Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the chair and the ranking member for the good work they're doing on this bill.

I rise in strong support of this amendment.

The Department of Defense estimates that more than 230,000 servicemembers have sustained a traumatic brain injury between 2000 and 2011. During that time, as the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, Mr. Sessions, pointed out,

Congress has dedicated an unprecedented level of funding for TBI treatment and research, which has allowed DOD to make great strides in identifying and treating brain injuries. But despite the increased funding, servicemembers and veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress and TBI are still limited as to where and when they can be treated. Sometimes the very best treatment for their injuries can be found outside of the traditional DOD/VA networks. There are some outstanding programs providing first-class, effective treatment to our returning soldiers, yet those programs are not eligible for payment.

I had a chance to visit one of these facilities, the Pathway Home program, run out of the California Veterans Home. It's just an outstanding program providing great service to some very deserving heroes, and they should be reimbursed.

Our troops and veterans have earned--they've earned the very best treatment and care that we can provide. But sometimes, as I said, the best treatments aren't available at military and veteran medical facilities.

The Sessions-Thompson amendment will make sure that our heroes who return from combat with TBI or PTS have access to the highest quality care our Nation has to offer. We have a responsibility to help those who have sacrificed so much in defense of our great Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation that represents the 31st time that we have voted or will vote to repeal parts or all of the Affordable Care Act. Instead of staging these political games, we should be spending our time strengthening the reforms that were made in the Affordable Care Act and working together to put people back to work.

The Affordable Care Act was passed in response to a national crisis: businesses and individuals could not afford to buy health insurance. Hospitals, doctors, and clinics provided more than $100 billion a year in uncompensated care--$50 million in my district alone.

Now, the good fairy doesn't come and reimburse them for this care. These costs are passed on to all of us who have health insurance in higher taxes and higher premiums, to the tune of $1,000 a year in higher health insurance premiums.

People with preexisting conditions could not get coverage. People in my district were hitting their lifetime caps or even annual caps and being dropped by their insurance company.

Others were self-employed and simply couldn't afford to buy private insurance on the open market. This was the national crisis that we worked to try and fix, and this is the national crisis that the majority party would like to go back to. It's not right. It's not good for America, and it's not good for Americans.

So on behalf of the millions of Americans who are already benefiting from the Affordable Care Act, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). I represent the city of Davis, which is home to the University of California, Davis (UC Davis). The USDA has a natural partner in UC Davis given its outstanding history of agricultural research and outreach. In California, USDA has reduced crop pests and disease, protected over 120,000 wetlands in California, and worked to keep the farming culture strong. I would like to submit for the Record the following letter dated May 16, 2012, from Val Dolcini, the State Executive Director of the USDA Farm Service Agency in California. This letter illustrates just a few successes of USDA over the last 150 years and, with our support, their accomplishments will continue in the future.

USDA at 150: Farms, food, jobs

One hundred and fifty years ago, in the midst of a great Civil War, President Lincoln signed legislation to establish a Department of Agriculture to ``acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture . . . and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.''

Armed with these broad mandates, the ``People's Department,'' as he called it, set about to serve American farmers and a mostly rural American landscape.

At that time, half of all Americans lived on farms, compared with about 2 percent today. The U.S. population in 1862 was about 31.4 million and today, that number has increased tenfold to almost 313 million people.

Since its inception, the department has continued to fulfill Abraham Lincoln's original vision to touch the lives of every American, every day in almost every way. Now, the modern USDA works in food science, agricultural research, nutrition assistance, bio-fuel production, economic and community development, natural resource conservation, international trade, credit and a host of other issues.

By any measure, it's been a very successful 150 years for the USDA. Americans benefit from safe, abundant and reasonably priced food. We produce 85 percent of what we consume and therefore enjoy food security.

Our food, fuel and fiber industries provides employment for more than 20 million Americans, and agricultural exports continue to post significant trade surpluses, which, in turn, have generated almost 1 million jobs alone.

Looking to the future, the USDA must continue the legacy of contributing to the strength and health of the nation by becoming a more modern and effective service provider. We must tighten our belt, just as many Americans are doing with their household budgets.

In the past few decades, American agriculture has become one of the most productive sectors of our economy, thanks to farmers, ranchers and growers adopting technology, reducing their debt and effectively managing risk.

The USDA is adopting these same strategies in its Blueprint for Stronger Service, announced by Secretary Tom Vilsack earlier this year. The blueprint aims to build a modern and efficient service organization that is closely aligned with technological innovations--and better suited to respond to 21st century agricultural challenges.

The challenges ahead are many, both for the USDA and American agriculture. But by focusing on a strong safety net for farmers and ranchers, supporting policies that encourage sustainable productivity, and promoting vibrant markets that help feed consumers at home and abroad, the ``People's Department'' will continue to help create jobs, support working families, strengthen rural communities and build on the success and productivity of the American farmer.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise today in opposition to this bill. And this is not a tax that I like. As a matter of fact, I don't like this tax at all.

The medical device industry has been on the forefront of creating jobs, pushing medical innovation, and keeping all of us healthier. But we didn't pass this provision in a vacuum, and today we're not voting to repeal it in a vacuum. We didn't pass it to be vindictive or mean or because we just felt like it.

This provision was passed as part of a larger bill that was a response to a national crisis in health care that we're experiencing in our country. In order to do this, we had to make some really hard choices so our grandkids and our great grandkids weren't stuck with the bill for this response, like they were for the drug benefits for seniors or the tax cuts their grandparents enjoyed.

