners with stakeholders in education, healthcare, and other social services to create programs to meet specific family needs. Through its boot camp for new dads, men's support groups, and various workshops, All Dads Matter gives men the tools to act as positive role models for their children. It also helps dads overcome challenges, such as understanding the relational needs and socialization processes of fatherhood, and seeks to give men the confidence to advocate for their families.

All Dads Matter has received accolades for its efforts to support fathers and is an outstanding example of how to serve families in America's rural communities. It has received awards and recognitions from Harvard University's School for Human Services, the California Association of Counties, and the California State Department of Child Support. Such honors highlight the vital role that All Dads Matter plays in building stronger family units.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring All Dads Matter by recognizing the positive work they do for Merced County fathers. It is both fitting and appropriate that we honor them on the eve of the Fatherhood Summit in Merced. I wish them, as well as the Merced County Human Services Agency, the best as they continue to strengthen our community through building strong families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in fostering increased investment in the United States economy by one of our oldest allies, Portugal. As a co-chair of the Congressional Portuguese Caucus, I am proud to join Congressmen Cicilline and Valadao in leading the AMIGOS Act, which we introduced earlier this spring.

Earlier this month, Senators Whitehouse and Hatch introduced the companion measure of the AMIGOS Act in the United States Senate. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would make Portuguese citizens eligible for specific visas that allow them to enter the United States to conduct substantial trade or to invest a substantial amount of capital. We do this with other nations. This will spur investment in our economy, and it helps create jobs.

In 2015 alone, trade between Portugal and the United States reached $4.2 billion, and it is only growing. The AMIGOS Act will strengthen this reciprocal economic relationship, one of our longest and strongest allies.

Strengthening relationships that benefit both countries is the best way to grow the economy and to increase the number of jobs in the long term, not trade tariffs.

We have extended these visas before. In 2012, Congress granted, most recently, eligibility to Israel.

Our friendship with Portugal and the contributions of hardworking Portuguese immigrants in America are an important part of our country's history and heritage. Portugal was one of the first countries to recognize the United States after we declared our independence, and Portugal joined us in being a founding member of NATO.

The AMIGOS Act is commonsense, bipartisan, and bicameral. It is the type of trade policy we should be leading, not engaging in trade wars. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the AMIGOS Act and working together for strong and stable investment in America's economy and American jobs.

With bipartisan efforts in the House and in the Senate, these are the kinds of things that we can do, and I am hopeful that this legislation will be enacted into law before the end of the year.

Immigrant Heritage Month

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Immigrant Heritage Month.

At a time when heinous action is being taken in the name of securing our borders--and we must secure our borders--I stand here to call on every one of my colleagues in Washington, local leaders across the United States, and individual Americans and their families. I call on all of us to come together and remember we are a Nation of immigrants, immigrants past and immigrants present.

For more than 250 years, immigrants have made our country what it is today. Every generation of immigrants contributes new ideas, fresh energy, and vibrant culture to our Nation that makes up this mosaic web of an incredible place we call America.

I grew up in California's San Joaquin Valley, which I have the honor and privilege to represent. Our valley is a rich combination of people whose families have come from all over the world. It is part of this fabric, this mosaic, I talk about. They have made California and our Nation what it is today through hard work, family values, and lasting contributions in so many different ways: the agriculture economy, businesses, education, and healthcare systems.

Their story is our story. It is the story of achieving the American Dream. The American Dream lives on. It lives on in all of us.

Last week, I met with a group of students from my district on the Capitol steps, many of whom are children from immigrant families. These young people came to Washington to learn about our government and how to make a difference. They are our future leaders in the next generation who want to achieve this American Dream.

At a time, Mr. Speaker, when children and Dreamers are being leveraged to ram shortsighted and ineffective immigration reform through Congress, let us pause. Let's step back. Let's think about what our country stands for, our common bonds and our values. I call on all of us to come together to reflect that.

