Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Mike Thompson to honor Heidi Cusick Dickerson, who is transitioning from her position as Congressional Representative after nine years of service and dedication to the people of Mendocino County. Heidi served as Mendocino District Representative for Congressman Mike Thompson for eight years, and has served as a District Representative in my Ukiah office since the beginning of the 113th Congress. Heidi is a recognized leader in the county. The residents of our Congressional Districts are better off today thanks to the work of Heidi Cusick Dickerson. Her passion for advocating for individuals in need of federal assistance as well as for championing community issues is unparalleled. Throughout her time working on behalf of the people of Mendocino County, she has championed many successful projects, ranging from saving the Anderson Valley Health Clinic to ensuring that the Veterans History Project was a success each year. A dedicated public servant, Heidi coordinated a housing foreclosure conference to benefit the people of Mendocino and honored countless deserving citizens by presenting them with certificates of recognition on behalf of their Representative. A passionate advocate for Mendocino, Heidi continuously promoted the county's food and wine industries. Heidi worked tirelessly to secure appropriations for the Fort Bragg Coastal Trail and played an instrumental role in bringing the Point Arena-Stornetta public lands on the Mendocino coast into National Monument status this March. In addition, Heidi forged an historic partnership between tribal, state and federal agencies to protect salmon from poaching on the Garcia River. Heidi's unyielding dedication to advocating on behalf of the people of our beloved county is greatly appreciated by the entire Mendocino community. We know that she will continue to be an ardent advocate for all things Mendocino and we wish her continued success in the future. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we honor and thank Heidi for her nine years of invaluable service to the people of Mendocino County.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Mike Thompson today to recognize Christine Anderson, who is transitioning from her position as congressional representative after nine years of service and dedication to the people of Mendocino County. Christine served as a Mendocino Constituent Services Representative for Congressman Mike Thompson for eight years, and as a Field Representative for Congressman Jared Huffman since the beginning of the 113th Congress. She is renowned in the county for her exceptional management of constituent services as she helped countless individuals throughout the region tackle challenging issues. From veterans services to homeowners facing foreclosures to senior citizens, Christine has worked tirelessly to improve conditions for others. Her work with the Congressional Art Competition and Veterans History Projects touched many students and community members, promoting educational and cultural experiences of the highest quality. Christine's sense of grace, professionalism, and compassion provided many Mendocino residents with the highest level of care and positive problem-solving on a variety of difficult issues, and she will be missed. The residents of our congressional districts are better off today thanks to the work of Christine Anderson. Her commitment to advocating for individuals in need of federal assistance is appreciated and we wish her continued success in the future. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we honor and thank Christine for her nine years of invaluable service to the people of Mendocino County. 2014 MAYORS DAY OF RECOGNITION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1459. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. The reference to public participation in the name of the bill implies that there is a complete lack of public input in the process of designating these monuments, that these designations are dropping abruptly and arbitrarily out of the White House. I will tell you, as the Representative of the newest national monument in the country, that is just not the case. Before President Obama added Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands to the California Coastal National Monument, literally, the entire community in that area that I represent, all of the interested stakeholders were not only engaged, they had been engaged for several years. That includes everyone from the business community, local tribes, conservation groups, and local governments, to schoolchildren in the area. There was no opposition to this proposal. People came out to public meetings, and that included a public workshop that Secretary Sally Jewell had herself. She came out to the area. I assure you, there was no shortage of public input, no shortage of public participation, so this premise that there is a lack--an absence of public participation is, at least in my experience, totally false. But so is the political narrative behind this bill, this idea that President Obama has somehow overreached in his exercise of executive authority. In fact, President Obama has been much more judicious than many of his predecessors in deciding when to designate these monuments. Prior to this President, 16 Presidents from both parties have used this authority under the Antiquities Act over the course of more than a century, and that ranges from President Roosevelt's designation of the Grand Canyon to 140,000 square miles of marine monument that were designated around Hawaii by President George W. Bush. By comparison to his predecessors, President Obama has been very sparing in using the Antiquities Act, and he and his Cabinet have been very careful to bring the public in and to be very transparent, so the narrative about executive overreach is also false. Limiting the Antiquities Act, as this bill would do--and I want to emphasize this--will harm jobs and economic growth; and in the case of my district, in Mendocino County, the community understood that one of the reasons for broad support of this monument designation is that the community understood it was good not just for the environment, but good for the economy. The travel and tourism industry is one of Mendocino County's biggest industries, bringing in over $300 million annually, and everybody understood that this monument designation was going to significantly boost that part of our economy; and it is going to happen now, this summer, thanks to what President Obama did. So why should a community like Mendocino County wait on a monument designation, especially in a situation like this, where there was no opposition to the proposal? No one is saying that Congress shouldn't play a role in protecting our public lands. It is important to note that bills to protect this part of the Mendocino coast were introduced first more than 2 years ago, so the 112th Congress had a full chance at it.