This wasn't done lightly, and the device industry isn't alone in sharing in some of this responsibility. But the device industry will also see the benefits of having 30 million additional people covered by health care. Many of those will be customers of the device industry.

I'd vote to repeal this provision today, yesterday, or tomorrow if we were having a serious discussion about the provision with a serious pay-for. Instead, we're repealing a tax on an industry that had over $40 billion in profits in 2010, and we're paying for it on the backs of middle class people, some of whom, for the first time in their adult lives, will have access to quality, affordable health care.

Now, this is probably the tenth time in this Congress that we've repealed, or we will vote to repeal, part of the Affordable Care Act. In addition to that, we've also voted to repeal the entire act.

This is not honest debate on policy but, rather, another political cheap shot at the Affordable Care Act. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sadness regarding the recent passing of former State Senator Cathie Wright, who represented the Simi and Santa Clarita Valleys in the California legislature for 20 years, and with whom I was proud to serve.

Born in Old Forge, Pennsylvania on May 18, 1929, Cathie Maranelli Wright launched her political career in the 1970s as a member of the Simi Valley City Council. Wright was the city's mayor when she ran for and won an open Assembly seat in 1980. During her tenure in the Assembly, Wright carried several pieces of legislation to address local issues, including a bill that added the valley's four water purveyors to the Castaic Lake Water Agency. The legislation brought the water purveyors to the table for the purpose of negotiating a valley-wide management plan, something the local water community continues to do on a regular basis. She was an early and ardent supporter of the creation of the City of Santa Clarita, which incorporated in 1987.

In 1992 Wright, ascended to the state Senate when former Los Angeles Police Chief Ed Davis retired and served until 2000. As a Senator, Wright helped craft California's welfare and child support laws. She was instrumental in securing funding for the College of the Canyons, particularly a new library and a media & fine arts building. Senator Wright worked tirelessly to develop a Systems of Care approach that would provide early intervention for at-risk mentally ill youth.

Mr. Speaker, Cathie Wright's two decades of dedicated public service make her an outstanding example of her generation and its commitment to our Nation. It is appropriate therefore that we honor her life and contributions today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues Representatives Loretta Sanchez, Ed Royce, John Campbell, Gary Miller, Jerry Lewis, Randy Neugebauer and Lynn Woolsey in recognition of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, one of the youngest of the American congregations, for its historic and ongoing contributions to the proliferation of education and health care across the country. The assembly traces its roots through the St. Joseph congregations of La Grange, Illinois; Concordia, Kansas; Rochester, New York; and Carondelet, Missouri, all of which are traced back to around 1650 in Le Puy, France.

The Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange was established in 1912 by Mother Bernard Gosselin when she and eight sisters left La Grange, Illinois, near Chicago with 60 cents among them to establish a school in Eureka, California. With the outbreak of the flu epidemic in 1918 the Sisters expanded their ministries from teaching to include providing for the medical needs of the community, and opened St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka in 1920.

By 1922, the Sisters were teaching in several Southern California areas and recognized that the community could better develop its ministries by moving the Motherhouse to Orange, California.

The Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange are dedicated to transcending language, culture and access-to-care barriers to bring healthcare to people in need throughout the world. The Sisters extended their work in health, education and religious instruction to the people of Papua New Guinea and Australia in the 1940s.

Today, the congregation's commitment to education is expressed in a variety of forms including elementary, secondary, university and other adult education. The organization remains committed to the cause of promoting and providing an outstanding level of health care through acute-care hospitals, rehabilitation programs, home health care, community education, primary care clinics, and wellness programs.

The works of the congregation have expanded beyond education and health care to also include such things as helping new immigrants and women in need, feeding the hungry, giving shelter to the homeless, and fostering spiritual development.

As a result of their dedication to the same spirit of charity, simplicity, and humility characteristic of the Sisters of St. Joseph throughout the world and Mother Bernard's further guiding words of faith, foresight and flexibility, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange help thousands of people in need each year.

Mister Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize and thank the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange for their dedication and service to the people of California and the world. We congratulate the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange on their 100th anniversary, on the occasion of their 100 year Jubilee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank the chairman and the ranking member for making sure that we're able to work together to produce a document that will benefit the entire country in regard to our national security, and I rise in strong support of this year's Intelligence authorization bill.

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, I'm pleased that we're able to put this product forward, and I strongly support the bill's emphasis on developing stronger counterintelligence capabilities throughout the intelligence community.

Every time I travel overseas to observe operating conditions, I've been impressed by the work being done by our intelligence personnel, but also concerned about the increasing threats and challenges that we face. Today, our intelligence officers are facing increasingly hostile foreign intelligence services, insurgent groups, terrorists organizations, industrial spies, and the threat of cyberattacks. Many of our adversaries are working together in ways we haven't seen before. This is no longer the Cold War world with little cameras and secret compartments. It's now more complicated to find out how our enemies are getting intelligence on the United States and how these same enemies are protecting their own secrets.

To address this threat, this bill provides additional resources to enable our intelligence community to collect better information and provide better analysis on how our adversaries are working against us.

Second, since the emergence of the Arab Spring, our subcommittee has been examining how the intelligence community has been identifying the types of trends that have literally transformed countries overnight, countries like Tunisia and Egypt.

I've heard firsthand from our intelligence personnel that they need more to better get a handle on the dynamics in their countries and their regions. The Arab Spring phenomenon can happen anywhere anytime, and our intelligence community must be better prepared the next time. This bill enables the intelligence community to rebuild its global mission by realigning and adding to its current resources dedicated to this collection effort. With these resources, intelligence personnel will have more tools to identify and report signs of instability in real-time.