Let us commemorate American Heritage Month with something real. The Fourth of July is next week. We celebrate our country. We come together in a patriotic fashion, remembering what has made America great. Part of what has made America great is generations of folks coming from all over the world, wanting to live this dream.

We must reject that immigration policy being forced through the Congress, and we must come together to fix our broken immigration system with real, bipartisan reform that provides long-term solutions while respecting the dignity and humanity of all people who are part of this American Dream.

As we celebrate the Fourth of July next week, let us never forget that our common values and our bonds are far stronger than whatever differences we may have.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Patrick Mason who is retiring as president and CEO of the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy (CFEE) after more than 30 years of service. Dr. Mason is a legend in the field of environmental and economic policy.

Since 1984, Dr. Mason directed all foundation activities, including strategic planning, issues development, conferences and study travel projects. Under three decades of his direction, CFEE has been instrumental in making California a world leader in renewable energy, water conservation, and telecommunications.

Initiated in 1970, CFEE established itself as an independent, nonprofit institution that works to forge consensus on environmental, transportation, and economic growth issues. The foundation creates collaboration between state lawmakers and agencies, business, labor, and academic and community leaders in California.

Dr. Mason, who earned his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Colorado Boulder in 1978, served as president of the San Francisco Chapter of the National Association of Business Economist, director of the California Security Bank, and ran an active consulting practice as a forensic economist.

Dr. Mason's many achievements include working as a research economist and research director for the California Labor Federation at the AFL- CIO. Also, he was the chief economist for the Association of Bay Area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Patrick Mason as he begins a new chapter in his life. Dr. Mason's dedication and commitment over the last 30 years has left a lasting impact at CFEE. I wish he and his family continued health and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Fresno Elks Lodge on the occasion of the 120th anniversary of its founding. Since its formation on June 25, 1898, the Fresno Elks Lodge has supported and improved the local community through charity and fellowship, providing neighbors and families a place to come together and serve others.

As a charitable fraternal organization, the Fresno Elks Lodge has served the greater Fresno area through many community service projects. Since the organization's founding, members have worked with the local community to ensure efforts towards it's happiness and progression. Such efforts include inviting a clown troupe to visit children in schools and hospitals and entertaining veterans.

Over the years, the Fresno Elks Lodge has been honored for its community work for schools and veterans. The Fresno Compact named them one of the Top Ten Businesses and Nonprofit Organizations. They were also honored by the Fresno Veterans Hospital for their work with veterans.

Each year, the Fresno Elks Lodge organizes several events for the community. Members hold an annual Flag Day ceremony and other patriotic events in an endeavor to promote good will in the community. Other philanthropic efforts include supporting the California Hawaii Elks Association Major Project, which provides occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech and language training and preschool vision screening for disabled children throughout California and Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Fresno Elks Lodge's 120th anniversary. I commend the service of all the members of this organization who have worked collectively to invest in the community and help improve the quality of life for many in the Central Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican partisan bill.

Just a few days ago, I traveled to San Diego with several of our colleagues to see firsthand how current immigration policy is being enforced.

There were children separated from their parents and migrants seeking asylum.

Our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows that. And this administration is making a challenging situation worse.

Our immigration system needs to be dealt with. Why don't we try sitting down and working together on real bipartisan reform?

This is a partisan proposal that holds Dreamers and vulnerable children hostage and does nothing for California farmworkers.

What is worse, it builds a $25 billion wall that, by itself, does not provide comprehensive solutions for our border security, which we all believe in.

By the way, didn't the President promise that Mexico would pay for this wall?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Vote ``no.'' Let's get back to working on bipartisan reform, reform that provides us with the border security we need and fixes our immigration system and respects the dignity and the humanity of aspiring Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues this afternoon on what is, I think, a very important issue facing our country today, and that is remembering what our common shared values are all about: a Nation of immigrants, past and present.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed, as is my colleague, Congressman Correa, and others that are here, by the administration's current policy, which we believe tears families apart who are seeking asylum at our borders. That is simply not the American way. These are parents and children fleeing to America, coming here via legal means, seeking refuge for a host of different reasons.