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, we know that Congress can be slow, that there are uncertainties in the process of moving through Congress. The question is: Why, in the case of something like this, when there is no opposition, all these economic benefits, should my district or any other district have to wait for this critically important designation? I think we should be very careful about repealing a bill that has stood the test of time and worked well for both Democrats and Republicans for more than a century, and I request a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1459.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize Mr. Richard Young on his recent retirement from the Crescent City Harbor District. Mr. Young's dedication to the Crescent City Harbor District has never been shaken even as he worked to restore the harbor after repeated disasters. Mr. Young earned a Ph.D. in economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara and went on to teach in the Naval Postgraduate School. He then worked as a commercial fisherman, owning the vessels City of Eureka and Willola. Mr. Young was hired as harbormaster at the Crescent City Harbor District in March 2004. He became known for building relationships with members of the harbor community and with regulatory agencies. Following the tsunami of 2006, the winter storms of 2008 and a major tsunami that crippled the harbor in 2011, Mr. Young led the district through massive repairs to rebuild the city's vital harbor. This $54 million effort led to the West Coast's first tsunami-resistant harbor-- designed to withstand a 50-year tsunami event. The harbor's design also includes amenities that residents of California will enjoy for years to come. Please join me in expressing deep appreciation to Mr. Richard Young for his long and impressive career, and his exceptional record of service.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Marin Sanitary Service and Central Marin Sanitation Agency in celebration of the ribbon cutting held on March 18, 2014, for their Food-to-Energy (F2E) program, a public-private partnership designed to cut fossil fuel use and landfill waste by converting leftover kitchen scraps into a renewable energy source. Marin Sanitary Service, an innovative waste disposal company that plays an integral role in achieving Marin County's exceptional 75 percent diversion rate and its zero waste by 2025 goal, will turn food scraps from restaurants, caterers, and supermarkets into renewable energy at Central Marin Sanitation Agency's wastewater treatment plant. Central Marin Sanitation Agency, a public agency, and Marin Sanitary Service, a family-owned local business, developed this cutting edge program to divert food scraps from the landfill and use it to generate energy. The F2E program and this public-private partnership is a first for Marin County and one of only two programs of its kind in California. Mr. Speaker, the Food-to-Energy program represents an important and exciting step in the right direction for the environment and people of California. Public-private partnerships such as this serve as an innovative example for other communities to follow in an effort to reduce our impact on the environment. It is therefore appropriate that we celebrate the beginning of this pilot program.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, H.R. 3189 is too broad. It would not solve the problem that it purports to address, but it would indeed impede ongoing collaborative efforts across this country. Once again, I am afraid that the majority has ignored an opportunity for a bipartisan, solution-oriented engagement on an issue and instead chosen the same old attack-and-accuse and overreach politics. This legislation stems from a very legitimate concern that was raised by the ski industry regarding how the Forest Service was proposing to handle water rights in public leases for ski areas. This was something that we could have worked together on. In fact, I think the House could have found a constructive bipartisan solution. We could have had this resolved by now. Instead, the Republican leadership held a hearing on this issue during the government shutdown, meaning that we did not have the opportunity to question the Forest Service. Instead of the benefit of a dialogue and a conversation, we had an empty chair. Of course, the attacks on that empty chair ensued as part of the political theater. Had the GOP bothered to actually talk to the Forest Service, they would have found a receptive partner in a solution to this problem. They would have found, in fact, that a solution was already in the works. Had the Republican majority actually worked with the Forest Service, they could have influenced a proposal that is being revised right now by the Forest Service. Instead, we are dealing with a bill here today that goes far beyond the scope of the issue at hand and could affect voluntary agreements and contracts across this country. In fact, this bill before us today could stop the Federal Government from taking the very actions that could help ensure recreational opportunities for Americans, like skiing, rafting, kayaking, and fishing. Preventing water right holders from entering into agreements with Federal agencies could put our recreational economy at risk and could impede our ability to implement important water agreements throughout the West. We still have an opportunity to get back on a constructive track here. We have a chance to pass an amendment--the Polis amendment--that narrows the bill's scope to its original intent and would address the concerns of the ski areas. I urge my colleagues to support the Polis amendment to address the ski area water rights issues, and I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us to try to salvage this bill and focus on the real concern at hand.