This bill also includes a number of other provisions that I believe are important to our national security. The bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to continue compiling threat assessment of foreign drug traffickers that are turning our public lands in the United States into hostile areas to further their operations. This threat assessment was first required in last year's authorization; and given the scope of the problem, it's essential that our efforts to combat foreign drug traffickers on our Federal property be continued.

Also, the bill restores funding for the National Gang Intelligence Center. The analysis that the NGIC has provided on the growing gang influence in the U.S. military, for example, is critical to finding an adequate solution to this problem and the very reason Congress created the NGIC in the first place. It's important that this work continue.

I am a little disappointed that we weren't able to do some things that we all believe are necessary. For example, the expansion of the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math cooperative programs at colleges and universities is extremely important; and I think we need to continue to do more to make sure that we're able to grow that resource.

Mr. Chairman, our intelligence community must be prepared for any and all threats. While Osama bin Laden may no longer pose a direct threat to our country's safety and security, the remaining elements of al Qaeda and other emerging terrorist organizations are more determined than ever. It's critical for Congress to pass this bill, and I strongly support that we do so today.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment will help small businesses that have the proper security clearances to better navigate the intelligence community's contracting process, and will ensure that they get a fair shot at business opportunities should these companies have the technical expertise and capabilities needed. This change will be good for small businesses and will strengthen our national security.

Second- and third-tier contractors produce highly specialized technology for the intelligence community, but work directly for larger companies. These small businesses have extraordinary talent and expertise, but often find themselves excluded from many business opportunities with the larger intelligence community because, for example, they lack access to the classified databases where these opportunities are presented. Sometimes that access is as simple as a computer connection for cleared experts to review contracting opportunities.

By limiting small businesses that have the appropriate security clearances from these contracting opportunities, we all lose. The intelligence community loses access to the best technical solutions by limiting who is able to fulfill or to even bid for those contracts. Small businesses lose the opportunity to display their expertise and to expand their companies. As important, the taxpayer loses by virtue of a lack of market competition and is given no assurance that the government is getting the best price for its classified contract requirements.

My amendment addresses this problem by requiring an assessment of the IC's current contracting practices and a review of these practices to determine if they present unfair barriers to competition for small businesses. In particular, my amendment requires the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress how the intelligence community is currently working with second- and third-tier contractors and to identify any problems that may reduce the overall effectiveness of this contracting process. In this report, the DNI will be required to offer recommendations to improve the methods by which second- and third-tier contractors are granted security clearances and notified of classified contracting opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, second- and third-tier contractors who support the technical efforts of the intelligence community are an underutilized asset. These same second-and third-tier contractors are also small businesses that many of our communities depend upon for jobs and for the economies in their local areas. My amendment ensures that the intelligence community is getting access to the best available technology while ensuring that small businesses around the country have a fair shot at expanding their companies.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

I also want to thank the chairman and his staff, the ranking member and his staff for the help that they've provided on this very important issue.

Mr. Chairman, and Members, the Bureau of Reclamation manages Lake Berryessa in my district. They manage it for the purposes of recreational access, and they ensure that the facilities are safe and accessible to local residents and visitors. As part of this, they award concessions to third-party bidders for resort operations.

Since the Bureau of Reclamation began the most recent bidding process in 2007, their performance has been disappointing, at best. The concession contract was finally awarded in January 2010, and the third- party contractor has not met the terms of that agreement.

The BOR is the responsible agency for concession bidding, and they conducted an inefficient process, provided lax oversight, and refused to take action in a timely manner, despite constant requests from me and local government officials. Now, BOR is entering into mediation, which means even more time to dispute the concessionaire's shortcomings and provide yet another second chance.

Mr. Chairman and Members, enough is enough. Reassurances and placations from the Board of Reclamation that they're fixing the problem are no longer enough. We need the matter resolved. The residents of Lake Berryessa and the tourists who visit the area deserve to have this situation fixed.

Recreational access to the lake has been restricted, tourism is down, and the local economy has taken a hit. The summer season officially began last weekend, and there's no solution in sight to these problems.

I expect the Bureau of Reclamation to take immediate action to right these wrongs and take steps to prevent a similar nightmare from happening in my district or any of your districts.

I trust that the chairman and the ranking member share my concerns of the mismanagement of Lake Berryessa by the Bureau of Reclamation and ask that you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member work with me to find a way to correct BOR's previous errors and amend the concession bidding process to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their commitment to work with me on this. It's a serious problem. It's hurting people in my district and the surrounding area. I want it stopped, and I don't want to see any of you have to suffer through this process again.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Thompson-Eshoo-Quayle-Broun amendment to this bill. The threat of a devastating cyberattack is real and cannot be understated. I believe the Federal Government and private companies need to work together to protect our national and economic security. But in doing so, we still have a responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

I'm concerned that the underlying bill is drafted in a way where consumer information could be shared too broadly and used in ways unrelated to combating cybersecurity threats. The Thompson-Eshoo- Quayle-Broun amendment will tighten the bill's limitation on the Federal Government's use of cyberthreat information shared under this legislation. Specifically, our amendment will limit the Federal Government's use of shared information only for cybersecurity purposes, for the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes, to protect against the threat of imminent harm, and protect our country's national security.

This bill, even with our amendment, isn't perfect. As this legislation moves forward, I expect the word of the chairman to be honored when he says that our committee will work together to further protect personal information and limit its use. For example, further narrowing terms in this bill, such as ``to protect the national security of the United States,'' will be necessary, I believe, to fully protect our civil liberties.

Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support for the Sportsmen's Heritage Act, H.R. 4089. This bill would improve access to public lands for our hunters, fishers, and recreationists. By passing H.R. 4089, we will ensure that public lands will continue to be used and enjoyed by sportsmen across the country.

While many of us support H.R. 4089, I do have reservations about some of the bill's details. Specifically, titles I and II of this bill require new procedures for approved closures of public lands. Federal land management agencies currently have a process in place for closures that includes public notice, review, and approval at the local, state, or federal level depending on the individual situation. I believe these decisions are best made by local land managers who are uniquely familiar with the lands, the people, and the potential hazards. I am concerned that adding additional closure approval steps by people removed from the local areas will delay, or even discourage, closures that are based on sound science, and for the safety of the people and protection of the environment.

I also believe that hunting, fishing, and recreation are often compatible with the goals of public lands, including wilderness designation. However, there are some activities that are not. Oil and gas development, mining, logging, and motorized vehicle use outside of designated areas counter the goals of current wilderness management. In addition, these activities also run counter to the intent of H.R. 4089 by further restricting sportsmen's access. These restrictions on activities in Wilderness Areas should be explicitly stated in the bill and should not leave any room for misinterpretation.

Finally, I am discouraged to see the incorporation of an amendment to H.R. 4089 that would undermine the ability of the President to designate National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. This is a process that has protected some of our most precious national treasures and cultural heritage sites. I agree that local support should be weighed heavily when considering National Monument designations, but additional legislative road blocks are unnecessary.

I commend my colleagues in the House for supporting sportsmen's access to public lands, and I hope to see their enjoyment continue in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. We need to keep public lands open when feasible, while also allowing for closures in a timely manner if it is in the best interest of public safety or environmental protection. I look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to make sure these concerns are addressed as H.R. 4089 moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Representatives Baca, Berman, Capps, Chu, Costa, S. Davis, Eshoo, Farr, Filner, Garamendi, Hahn, Honda, Lee, Lofgren, Matsui, McNerney, Miller, Napolitano, Pelosi, Richardson, Roybal-Allard, Loretta Sanchez, Schiff, Speier, Stark, Waters, Waxman, and Woolsey to pay tribute to the life of Peter M. Douglas, who recently passed away at the age of 69. Peter was best known as the longtime director of the California Coastal Commission, serving more than 25 years to protect the incredible California coastline. Peter's devotion to the conservation of this finite and precious resource will benefit generations to come.

Peter was born in Berlin, Germany on Aug. 22, 1942. His family's home was destroyed by Allied bombers in 1944. He immigrated by sea to the United States in 1950, and it was on this trip that he began a lifelong love of the ocean. Peter grew up in Southern California, and in 1965 earned a bachelor's degree in psychology, and later a law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles.

Peter worked for former Democratic Assemblyman Alan Sieroty from Los Angeles, and he was tasked with writing coastal protection legislation. In response to oil spills and heavy coastal development, the public passed Proposition 20 in 1972, which formed the California Coastal Commission. Peter also helped craft the bipartisan Coastal Act in 1976, and the next year joined the commission as deputy director. In 1985, Peter was appointed executive director and served in that role until his recent death.

Peter was instrumental in blocking offshore oil drilling and leasing, preventing unchecked development along California's 1,100-mile coast line, and ensuring public access to beaches. His efforts were often controversial, and members of both parties at times tried to remove him from his post. However, he never swayed from his commitment and passion to protect California coasts.

There is no doubt that California's incredible coastline bears Peter's mark. His influence on coastal issues has been profound, and has set standards for how such a valuable resource can be both used and protected.

Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in paying tribute to the life of Peter M. Douglas, a steadfast protector of the California coast and a true environmental steward.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill today--a $46 billion price tag, and it's unpaid for. Moreover, 1 year is not tax certainty if you're a small business person.

I rise also as a small business person. Equally as troubling as this bill, unpaid for, $46 billion bill, is the fact that yesterday, in the Ways and Means Committee, the majority passed a bill that they said was to reduce the deficit. But instead, what they did is they cut programs that were incredibly important to the elderly, to children, to the disabled, programs that allowed people help with their daycare so they could go to work. If those people don't have daycare, they're not going to be able to go to work. And, at the same time, the Ag Committee passed a bill to cut food stamps.

These actions are hard to understand, even in these most difficult times. But even harder to understand is, in light of this fiscally irresponsible bill today, those bills were passed.

I said yesterday that it was a bad day to be poor. Well, today is a bad day to be fiscally responsible, because this bill is anything but fiscally responsible.

And it's wrong to claim on Wednesday that you have to cut daycare for low-income people or put seniors at risk, disabled people at risk, and children at risk to cut the deficit but then turn around on Thursday and add $46 billion to the deficit. That's just wrong.

The Joint Committee on Taxation said that this bill's economic impact is ``so small as to be incalculable.'' I can tell you, the people that will be hurt across this country, that hurt won't be incalculable.

I strongly oppose this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in opposition to this legislation. Whether or not you're a fan of the IPAB, I strongly urge you to oppose the bill. This bill is not about IPAB. This bill is nothing more than a political maneuver to attack the Affordable Care Act on the 2-year anniversary of its enactment.

I challenge anyone to talk to one of the over 7,000 young adults in my district who now have health care insurance coverage and ask them if the Affordable Care Act should be repealed. Or maybe the 6,000 seniors in my district who have saved over $3 million on the cost of prescription drugs. Or the 30,000 children and 120,000 adults who now have health care insurance that actually covers preventive services without burdensome copayments. Or the thousands of children with preexisting health conditions who will no longer be denied coverage by health insurers or told they've hit their lifetime cap for services because of a disease with which they were born. Ask them if they'd like to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.