And what happens to them now?

Children, including infants and toddlers, are taken from their parents' care, and sent to shelters, which we now know are sometimes juvenile detention centers. That is not right. That is not the American way. The parents are sent to detention facilities as well, which may be in the form of Federal prisons.

At America's borders, this is happening to families; families who, again, are legally seeking asylum. We have had a whole history and tradition of allowing families who are seeking legal asylum.

And what are they fleeing?

Well, we know what they are fleeing: domestic violence, rape, murder, and gang violence.

If that is not traumatizing enough, now we are talking about separating them and detaining them, and we are not even beginning to consider the sort of natural disasters that have afflicted neighbors of ours.

This is an outrageous policy. I think it is morally disgusting and un-American. We are not a nation in terms of our shared values that tears families apart. We never have been. The American family is the foundation of our country. We are not a nation that systematically uses fear and the threat of detention to scare immigrants from trying to legally enter this country and build a better life for themselves and their families for what they might be fleeing.

Yes, no one disputes that we need to secure our borders. We must ensure the safety of our Nation. That is our highest priority. We must prevent those who want to do harm to us from entering, whether we are talking about transnational gangs who are engaged in drug trafficking, or in sex trafficking, or in other illegal activities that devastate our communities. We all agree on that.

I have consistently voted for improved border security funding and policies. But ripping these families apart like this is not securing our borders.

For over a decade, I have been calling for comprehensive immigration reform that includes border security that fixes our broken immigration system, and does it in a way that is fair, just, and works. We had such a proposal in 2013 that the Senate passed 68-32. Sadly, we could not bring it up. It was a bipartisan measure.

If we had a strong and comprehensive functioning immigration system, there would be no chance for these disgusting policies to occur, as they are now today.

In closing, I stand here today calling on Congress to move on immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, that is bipartisan. Let's put an end to these immoral, cruel, and un-American policies. If we can't do that, then let's just try to bring a clean Dream Act to the floor. I guess we will see what comes next week, in terms of what is being proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today for families who are being ripped apart at the borders, for immigrants past and immigrants present, for let us never forget America is a Nation for over 240 years that has been made up of immigrants from all around the world. For the future, and the soul of our country, I ask that we come together and fix this broken immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the administration's approach to trade and the pain that we are already feeling due to the shortsighted and poorly-considered decisions that have been made.

Since the administration announced its plans in March to use wide- ranging tariffs to address trade imbalances, I have been warning the President and the Nation that this is a wrongheaded approach. So many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, I believe, agree.

We all want to see American jobs secure and increase opportunities for our economy; that is without doubt. But raising broadly-defined tariffs will do, I believe, just the opposite. We all know, or at least most of us know, that the most likely effect of raising tariffs will be other countries adjusting their trade measures to protect their economies and their industries and their workers.

Let's realize that, in the global economy that we live in today, most countries have leverage. I hope the President realizes this. And what happens as a result? We have a trade war. That is where we are going, and I have been saying since March, no one, Mr. Speaker, no one wins in a trade war; which is why both Republicans and Democrats have publicly expressed grave concerns with the administration's tariff-based approach to trade.

But beyond the warnings and concerns, Mr. Speaker, we are now feeling the negative impacts of the administration's approach. Without a doubt, our country is beginning to engage in these stages of a trade war.

Tariffs, for example, on California agriculture products are already in place. Forty-four percent of California's agriculture economy, which is the number 1 agricultural State in the Nation, 44 percent of it is based upon international trade. Almonds, wine, pistachios, citrus, all face increased tariffs on exports to China, and that is just the start. It is also taking place in Mexico and Canada.

I met with a California almond processor yesterday who told me that, as a result of these tariffs, the Chinese buyers are staying away from the table. He told me that this time of the year he usually has sold a significant portion of his harvest to Chinese buyers, but because of the uncertainty of these tariffs he hasn't sold a single pound.