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for your leadership in organizing this hour of debate on such an important subject. I certainly want to lend my voice to the voices of my colleagues on this important matter. What we are asking for is very simple. We simply want an immediate ``up-or-down'' vote on whether to extend these Federal long-term unemployment insurance benefits. We are asking that because I think in all of our districts we see that too many of our constituents are unnecessarily suffering from Congress' failure to act. We owe it to our neighbors and their families--people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, people who want to work, who continually are searching for work--we owe it to them to provide the support they need to get back on their feet. In my own home State of California, we have got over 339,000 Californians who have lost unemployment benefits. The number continues to grow the longer Congress waits, the longer we fail to act. California's currently got an unemployment rate of about 8.3 percent, but in many parts of my district--I include some rural areas--that rate is much higher. In fact, in Trinity County we have an unemployment rate that is over 11 percent. It is very important to remember that this is not an abstract issue. This is an immediate and deeply personal issue about real people and real struggles. Since the Federal benefits expired in December of last year, I have received thousands of emails and phone calls from my constituents asking for Congress to wake up and take action. One of them very recently is a great example. It is from Lisa in Eureka. She wrote to me: I have been on unemployment for just over 6 months now and I am not able to make my mortgage payment. I am a worker, not a lazy bum. I want to work, and I am still looking and hopeful. But in the meantime, I can't live without a little help from unemployment. That is very typical of the kind of feedback and pleas that I am hearing and that I know you, Mr. Pocan, and many of us are hearing from hardworking folks in our district every single day. So, again, I think it is important to emphasize this is not a handout. This is about offering a hand up to real people during a difficult time. Without the extension of this crucial lifeline, 181,000 children in California--let's remember the impact on families and children--will be hurt. No one should be forced to make the unbearable choice between paying their rent and feeding their family simply because they lost their job due to no fault of their own. Extending these benefits should not remain a casualty to congressional gridlock. Just today, we got some great news. I think we are all encouraged that Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are working together on a tentative agreement to extend unemployment insurance benefits for 5 months--an agreement that, as I understand it, would provide retroactive payments to people like Lisa in my district. So, Mr. Speaker, let's help the economy. Let's help our constituents who are looking for work. This House should follow the Senate's lead and work together to find a solution. Again, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on March 11, 2014, I was absent for rollcall vote 116. Had I been present for rollcall vote 116, on passage of H.R. 3979, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize Mr. Mervin Field on the occasion of the Tiburon Heritage & Arts Commission event to be held on March 10, 2014 to honor more than seven decades of Mr. Fields' service. As founder of the Field Poll, the results of which could make or break careers, he has had tremendous influence in the political history of California and has been the recipient of numerous awards for his work, including the New York-based Market Research Council's Hall of Fame award. Mervin also served his country by joining the Merchant Marines in 1942, where he was on active duty for three years in the North Atlantic and South Pacific. After years of such impressive accomplishments, Mr. Field was awarded by the Trustees of the California State University with an honorary Doctor of Laws degree, noting that he had become ``a highly respected leader'' and ``a trusted advisor to academia, civic associations, governmental institutions and the business community.'' Mervin is a community treasure, and we are grateful for his long and impressive record of service. Please join me in expressing deep appreciation to Mr. Mervin Field for his many years of dedication and long-lasting impact on California politics.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Mike Thompson, to recognize California Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro, who will be retiring November 30, 2014 after 34 years of public service. Assemblymember Chesbro has an illustrious record of serving the North Coast as an environmental champion, public servant and community leader. He has devoted his career to protecting the North Coast's tremendous natural resources, advocating for underserved populations, and promoting the communities and businesses that call this region home. Beginning his public service career in the Arcata City Council, Assemblymember Chesbro served for years in the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the State Senate, and in the State Assembly. In addition to his decades in elected office, Assemblymember Chesbro left an impact on his community as the co-founder of the Arcata Community Recycling Center and later the Northcoast Environmental Center. As a member of the California State Senate, Assemblymember Chesbro authored legislation to fund rural community clinics, protect California's natural resources, provide housing for individuals with special needs, and ensure rural law enforcement agencies are fully funded. More recently, in the Assembly, Assemblymember Chesbro has successfully introduced legislation to promote recycling statewide, support local breweries, preserve forests, and protect marine mammals. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and proper that we honor Wesley Chesbro upon his retirement for his work in representing the North Coast, protecting its resources, and championing its people. We express our deep appreciation for his service, and convey our best wishes for his long and happy retirement with his wife Cindy and his children Alan and Collin.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, we rise today in memory of Saralee McClelland Kunde, who passed away on January 26, 2014 after a long battle with cancer. In 1938, her parents, Robert and Lillian ``Sweet Lil'' McClelland purchased a milk route in Marin County and subsequently entered the dairy business, hand-milking 18 brown Swiss cows. Born in Marin Saralee hurled herself into the dairy operation and into 4-H, raising Holsteins and showing them at local fairs. Revered as a superstar by others who work to promote the county's grapes, wines, milk and other bounty, and to preserve its ranch and farmlands, Kunde championed the Sonoma County Harvest Fair since its inception and was a key player in the Select Sonoma County marketing campaign and the Russian River Valley Winegrowers. A generous philanthropist, Saralee rallied others to contribute to myriad Sonoma County causes, including the 4-H Center in Rohnert Park. Tireless and innovative, Kunde constantly enacted strategies to promote the Harvest Fair and the Sonoma County Fair, challenge and inspire youth involved in 4-H and Future Farmers of America, fortify cooperation among grape growers and other producers, and introduce the general public to the farm experience. The depth of Saralee's commitment to agriculture in Sonoma County fueled many efforts to unite ranchers and farmers and to propel their products into national markets. She was a formidable force in uniting the diverse and often conflicting members of the agricultural community. Mr. Speaker, Saralee Kunde's vibrant life is proof positive that one woman can make a difference. The legacy she leaves will not soon be forgotten as much of her legacy lives on all around us in Sonoma County and beyond. It is therefore appropriate that we pay tribute to her today and honor her memory.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese Company on the occasion of the company's recognition by Sand County Foundation, the California Farm Bureau Federation and Sustainable Conservation as the recipient of the prestigious 2013 California Leopold Conservation Award. Given in honor of renowned conservationist Aldo Leopold, the Leopold Conservation Award recognizes extraordinary landowner achievement in voluntary stewardship and management of natural resources. Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese Company and its owners, the Giacomini Family, have prioritized healthy landscapes, clean waterways and a clean-energy future. Rotational grazing of their cows keeps soils healthy and helps prevent harmful erosion, and their methane digester produces renewable energy to power their dairy and cheese facility. Please join me in congratulating the Giacominis and Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese Company on this important recognition and for the lasting impact their conservation policies will have on California's ranching community and its environment.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, there was a deeply troubling story this Sunday in The New York Times, entitled, ``The End of Snow.'' Like all of you, I have been cheering on our Olympians in Sochi, particularly in the snow-related events. But as this article notes, climate change is threatening the very concept of Winter Olympics and snow sports in general. Current models project a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by the year 2100, leaving winters drier and our mountains bare of snow. Of the 19 cities that have hosted Winter Olympics, only 10 might still be cold enough by 2050 to host them again. Warmer winters and less snow will be disastrous to the United States' $66 billion ski industry. Until this weekend, California had just 12 percent of its average snowpack. Thankfully, it snowed in the Sierras, bringing some needed relief. But one snowstorm in California and another on the east coast does not solve our bigger, long-term climate crisis. Climate change will impact our lives in every way. Let's get to work. Let's reduce greenhouse gases and prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, the last time California had a severe multiyear drought, something very different happened. Democrats and Republicans, people from the northern part of the State, the southern part, and inland came together around a historic bipartisan set of water reforms. I was fortunate to help author some of that. I chaired the Water Committee in the State legislature. National newspapers like The New York Times called it the most important thing California had done for water in 60 years. This bill repeals it. Full stop. To offer this as a solution would be laughable if it weren't such a serious offense to real solutions in California water. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan which my friend referenced is over if this bill passes because the premise of that plan is coequal goals for the environment and water supply reliability; and when you preempt that and repeal it, there is no basis for that plan to move forward at all. You had better include, in fact, some funding for the Federal courts if this bill passes because, instead of a solution, you are going to be unleashing a wave of litigation unlike anything the State of California has ever seen. It is going to hurt the San Joaquin Valley, and it is going to hurt every other part of the State that needs constructive solutions, not a new water war. We have over 100 years, Mr. Speaker, of deference by the Federal Government to the State of California and to all other Western States in administering our water rights system. That was made very clear by Chief Justice Rehnquist in California v. The United States in the 1970s. The principle of State administration of water rights under the public trust doctrine is part of the California Constitution, and the California Supreme Court has made it clear that that is a bedrock of California water law. The California Legislature, in that historic 2009 package, called that the fundamental principle of California water, and it is repealed by this vastly overreaching expansion of Federal authority offered cynically today as a solution. I know some people across the aisle like to talk about the 10th Amendment. They like to rail against expansion of Federal authority and Federal overreach. Well, we are living in a very glass house here today, Mr. Speaker, because this is the most overreaching expansion of Federal authority that I could ever imagine on something as basic as water rights in the Western United States.