No one has ever suggested that this bill was the perfect solution to health care, but we should be working together to fix it, not trying to repeal it for cheap political points. And to add the medical malpractice provision that they added in this bill, that is so wrong- headed that the doctors in California have come out in opposition to this bill. Any doctor will tell you there's work that needs to be done in regard to medical malpractice, but the way this was done has even brought the doctors to the table in opposition.

So, on behalf of the millions of Americans who are already benefiting from the Affordable Care Act, I ask you to join with me and with the California doctors in opposition to this legislation that does no one any good at all.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I think it was Einstein that said: If you start with the wrong numbers in your equation, you can never get to the correct solution. What we just heard was a textbook perfect example of that.

The idea that there's 30,000 to 60,000 lost jobs as a result of what is happening south of the delta, I don't know where those numbers came from. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but you're not welcome to your own facts. The facts tell a whole different story.

If you look at what UC Davis did, if you look at what the University of the Pacific did, UC Berkeley, all their numbers point to a loss associated with certain things: a loss of jobs associated with the drought, a loss of jobs associated with an endangered species. But these are in the hundreds or the single-digit thousands, not anywhere close to 30,000 or 60,000. We need to get this thing right.

My friend from California was absolutely correct when he called for us to work together. That's exactly what we've been trying to do, to work together. This bill was not crafted with the stakeholders at the table. This bill was crafted in the proverbial back room with not all of the stakeholders present. None of us who have a legitimate dog in this fight were included in this.

If this bill were to pass, there will be thousands of jobs lost. They'll be north of the delta. They'll be farming jobs; they'll be fisheries jobs; they'll be recreational jobs. They'll be all kinds of jobs associated with the economy north of the delta.

You can't come to this floor with legislation that creates winners and losers in the marketplace without bringing everybody to the table to work on that. That's exactly what this bill does--it creates winners and losers. It chooses jobs south of the delta at the expense of jobs north of the delta. That's wrong and this bill should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this jobs killer act that ignores more than 20 years of established science.

Tens of thousands of people depend on the Bay-Delta for their livelihoods, including many farmers, fishermen, and sportsmen who contribute billions of dollars to our economy every year.

Sadly, the sponsors of this bill are using the legislation to create winners and losers by preempting California State law. This bill would take water from folks in northern California for use in California's Central Valley. This means even less water to sports fishermen and to commercial fishermen, the basis of two thriving industries in our State.

The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations strongly opposes the bill. They estimate that over 25,000 jobs were lost in the salmon fishing industry due to the 2008 and 2009 closures.

The American Sportsfishing Association shows that California's economy suffers $1.4 billion in loss each year that the salmon fishery season is

closed. If this bill becomes law, these jobs would be lost forever, and the economic losses would be permanent.

Appropriate amounts of water are also critical to support the economies for wildlife-associated recreation. In California, 7.4 million sportsmen contribute over $8 billion to the economy every year. Without water, many of these hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching activities will be lost.

More than 200 sportsmen's organizations have written to express their opposition to this bill. These men and women recognize the extreme consequences of this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to insert this letter that I have signed by those over 200 organizations into the Record.

February 26, 2012.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The

California Environmental Water Caucus, and the numerous

environmental, environmental justice, recreational and

commercial fishing groups, legal and advocacy groups, and

Indian tribes, whose logos and names are attached to this

letter, would collectively like to express our strong

opposition to the ill-conceived and regressive legislation

contained in H.R. 1837, the misleadingly entitled

``Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.'' We

do not believe that this bill merits a vote by the U.S. House

of Representatives.

In summary, this radical legislation preempts state water

law, eliminates environmental protections for salmon and

other commercially valuable species, guts the 1992 Central

Valley Project Improvement Act, and overturns the broadly

supported, court approved settlement to restore the San

Joaquin River. As a result, this bill threatens thousands of

salmon fishing jobs and communities in California and Oregon,

water quality in the Bay-Delta, and the reliability of

California's water supplies.

H.R. 1837 would overturn the fundamental Congressional

principle which requires the federal government to follow

state water law whenever possible. This principle has been a

bulwark of rights reserved to the individual states and

should not be violated by this kind of legislation. Even more

specifically, this radical legislation would preempt the

public trust doctrine as defined in the California

Constitution and eliminate the implementation of a bipartisan

package of water policy reform legislation adopted by the

State of California in 2009.

H.R. 1837 would defeat efforts to restore fish populations

in the Delta. Science-based protections for salmon and other

endangered species are required under both California state

law and the Endangered Species Act. In order to support

recovery of endangered fish species, the State of California

has consistently opposed legislation that would weaken the

Endangered Species Act in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and

Estuary. H.R. 1837 would strip those protections.

H.R. 1837 would gut the Central Valley Project Improvement

Act of 1992, which corrected numerous deficiencies built into

the federal Central Valley Project. The Act requires

compliance with state law, encourages water conservation,

makes modest reforms to reduce water subsidies, and

contributes water for the recovery of endangered fish

species.

H.R. 1837 would overturn the 2009 court approved San

Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act which ended twenty

years of litigation on the San Joaquin River. The Settlement

and the Act were supported by all parties to the litigation

and numerous water districts in the San Joaquin Valley and

across the State, along with Members of Congress from both

sides of the aisle. H.R. 1837 attempts to preempt state law

that requires river restoration, and eliminates flood

protection and water supply projects for farmers that were

approved as part of the Settlement and Act.