Mr. Speaker, the retaliatory tariffs imposed in reaction to this administration's steel and aluminum tariffs are already impacting the California agriculture economy, which, again, 44 percent of it is based upon international trade, and it is hurting our relationships with many of our allies in Europe, as well as our neighbors to the north and to the south.

Yes, there are trade imbalances in the global market we live in, and we should address them. There is bipartisan agreement we should address them. But the way to address these trade imbalances is through successful re-negotiation of NAFTA, negotiating trade agreements with our European and Pacific Rim allies. That is the way to deal with the trade imbalances.

We cannot address trade imbalances or arrive at mutually beneficial agreements through trade wars, plain and simple. What's more, the President and the Congress must work together on trade agreements.

Based upon where we are today, it looks like it will require us in Congress to re-assert our constitutional authority and responsibility to regulate international trade agreements. That is part of our job. This will take hard work, bipartisan negotiations, and serious policy deliberations which, in turn, requires that we overcome our partisan division and come together as America's Congress.

I call on my colleagues today to join me in real negotiations, in real bipartisan work, and in the type of policy deliberations that our Nation needs and that America deserves. We can do this and we must do this.

Our country currently is being led by this administration into a very real trade war, but it is not too late to stop it, and it is Congress' responsibility, frankly, to say, time out. Let's sit down and work together with our allies in Europe, our neighbors to the north and to the south of us, and in the Pacific Rim, to do what is right, and that is to ensure that we protect American workers, American industries, American agriculture, and, yes, that we don't engage in a trade war that will lead to no good end.

We can fix this trade imbalance, and we should, and we must assert ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to also thank the ranking member and the chair of the committee for allowing us to work with the committee for what is an important amendment.

The Denham-Costa amendment would make permanent the existing authority for utility companies to contribute to funds to expedite permit reviews for the Army Corps of Engineers.

Expedited permit review reduces project costs and enhances public safety by ensuring that projects are completed faster. It just makes good sense.

Projects could benefit from this permanent authority include work to stabilize aging transmission line towers in the San Francisco Bay, replacing natural gas transmission lines over and under waterways, and restoring water delivery systems associated with hydroelectric facilities.

A lot of good has come from this amendment. It has broad support from the utility industry and labor unions. I thank the author of this amendment for his good cooperation, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chair of the committee and the ranking member and all of the staff for their support and work on this important amendment. It is a simple amendment to the Water Resources Development Act.

Today, as a result of action taken by the Congress in the previous WRDA bills, the Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to accept funds from non-Federal interests to update rules that govern the operations of reservoirs owned and operated by the Corps. Unfortunately, there are a number of facilities that are regulated but not owned by the Corps of Engineers, and previous WRDA bills have failed to provide similar authority to accept funds to update the operations manuals. These manuals are very important as it relates to flood control issues.

Although the Corps regulations specify that water operations manuals, including flood-control curves, should be reviewed and updated regularly, the reality is the Corps does not do this because they have got budget constraints.

A Government Accountability Office report released in July 2016 found that the Corps-owned projects for revisions to water control manuals are often a lower priority than other operations and maintenance activities, such as equipment repairs, sediment removal, or levee repairs. As a result, the Corps oftentimes does not get to funding these revised water control manuals. This is important. We have floods all across the country, and it is important that these get updated.

Non-Corps section 7 projects have an even lower budget priority. The Merced Irrigation District in central California, which I have the honor to represent, is the owner of such a facility called New Exchequer Dam, an important reservoir that has served for decades and decades to provide water supply, flood control benefits for the people of the San Joaquin Valley.

The Merced Irrigation District wants to improve the spillway and water storage of Exchequer Dam and Reservoir, and it is going to fund all of the improvements. But it has been prevented from doing so for years because the Corps doesn't have the funding to review and to revise the project's water control manual. As a matter of fact, the last time it was updated was over 30 years ago, which is of concern.

