Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, another gentleman from California who has seen the effects of what this man-made drought is, Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to point out that this bill came out of committee with bipartisan support, and we've had bipartisan debate for this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. There has been much discussion on the floor about preemption. In fact, the previous speaker emphasized that in his close. I am from a western State; I'm from Washington. If anybody should be cautious about preemption, it is certainly me. And I say that because I represent an area that has two over-half-a-million-acre, or half-a- million-acre, irrigation districts. So I understand about preemption and Western water law. But in the context of today's debate, the California water system is unique. Here we have a massive Federal system, the Central Valley Project and a massive State water project called the State Water Project, and it operates as one combined unit. This is what is very important, Mr. Chairman. The coordinated approach was requested by the State and codified by the Federal Government in 1986. That's when water law was preempted. They asked for it in 1986. In 1992, it was further preempted by amendments to the law in the Central Valley Project in 1992. So what we did in committee is we offered an amendment that was adopted. Let me read the amendments by Mr. Tipton and Mr. Gosar, and it says: Congress finds and declares that (1) coordinated operations between the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, previously requested and consented to by the State of California and the Federal Government, require assertion of Federal supremacy to protect existing water rights throughout the system. That's in California. It says: (2) these circumstances are unique to California. Therefore, nothing in this act shall serve as precedent in any other State. When we offered that amendment, everybody on our side of the aisle voted for it. Only four on their side of the aisle, when they had an opportunity to make sure preemption wouldn't happen, they voted ``no.'' You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. So with that I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of the legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of the time to a member of the committee and somebody who has worked on this legislation, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, we only have one other speaker, and we have the right to close, so I'll reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of the time again to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I heard the author of the amendment state something, and I will paraphrase, that he spoke to the chairman of the committee on the allocation of the water, and supposedly the chairman of the committee responded back ``take the water away.'' Number one, I do not recall ever having that dialogue with the maker of the amendment. But had he asked me, my answer would have been an equitable distribution of the water. So I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Chairman, because that's what I heard in the debate just previously.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which has partial jurisdiction on this bill, I support S. 1134. For over two decades, Wisconsin and Minnesota have been working on a plan to replace this bridge, which is over 80 years old. This two-State project has been delayed by lawsuit after lawsuit and by the interference of Federal bureaucrats. These nuisance lawsuits and bureaucrat attacks are all based on the fact that the bridge spans the St. Croix River, which was listed in 1972 under the Federal Wild and Scenic River Act. This bipartisan bill simply says that this ``wild and scenic'' label on the river, under Federal law, cannot stop these States from building a safe, new bridge. It's as simple as that. In regards to earmarks, which was brought up by the gentlelady from Minnesota, this bill has been reviewed and is in compliance with the earmark definition in clause 9 of rule XXI. The bill does not contain congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits. The bill is aimed at ensuring the Federal Wild and Scenic River Act doesn't prevent a safer bridge from being built. It affects multiple States. So, Mr. Speaker, the people of Minnesota and Wisconsin have been waiting decades to build this project. Let's pass this bill and allow them to do so.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. With all due respect to my good friend and colleague from West Virginia, each person may have his own definition of an earmark, but we are governed by the definition in House rules, not by a cavalier ``quacking duck'' standard. The bill has been reviewed and is in compliance with the earmark definition in clause 9 of House rule XXI. The bill does not contain congressional earmarks. I know the gentleman has been very open about his support for earmarks, but we are governed by the rules of the House, and the ``quacking duck'' comparison does not stand here.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.