H.R. 1837 would reduce water quality and water reliability

for Delta communities and Delta farmers. It seeks to ensure

water flows to agribusiness in the western and southern San

Joaquin Valley at the expense of smaller Delta family

farmers. The recently released Economic Sustainability Report

authored by the Delta Protection Commission shows that Delta

agriculture is worth $4.2 billion annually and provides tens

of thousands of jobs. Delta agriculture and jobs should not

be sacrificed to benefit water users in other parts of the

state, some of whom do not even use that water for

agriculture. This legislation would further aggravate the

water supply divide within the state and would help

perpetuate the destructive ``water wars'' which characterize

water rules in California.

In summary, H.R. 1837 is an unprecedented assault on a

state's ability to enact and support its own water laws, and

it is an undisguised water grab in favor of one district to

the detriment of other parts of the state, all engineered by

the federal government.

For all of the above reasons, we oppose H.R. 1837 and

request that you withdraw the legislation.

David Nesmith,

Co-Facilitator.

Nick Di Croce,

Co-Facilitator.

The following 190 organizations are signatories to this

comment letter:

Bill Jennings, Executive Director, California Sportfishing

Protection Alliance; Dave Britts, President, Pacific Coast

Federation of Fisherman's Associations; Carolee Krieger,

Executive Director, California Water Impact Network; Jonas

Minton, Senior Water Policy Advisor, Planning and

Conservation League; Ron Stork, Senior Policy Advocate

Friends of the River; Jennifer Clary, Water Policy Analyst

Clean Water Action.

David Lewis, Executive Director Save the Bay; Joan

Clayburg, Executive Director, Sierra Nevada Alliance; Deb

Self, Executive Director, San Francisco Baykeeper; Jim

Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California; Chris

Wright, Executive Director Foothills Conservancy; John Merz,

President, Sacramento River Preservation Trust.

Conner Everts, Executive Director, Southern California

Watershed Alliance; Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla Executive

Director, Restore the Delta; Caleb Dardick, Executive

Director, South Yuba River Citizens League; Barbara Vlamis,

Executive Director AquAlliance; Caleen Sisk-Franco, Spirtual

Leader & Traditional Chief Winnemen Wintu Tribe; Victor

Gonella, President, Golden Gate Salmon Association.

Geoffey McQuilkin Executive Director Mono Lake Committee;

Huey D. Johnson, President, Resource Renewal Institute; Adam

Scow, California Campaign Director Food and Water Watch;

Linda Sheehan, Executive Director Earth Law Center; Leda

Huta, Executive Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Capt.

Roger Thomas, President, Golden Gate Fishermen's Association.

Mondy Lariz, Director, Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition;

Larry Collins, President, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners

Association; Leaf G. Hillman, Director, Karuk Department of

Natural Resources, Karuk Tribe; Lloyd Carter, President,

California Save Our Streams Council; Eric Wesselman,

Executive Director Tuolumne River Trust; Don Rivenes,

Conservation Chair, Sierra Foothills Audubon.

Esmeralda Soria, Legislative Advocate, California Rural

Legal Assistance Foundation; Mark Rockwell, Co-Conservation

Director, Northern California Council Federation of Fly

Fishers; Dan Bacher Editor, Fish Sniffer; Alan Levine,

Director, Coast Action Group; Zeke Grader, Executive

Director, Institute for Fisheries Resources; Siobahn Dolan,

Director, Desal Response Group.

Andrew J. Orahoske, Conservation Director, Environmental

Protection Information Center; Scott Greacen, Executive

Director, Friends of the Eel River; Mati Waiya Executive

Director Wishtoyo Foundation, Karen Schamback, California

Field Director, California Public Employees for Environmental

Responsibility; Rich Cimino, President, Alameda Creek

Alliance; Milo Vukovich, President, Sonoma County Abalone

Network.

Jeff Miller, Conservation Advocate, Center for Biological

Diversity; Bill Wells, Executive Director, California Delta

Chambers & Visitors Bureau; Dave Steindorf, California

Stewardship Director American Whitewater; Bill Ferrero,

Owner, President, Mokelumne River Outfitters; Lorna Elness,

President, San Joaquin Audubon; Carol Perkins, Water

Resources Advocate Butte Environmental Council.

Michael Warburton, Executive Director, The Public Trust

Alliance; Sylvia Kothe, Chairperson, Concerned Citizens

Coalition of Stockton; Frank Egger, President, North Coast

Rivers Alliance; Luke Breit, Legislative Advocate Forests

Forever; Marily Woodhouse, Director, Battle Creek Alliance;

Jeremy Terhune, Coordinator, Friends of the Calaveras.

Don McEnhill, Riverkeeper, Russian Riverkeeper; Tim Little,

Co-Director, Rose Foundation; Steve Shimek, Chief Executive

The Otter Project, Greywolf, Jeff Kelly Chief, Modoc Nation;

Alan Harthorn, Executive Director Friends of Butte Creek;

Larry Hanson, Manager, Northern California River Watch.

Steve Shimek, Program Manager Monterey Coastkeeper; Steve

Pedery, Conservation Director, Oregon Wild; Melanie

Winter, Founder & Director, The River Project; Larry

Glass, President, Safe Alternatives for our Forest

Environment; Lynne Plambeck, Executive Director, Santa

Clarita for Planning and the Environment; Marie Logan &

Jessie Raeder, Co-Presidents, SalmonAid Foundation.

Karen Schambach, President, Center for Sierra Nevada

Conservation; Rain Ananacel, Executive Director, Northcoast

Environmental Center; Michael Schweit, President, Southwest

Council Federation of Fly Fishers; Chris Poehlmann,

President, Friends of the Gualala River; Brenda S. Adelman,

Chairperson, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee;

Nate Rangel, President, California Outdoors.