So Merced offered--guess what--to pay for the process, but the Corps said, well, they can't do that because they are not legally able to accept the funds.

That doesn't make any sense. So this amendment would resolve this by giving the Corps the authority to accept funds to update operation manuals from the owners of all of section 7 private facilities that are, in fact, regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers.

So, for the good folks of eastern Merced County, this amendment will provide an opportunity for the Merced Irrigation District to explore the raising of the spillway gates at New Exchequer Dam, therefore increasing flood control protection and, at the same time, increasing the storage capacity of this reservoir that I said has existed for decades to, in some years, another 57,000 acre-feet of water.

57,000 acre-feet of water is an important addition. It is a lifeline--can be--to our way of life in areas like the valley where drought, as many as you have heard about, is an ever-present threat. Every drop of water counts.

So I want to thank the cosponsors of my amendment--Representative Denham, Representative Garamendi, and Representative McClintock--for their working together on a bipartisan basis to provide not only tools for the Merced Irrigation District, but all other facilities, entities, local water agencies that have a similar type of project.

This is a good, commonsense amendment. I know of no opposition to it. Not seeing anyone else who would like to speak on it, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the situation we are currently facing regarding the House version of the farm bill.

The House farm bill, traditionally, for over 40 years, is one of the most bipartisan things that we do here in Congress, Democrats working with Republicans throughout the various regions of America. This is the third farm bill that I have had the opportunity to participate in, working together.

So where are we today? We are exactly where we should not be. We are facing a vote this week on a partisan farm bill that is both, in my view, bad policy and divides us even further as a country. This bill does not promote or demonstrate the successful programs, I think, necessary to strengthen our trade in the agricultural sectors across the country.

America trades throughout the world, and our agricultural economy is dependent, in large degree, on our ability to produce more food than we can consume; and, therefore, trade becomes very important.

American agriculture needs a farm bill that supports and promotes not only trade, but, now perhaps more than ever with looming escalation of a trade war sparked by the administration's efforts with steel and aluminum, we see tariffs taking place on a host of products grown in the Midwest--sorghum, corn, and wheat--and in California potential increases in beef and pistachios and almonds. So that doesn't fare well.

This version of the farm bill also does not adequately support the dairy safety net. Of course, our dairy economy is big throughout the Midwest and in California, actually, the largest dairy State in the Nation. Nor does it do enough for our specialty crop farmers who grow the fresh fruits and vegetables that are a part of a healthy diet. California grows half of the Nation's fruits and vegetables.

This bill also proposes to make changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, which will likely devastate parts of the food program that are working well. This, after all, is America's safety net, and we have a lot of not only children and elderly, but people who are disabled who depend and rely on these important food nutrition programs.

We do all believe that able-bodied people should be working, and all of us have the same goal in ensuring that those able-bodied people are self-sufficient. If we want people to become self-reliant, let's give them a SNAP program that does just that.

We have 10 pilot projects in 10 different States that are working, and they are to report back next year on what best works to get able- bodied people working and what doesn't work. But this proposal in this House version is doomed to failure, and the House CBO has scored it accordingly. Instead, it will likely cause our SNAP education to create training programs that will collapse, costing billions of dollars, creating a new Federal bureaucracy that was never given a chance to succeed.

We should not be in this position, Mr. Speaker.

Where should we be? We should be working together, as we have with previous farm bills, Democrats and Republicans, deliberate, negotiating, and, yes, even disagreeing over ideas and approaches, but coming together with important compromises.

The farm bill is America's food bill. It is also a national security item. People don't think about it that way, but the ability to produce all for America's dinner table every night the most healthy, nutritious food in the world is a national security issue, I believe.

Therefore, we must support our food security and safety for our fellow Americans. Our Nation's food policy must feed Americans and ensure our

farmers, our ranchers, and our dairy producers can all be successful.

It should not serve some and abandon others, and it should not further divide us as a country.

