Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want to say that I think this amendment adds to what he is attempting to do because the issue of salvage and the timeliness of that is something that is lost on a lot of people. So I congratulate the gentleman for not only the title in the bill but for the amendment. I intend to support it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation on the point of order and rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have to wonder when I hear these motions to recommit what exactly my friends on the other side of the aisle are thinking. The first part of this motion to recommit talks about payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT. Those of us in the western part of the United States especially understand that. Mr. Speaker, last week, we funded PILT in the farm bill. Where was everybody? I voted for it. Where was everybody? That was funded. The second point, PILT is permanently authorized--permanently authorized. All we have to do now is to get the appropriators to fund it, and they will go through the deliberations. There is no reason for this motion to recommit, as it relates to PILT. Also, with regards to fighting fires, if I remember correctly, last year, we passed the healthy forests bill, but a majority of the people on the other side of the aisle voted ``no.'' Now we come down here with crocodile tears, saying we have to pass funding to fight forest fires. If they had voted for healthy forests in the first place, they would have solved the problem. This MTR is not worthy of passage. Vote ``no'' on the MTR and ``yes'' on final passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 2954, the Clerk may make technical and conforming changes, and that the amendment to page 17, line 17 refer to the first usage of ``decision'' on that line.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I probably said this before, but I will say it again: Here we go again. The underlying bill before us is a bipartisan bill, with bipartisan sponsors from the Sportsmen's Caucus, to allow access to our public lands for people to enjoy hunting and fishing. That is what the underlying bill is. Furthermore, during the debate on the bill and its amendments yesterday, we adopted some three or four Democrat amendments because they added to the bill. This is a bipartisan bill. So what happens in a motion to recommit? Here we go again. The essence of this motion to recommit would be to broadly expand the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the MTR and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the House today is considering H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act. Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent on irrigated water to support our local economic and agriculture industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable water supply, and I also understand the economic devastation that is caused when the water supply is shut off, particularly when the shutoff is avoidable. California is facing an emergency situation. For years, San Joaquin Valley farmers have been fighting against Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits that have diverted water supplies in order to help a 3-inch fish. In 2009, there was a deliberate diversion of over 300 billion--that is ``billion,'' Mr. Chairman--gallons of water away from farmers. As a result, thousands of farmworkers lost their jobs, unemployment in some areas reached 40 percent, and thousands of acres of fertile farmland simply dried up. As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have traveled to Fresno, California, and seen the effects of natural and manmade drought firsthand. We have held multiple hearings and heard the pleas of communities that simply want the water turned back on and their livelihood restored. We have seen farmers, Mr. Chairman, who normally help feed the Nation being sent to wait in line at food banks and, in some cases, being served carrots that are normally grown in this area that are from China. That is why, last Congress, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation to restore the flow of water to avoid future droughts. In fact, the Senate did not take up a single water bill in this last Congress, even after we had passed our legislation. So, once again, we are back here on the floor of the House with legislation to help California communities once again facing water shutoffs. But now, Mr. Chairman, the situation is much more dire. The lack of rainfall has exacerbated the manmade drought, and last month, the California Governor declared a state of emergency. A manmade drought coupled with a natural drought equals disaster and requires immediate action. Of course, these conditions could have been partially avoided if only the Senate had acted on the House-passed legislation last year. This comprehensive solution before us today, almost identical to what the House passed the last Congress, would restore some water deliveries that will be cut off due to Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits, ensure a reliable water source for people and fish, secure water rights, and save taxpayer money by ending unnecessary and dubious government projects. Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that this crisis does not just impact California, but it has rippling effects across the entire Nation. California's San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl for the world and provides a significant share of the fruits and vegetables for our country. Food grows where water flows. When there is no water, our food supply suffers, resulting in higher food prices across the country and increased reliance on foreign food sources. This bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to end future manmade droughts, and to protect the jobs and economic livelihoods of farm families and their workers. The people of the San Joaquin Valley cannot wait any longer, Mr. Chairman, for Congress to act. As the title of this bill suggests, it is truly an emergency for many, and time is running out. I sincerely hope that, unlike the last Congress, our Senate colleagues will take up this bill or propose a meaningful alternative to it, then we can come together and figure out where we disagree and then agree on a final package. These communities facing massive unemployment deserve nothing less. This bill is supported, Mr. Chairman, by the entire Republican California delegation, and I commend my colleagues from California for their hard work in getting this bill to the floor today. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This debate, Mr. Chairman, is very interesting. And what we are presenting here today and what is being presented by my California colleagues is, from their point of view, a solution to a problem caused by a drought and caused by regulatory action in the State of California. I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand up-- virtually everybody has said this. I know my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, said something that I will allude to in a moment. Mr. Costa said something about that. The ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee said something about what I am going to say, and, I dare say, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano) said the same thing. The thread of what they all said is that there are solutions, and we need to work together. We need to find these solutions, to which our side says fine, this is our solution. We recognize you may not like it. We recognize that. But we also have one other point that we need to recognize, and that is the genius of our Founding Fathers. They created two branches of the legislative branch, the Congress: the House, in which we have the privilege of serving, and the Senate. I made the observation in my opening statement that the Senate has not acted on any water bill laws at all. Well, finally somebody in this area is catching that message, because the Fresno Bee in California, which is right in the epicenter, if you will, of the San Joaquin Valley, editorialized last week that Senator Feinstein must step up and lead on the drought. What that means, of course, is step up and write a piece of legislation. I have heard my colleagues say we are working on a piece of legislation, maybe by next week. Mr. Chairman, I want to make this point. This is very specific. Introducing a piece of legislation is not legislating. Legislating is when you pass a piece of legislation out of your respective House, and I think that is what the Fresno Bee is saying right here when they tell Senator Feinstein and others that they need to step up on this and pass some legislation. Listen, I am sure that legislation will be different than this. We have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is fine. I can take it, and, I dare say, my California colleagues can take it, too, and then we can work out the difference. But we don't know what your position is. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good piece of legislation. The last Congress acted on it, and it should act on it again. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to remarks that the previous speaker from California made about the potential danger in this bill as they relate to water rights in other States. What the gentleman was alluding to is absolutely incorrect because the language in this bill is very specific; it is very specific as it relates to California. We went through this process in the last Congress when we went through hearings because other States--my State included--was very, very concerned that whatever preemption had to do with water here would affect other States. Last year in this bill, the language is very, very specific: it does not apply to other States; it is California-centric only. So I want to make that point, Mr. Chairman. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member stated, this amendment states that the California Governor's declared drought emergency is considered a request to the Federal Government to declare a fisheries disaster. Under longstanding law, the Governor can make such a request by sending a letter to the Commerce Secretary. The amendment does not change underlying law that requires the Commerce Secretary to determine whether a fisheries disaster declaration is merited. This amendment simply serves as a request, but the Commerce Secretary still has discretion to make a decision on this request. As such, we do not have any objections to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.