Chet Ogan, Conservation Chair, Redwood Regional Audubon

Society; Susan Robinson, Board Member, Ebbetts Pass Forest

Watch; Bob Dean, President, Upper Mokelumne River Watershed

Council; Trevor Kennedy, Executive Director, Fishery

Foundation; Dan Silver, Executive Director, Endangered

Habitats League; Jane Humes, Chair, Waldo Holt Conservancy.

Michael Garabedian, Friends of the North Fork American

River; Mike Hudson, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fisherman's

Association; Allison Boucher, Project Manager, Tuolumne

Conservancy; Michael Martin,

Ph.D., Director, Merced River Conservation Committee; Beth

Werner, Baykeeper, Humboldt Baykeeper; Kelli Gant, President,

Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance.

Rick Coates, Executive Director, Forest Unlimited; Sue

Lynn, Secretary, Cascade Action Now; Larry Glass, President,

South Fort Mountain Defense Committee; Seymour Singer,

President, Pasadena Casting Club; Dick Harris, President,

Santa Clarita Casting Club; Ken Javorsky, President, Tri-

Valley Fly Fishers.

Jim Cox, President, West Delta Chapter, California Striped

Bass Association; Jackson Chapman, President, Sacramento

Chapter, California Striped Bass Association; Roger Mammon,

President, Lower Sherman Island Duck Club; Larry Dennis,

Conservation Chair, Mission Peak Fly Anglers; Henry Sandigo,

Conservation Chair, Granite Bay Flycasters; Jim Tolonen,

Conservation Chair, Santa Cruz Fly Fishermen.

Tom Bartos, President, Foothills Angler Coalition; Bill

Carnazzo, President, Spring Creek Guide Service; Grant

Fraser, President, Auburn Flycasters; Mark Allen, General

Manager, Adventure Connections, Inc.; Greg King, Siskiyou

Land Conservancy; Jim Yarnall, President, Humboldt Area

Saltwater Anglers; Joesph Vaile, Campaign Director, KS Wild.

Ron Forbes, Conservation Chair, Delta Fly Fishers; Denise

Boggs, Executive Director, Conservation Congress; Kim

Glazzard, Executive Director, Organic Sacramento; Bill

O'Kelly, President, Sierra Pacific Flyfishers; Cindy Charles,

Conservation Chair, Golden West Women Flyfishers; Ted Shapas,

Conservation Chair, Diablo Valley Fly Fishermen.

Darrell Tichurst, Chairman, Coastside Fishing Club; Steve

Burke, Spokesperson, Protect Our Water; Lillian Light,

President, Palos Verdes Audubon Chapter; John Weisheit,

Conservation Chair, Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper;

Spreck Rosenkrans, Restore Hetch Hetchy; Don Schmoldt,

President, Sacramento Audubon Society; Diane Hichwa,

Conservation Chair, Madrone Audubon.

Stephen Fuller-Rowell, Co-Founder, Oregon Waterwatch; Tom

Chandler, Editor, Trout Underground; Will Harling, Executive

Director, Mid-Klamath Watershed Council; Don Gillespie,

President, Friends of Del Norte; Randa Solick, Co-Chair,

Santa Cruz WILPF; Ken Franke, Executive Director,

Sportfishing Association of California.

Jim Martin, Recreational Fishing Alliance; Sep Hendrickson,

Executive Director, California Inland Fisheries Foundation;

Aaron Newman, President, Humboldt Fisherman's Marketing

Association; Mark Micoch, Co-Chairman, Northern California

Guides Association; Dan Blanton, Chairman, StriperFest; Mike

Augney, Co-Owner, USA Fishing.

Jim Martin, Director, Berkeley Conservation Institute; Bob

Mellinger, Vice-President, Water for Fish; Bart Hall,

Producer, Fred Hall Shows; Randy Repass, Chairman &

Founder, West Marine; Bruce Tokars, President, Salmon

Water Now; Galen Onizuka, Owner, President, Johnson Hicks

Marine.

Angelo Pucci, President, P Line; Dick Pool, President, Pro-

Troll Fishing Products; Liz Hamilton, Executive Director,

Northwest Sportfishing Ind. Assn.; Bob Rees, President, North

West Guides and Anglers Assoc.; Peter Grenell, Manager, San

Mateo County Harbor District; Ken Elie, Owner, President,

Outdoor Pro Shop.

Bill Divens, Salmon King Lodge West; Paul Johnson, Owner,

Monterey Fish Market; Bob Kotula, Outwest Marketing; Danny

Layne, Hawkeye Marketing; Roy Gray, Owner, Roy Gray &

Associates; Dan Pamel, President, Leisure Sales; Paul

Johnson, Owner, Monterey Fish Market.

Michael Scaglione, Pacific Catch Fish Grill; Bill Boyce,

Boyce Image, World Fishing Network; Rich Kato, Sport Sales;

Jack Swanson, Sales Manager, Repala USA; Chuck Cappotto,

Bodega Bay Fisherman's Marketing Assoc.; Gary Coe, Kokanee

Power.

Angelo Pucci, President, G. Pucci and Sons Mfg.; Capt Brian

Smith, Riptide Charters; Capt Bob Ingles, Queen of Hearts

Charters; Capt Brian Cutty, Chubasco Charters; Capt Brian

Guiles, Flying Fish Charters; Capt Chris Chan, Ankeny St.

Sportfishing.