As I have said, this is the third farm bill that I have had the privilege to work on. We have worked through these differences in the past, and we have worked through the challenges. It is my hope that Congress can do this again. But it will not happen if we allow the partisan arm-twisting to ram this bad policy through the House.

A vote against the House version of the farm bill is a vote for something better, which is the Senate version, where they are working together, traditionally, in a bipartisan fashion--that is what we should be doing--and not engaging in these partisan games that create bad policy.

Therefore, a vote against the current bill on the House version is one that is a good vote, and it is one that protects our past farm policies as they have worked. A ``no'' vote is a vote for more support for our farmers and for our families. It is demanding that Congress do better because we can, and we must, do better.

The Senate version is currently the version that I think, ultimately, is going to succeed. I look forward to continue working with our colleagues on the other side--Republicans and Democrats--who are fostering a bipartisan bill--Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow.

I look forward to moving past this version of the farm bill so that we can set aside this outrageous effort in partisan politics and get back to work on America's food bill, a national security issue, to be sure.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a few moments ago a colleague of ours, Congressman Charlie Dent, who has served with great distinction and honor, a classmate of mine.

I simply want to say that he is a role model for all of us in terms of how to legislate in a thoughtful and deliberative fashion, and to reach across the aisle in a way that I think is conducive to getting things done. He certainly is a great example of how we should all reflect in terms of our work here every day.

We will miss him, and we wish him the best of luck in his next endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk about the challenges that we face in California as it relates to our water needs.

The San Joaquin Valley, that I have the honor and privilege to represent, is one of the largest agriculture regions in the entire country, and, therefore, the world. We grow half of the Nation's fruits and vegetables, 70 percent of the world's almonds, 50 percent of the world's pistachios, the number one dairy State in the Nation, and the number one citrus State in the Nation.

The list goes on and on and on, over 300 commodities that we have the ability to grow because of an incredible Mediterranean climate, and water, which is the crucible, because we like to say in the Valley that: Where water flows, food grows.

Clearly, the ability to have water reliability is so essential to ensuring that we can continue to maintain our agricultural production, which every night puts food on America's dinner table and, therefore, allows American consumers to have the healthiest, the best, nutritious quality of varieties of food and food products at the most economical cost to them and their families anywhere in the world.

We are so good at it, in producing food, not only in California, but around the country, American agriculture, that I think sometimes Americans take it for granted, because less than 3 percent of our Nation's population--as in California, less than 3 percent of our State's population--is directly involved in the production of food and fiber.

I sometimes feel that the majority of Americans believe that their food comes from a grocery store. Well, it doesn't. I mean, you get it at the grocery store, or you get it at your favorite restaurants, wherever that may be.

But before that food gets to the grocery store, or before it gets to those restaurants, it comes from farmers and ranchers and dairymen and -women across this great land of ours, and certainly California plays a key role.

We have had difficult, difficult drought periods in California. We had a 6-year prolonged drought that reminded us that the climate continues to change. What impacts we, as people, have on the change of that climate is debated. But clearly we know that we have an impact, and it continues to change.

Therefore, to be responsible, we have to plan to ensure that we have adequate water supplies to maintain our agricultural production, for it is the sustenance of life: water. Where water flows, food grows.

It is so important, obviously, throughout the country, but critical in maintaining our incredible cornucopia of agricultural production in California. You should understand that 99 percent of our agriculture in California is irrigated.

I have, for over 30 years, worked to strengthen the water reliability, not only in the San Joaquin Valley, but throughout California.

In a State like California, where we have so many resources and so many cutting-edge technologies, in terms of efficient irrigation methodologies, drip irrigation and conserving and trying to figure out ways in which we can recharge our aquifers, we are using all of the water tools in the water toolbox.

When I was in the California Legislature, I authored legislation to create the Kern County Water Bank. I led two successful water bond measures that provided more than $2 billion to improve California's water system and provide for safe, reliable water drinking.

We have places in California, and other parts of the country, where our groundwater has gotten contaminated. Therefore, we need to make adjustments to make sure that every American--every Californian--has clean drinking water.

In Congress, I have secured approval for the Madera Irrigation District Water Bank, the San Luis Intertie, and the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Project, bringing hundreds and thousands of acre-feet to secure more water, a more reliable supply of water, for the San Joaquin Valley, but also for other parts of California, as well.

If we cannot solve the water problems in California, I really am very concerned about the future of our Nation and our planet. Again, we don't think about it, but food is a national security issue. It truly is. We take it for granted.

We not only have the ability throughout the country, and in California, to produce enough food for every American, but we produce more than we can consume and, therefore, we export many of our food products throughout the world.

But again, with the impacts of climate change, oceans rising, the planet that 2 years ago clicked 7 billion people, by the middle of the century will have 9 billion people.

Guess what happens when you add 2 billion more people to the planet? You

have to feed them. Therefore, food not only for America, but for the world, is a national security issue.

But you can't have that abundant supply of food, that reliable supply of food, unless you have a reliable supply of water.

Let me give you some perspective. Two hundred years ago, we had 1.7 billion people on the planet. So, in 200 years, we have gone from 1.7 billion to 7 billion, and by the middle of the century it is estimated that there will be 9 billion people on the planet that, yes, will need food. Only if we have reliable water supplies can we ensure that we have that reliable supply of food.

If we can't figure out ways in which to manage our water resources in California--the fifth-largest economy now in the world, a cutting-edge State in technology--if we can't solve our water problems in California, I am truly concerned about other parts of the world that depend upon reliable water supplies to feed their population.

Throughout the years that I have been both here and in Sacramento, I have worked on a bipartisan basis to pass water infrastructure improvements for our Nation. The WIIN Act, that we passed some 2 years ago, was signed into law in December of 2016.

It was part of an overall effort to provide solutions, using all the water tools in our water toolbox, that will make it more flexible to move water through California's system of waterways--the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta System--in which we can have the flexibility, but still try to deal with the environmental concerns and maintain water quality for our cities, but also provide water for our farmers.

In addition to that, provide to the State over $355 million for water infrastructure projects, including matching Federal funds for new surface storage in California: for the Temperance Flat project, for raising the San Luis Reservoir, for creating the Sites Reservoir, and for other important funding purposes in which a Federal authorization will allow us to match both State and local dollars.

In all of my time in working to improve the lives of the people of the Valley that I have the honor and privilege to represent, rarely have I been presented with a project that has such obvious potential as the New Exchequer Dam that was built a number of years ago.

The water that is currently impounded--actually, it is a dam that was built in the twenties and expanded in the late fifties--provides irrigation for an incredible amount of productive ag land in Merced County. It also allows for groundwater replenishment in many of the nearby communities, and it also provides environmental benefits for fisheries and wildlife refuges downstream from the dam.

Recently, the Merced Irrigation District performed a detailed analysis of the hydrology of the watershed upstream from Exchequer Dam, which is the mountains that California has been blessed with--the incredible Sierra Nevada mountain range, over 600 miles in length, 150 miles in width, and mountains that go from 12,000 feet to 14,000 feet-- that provides the snowpack for California. It is Mother Nature's icebox for California.

For those of you who are not from California, you should understand that we get all of our moisture in California from November to March. Above 4,000 feet or 5,000 feet, that rain turns to snow. Then, in the springtime, it melts. It comes down, and it fills our rivers and the reservoirs that we have on our rivers, and it allows us to have a supply of water throughout the summer. We don't have any rain in the summer.

Recently, this project, as an example, it was determined by the district, the Merced Irrigation District, that if we raised the spillway gates by 8 feet, that Lake McClure, behind this dam, could add an additional 57,000 acre-feet of water.

Fifty-seven thousand acre-feet of water is a good additional supply, without impeding Merced's wild and scenic river designation. We maintain that. But, at the same time, we add 57,000 acre-feet of water to the supply. That is important.