Capt Craig Shimokosu, New Salmon Queen Charters; Capt Dale

Walters, Que Sera Sera Charters; Capt Dennis Baxter, New

Captain Pete Charters; Capt Don Franklin, Soleman

Sportfishing Charters; Capt Ed Gallia, New Easy Rider

Charters; Capt Frank Rescino, Lovely Martha Charters; Capt

Harry Necees, Checkmate Charters; Capt Jack Chapman, Lovely

Linda Sportfishing; Capt Jacky Douglas, Wacky Jacky Charters;

Capt Jay Yokomozo, Huck Finn Charters; Jimmy Robertson, Outer

Limits Charters; Capt Joe Gallia, El Dorado III Charters;

Capt John Atkinson, New Ray Ann Charters; Capt John Kluzmier,

Sir Randy Charters; Capt Nick Lemons, Star of Monterey

Charters; Capt Ken Stagnaro, Stagnaro's Charters; Capt Randy

Thornton, Telstar Charters.

Capt Richard Thornton, Trek II; Capt Rick Powers, Bodega

Bay Sportfishing; Capt Peter Bruno, Randy's Fishing Trips;

Bob Sparre, Bob Sparre's Guide Service; Capt Sean Hodges, Hog

Heaven Charters; George Catagnoia, Owner, Sandy Ann Charters;

Capt Steve Talmadge, Flash Sportfishing Charters; Sal

Vallone, Bob Sands Fishing; Capt Tim Klassen, Reel Steel

Sportfishing; Vance Staplin, Vance's Tackle.

Barbara Emley, F/V Autumn Gale; Capt Chris Acacelo, Chris'

Fishing Charters; Jim Cox, Owner, Jim Cox Sport Fishing

Charters; Jonah Li, Hi's Tackle Box; Sunny Lampre, Owner,

Sunny's Electric Marine; Ron La Force, President, United

Outdoorsmen; Danny Layne, Fish'n Dan's Guide Service; Marilyn

Hendrickson, Sep's Outdoors Inc.; Mike Chamberlain, Ted's

Sports Center; Craig Stone, Emeryville Sportfishing.

That's 200. That's more than the 12 or 14 members of the State legislature that wrote you a letter.

In the end, H.R. 1837 is nothing more than an attempt by well-funded water contractors to steal water from other users with no regard for the fishers, sportsmen, the farmers north of the delta, the families and the businesses who depend on their delta for their livelihood. It guts environmental protections and kills local jobs. It should be rejected, and solutions to California's water challenges should be based on strong and sound science; and it should be done with all of the stakeholders at the table, not in the proverbial back room.

So please join me and over 100 outdoor and fishing organizations and the Western States Water Council to protect northern Californians from political agendas that harm our economy, wildlife, and the people. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

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

The Thompson-Eshoo amendment states that nothing in this bill can go into effect if the Secretary of the Interior determines that any agricultural, fishery, or related jobs will be lost in northern California counties as a result of this bill. I represent a community with varied economic interests: agriculture, fisheries, and tourism. Our amendment would protect these jobs from this politically driven legislation that would divert water to south-of-delta private agricultural interests.

Proponents of this bill claim that the bill protects jobs. The bill does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. It's a job-killer bill. It creates economic winners and losers based on south-of-delta interests. The livelihoods and concerns of individuals outside of this limited area are ignored in order to support well-heeled agricultural interests south of the delta.

In my home district, over 2 million acres of farmland support a greater than $1 billion market value of products. Over 10 percent of these farms depend on irrigation. I do not believe that these farmers are less important than the south-of-delta farmers. Their jobs, their income, their families should not be sacrificed.

However, this is not simply a northern farmer versus southern farmer issue. Fishermen on the north coast of California saw the result of politically driven water resources decisions in '08 and '09, and they paid the price in almost 5,000 jobs and the economic loss of over $534 million.

The Thompson-Eshoo amendment would prevent any provisions of this bill from going into effect that would result in the loss of jobs in northern California. Join me in protecting jobs from this politically driven bill that prioritizes the agricultural economies south of the delta over all others.

And I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my friend and colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of comments on some of the previous speaker's remarks. I'm glad to add forestry in one of the areas if there's any jobs lost that the bill won't go into effect if that would garner my friend's support of this amendment. And as he mentioned, he said it himself: it creates winners and losers. That's not what we're about. We're about creating jobs, not moving jobs from one area to another.

My friend from California mentioned that there was no salmon fishing and it caused these problems. Well, there's no salmon fishing because the last politically motivated water policy killed 80,000 spawning salmon. It shut down the season--it shut it down. It cost people their boats, and it cost people their jobs. Motels, gas stations, bait shops, grocery stores--everybody was hurt tremendously by that matter, and now we're back at it again trying, once again, to politically move water from one portion of the State to another.

It's a job killer and it preempts State law. It's a bad bill, it ought to be killed, and this amendment ought to be added to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Governors of seven States, fishermen, hunters and farmers, a whole list of people, oppose this bill. Our amendment states that the Central Valley Project and State Water Project shall be operated in a manner that meets all obligation under State and Federal law with operational constraints that are based on the best available science. More than 750 plant and animal species depend upon the delta for their survival. Many of these then support important industries, such as the fishermen, hunters, recreational industries, and farmers that promote local and State economies.

We've seen what happens when science is ignored and environmental protections are gutted for the sake of politics. In 2008 and 2009, salmon fisheries were forced to close because of low-water flows in the rivers. This resulted in the loss of over a half a billion dollars and nearly 5,000 jobs--the same number that the proponents of the bill claim that their bill would create.

This bill would prevent the use of the best available science and adaptive management in the bay and delta by permanently limiting agencies from acting on new scientific information developed since 1994. This alone ignores the last 15 years of the best available science.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and a ``no'' vote on this terrible piece of legislation.