However, to move forward with raising these spillway gates, the flood control and operations manual for Exchequer Dam must be updated, and that is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers.

You should understand that many of these water projects in California, and other States across the country, have multiple purposes. They not only supply water for people, they not only try to benefit the environment, but they also provide water for farmers. At the same time, many of these projects provide hydroelectric power, and they provide flood control protection.

So, in this case, when you increase the spillway gates 8 feet, the Army Corps of Engineers has to modify the flood control manual so that when we have heavy storms and rains, as we did a year ago in California, we are able to operate the facility in such a way that also provides flood control protection.

Unfortunately, the current manual that is in place was from 1959, when the dam was expanded the second time. Army Corps of Engineers policy requires that flood control manuals be updated, therefore, to reflect the new data and the changes to a project that would occur as a result of raising these gates.

In 2017, the Merced Irrigation District wrote the Army Corps of Engineers, requesting a revision of the flood control manual. That is what this legislation that we are introducing will work on. The Army Corps indicated that they could not update the manual at the time, citing budgetary constraints.

The Merced Irrigation District proposed to pay for the public process to update the flood control manual, to incorporate this new hydrological data, if, in fact, the gates were raised.

The Army Corps responded by saying that it didn't have the legal authority to accept funds for the purpose of a non-Federal Section 7 like this New Exchequer Dam, despite being able to do so for other Army Corps facilities.

Thus, the Non-Federal Reservoir Operations Improvement Act legislation that I have introduced would resolve this disparity by allowing the owners of a non-Federal reservoir, in this case, the Merced Irrigation District, that are regulated by the Army Corps to provide protection for flood control, to contribute the funds so that we can update the manual, so that we can, in fact, raise the gates 8 feet, which the Merced Irrigation District is going to pay for, along with their water users--that is how they pay for it--as well as paying the Army Corps of Engineers to update the flood control manual.

Now, this sounds like a lot of common sense, doesn't it? I think so. So that is the purpose of this legislation.

It is part of a long effort that I have been engaged in to improve the water supply, the water reliability, the water quality, the environmental benefits for the challenges that we face in California as it relates to maintaining the water needs for a State that has 40 million people, the fifth largest economy in the country, the number one agricultural State in the Nation.

So we know that with the growing demands, the competing demands on water, that crucible, the critical, absolute must resource to ensure that we can survive as people, so that where water flows, food will grow, that we can maintain the ability as a national security issue to ensure that all Americans have the kind of sustainable, good, quality, nutritious food that is so critical to our diet and to our well-being, that is really what this is all about.

This is a local project, but it is a part of a much larger effort that I have been engaged in with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to address the needs, the long-term needs of California's water supply. That is what is at the heart here.

So we will continue to work together. I hope that this legislation will be enacted this year so that the Merced Irrigation District can be able to go ahead and plan and construct the increase of water supply for the needs of the people of Merced County and the surrounding area that will have a multitude of benefits.

This is a part of an overall effort that I will continue to be engaged in in Merced County, in Madera County, and in Fresno County, throughout our valley and throughout our State to ensure that, in the long term, in the 21st century, we can count on the fact that we have a long-term water supply for all Californians that will allow us to continue to maintain our agricultural

economy and, at the same time, provide water for people who live in the cities, improve our water quality, and ensure, at the same time, that we protect the environment.

Those are the goals. It is complicated; it is complex; and it is never easy.

Mark Twain supposedly was credited, over 100 years ago, with saying, having spent some time in the West, that it was clear to him that, when we talk about water and water resources and the incredible demands on those water resources, 100 years ago, supposedly Mark Twain said that, in the West, it was clear to him, ``whiskey was made for drinking and water was made for fighting.''

We hope that we won't fight over our water resources but that we will work together on a bipartisan basis to solve these problems. That is what we are sent here to do: to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve a whole host of issues that we deal with. But it is very important that we focus, in this instance, on this legislation by passing a bill that makes a great deal of common sense.

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