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that NOAA has decided not to interfere with the progress California and other states have made in ending the cruel practice of shark finning. Federal preemption of state law should be extremely rare--the federal government should not stop states from raising the bar on environmental protection, and I'm glad NOAA has agreed to revise its position on our state's landmark shark fin law. I submit an exchange of letters between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, February 3, 2014. Mr. Charlton Bonham, Director, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Dear Mr. Bonham: Thank you for your February 3, 2014, letter regarding your assessment of the relationship between the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 and the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, and the California Shark Fin Prohibition and the impact of California's law on federal shark harvesters. NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region confirms that revenue from the sale of sharks harvested in federal waters off California derives mostly from the sale of the meat of the shark, not from the sale of fins sold after the shark is legally harvested and landed with fins naturally attached. Further, you confirm that all federal fishers who land sharks in California, including those who operate in federal waters pursuant to a federal license, are also required to hold state licenses and are therefore exempt from the ban on possession of shark fins. Based on the full information about the California law set forth in your letter, and the current facts specified there regarding the scale and nature of the federal shark fishery in California, we agree with your conclusion that California's Shark Fin Prohibition law will have minimal impact on federally licensed and permitted shark harvesters in California, and does not unlawfully burden their ability to achieve the benefits from federal fisheries provided under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. Accordingly, it is our position, based on the information that you have provided, that California's Shark Fin Prohibition law is not preempted by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended. We agree that this has been a very productive process. Our consultations have addressed fully our initial concern, as expressed in the amicus brief of the United States Chinatown Neighborhood Association et al., v. Brown, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-15188, that California's Shark Fin Prohibition might conflict with or obstruct the Magnuson- Stevens Act, as amended. In light of our present conclusion that California law does not conflict with or obstruct the purposes, goals, or methods of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we do not intend to seek authorization from the Department of Justice to further participate in the case of Chinatown Neighborhood Association, et al. v. Brown, et al., No. CV 12 3759 WHO (N.D. Cal.). We request that you contact us if there are significant changes to the facts described in your letter as this could necessitate further consultation. We appreciate your willingness to work with us on this important matter and we hope this letter addresses your concerns. Sincerely, Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on February, 5 2014, I was absent for rollcall votes 40 and 41. Had I been present for rollcall vote 40 I would have voted ``yes.'' And had I been present for rollcall vote 41 I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about 3-inch fish in this debate. In fact, to hear my colleagues in the Republican Party tell it, this is a story of a 3-inch fish that is taking water away in this critical drought that should be allocated to people. Well, the truth is, Mr. Chairman, you would have to have the brain of a 3-inch fish to believe that narrative. There is no such thing happening in this critical drought year. What is happening, however, is some people are cynically trying to capitalize on the worst drought in California history in order to steal water from some parts of the State and from other water users and give it to a few. In fact, if this bill were accurately named, it would be called the ``Massive Federal Preemption Overreach and Water Theft Act for the Elections of 2014,'' but it is, in fact, pretending to be something quite different. We need to ask ourselves why the State of California is so passionately opposing this bill. Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote a letter just yesterday following the same position that prior attorneys general have always taken on this issue, including Republican attorneys general, that the Federal Government should abide by the 100-year precedent of deference, of cooperative Federalism, letting California administer its own water rights and allocate that water instead of the sweeping preemption that we see in this bill. This bill would upset the most basic tenets of California water law. The fact that the California constitution provides the State the ability to allocate water, the ability to administer things like the public trust doctrine, all of that is repealed and swept away by the preemption provisions in this bill. It doesn't have to be that way. In a crisis like this, it actually is possible for Republicans and Democrats and people from all parts of the State to come together and solve problems. I know that because I was part of something just like that that happened in our last multiyear critical drought. I chaired the Water Committee in the State Assembly in 2009 when there was a historic water package passed, a package that was supported by Republicans and Democrats, signed by a Republican Governor, supported by people from inland Central Valley California, southern California, urban areas. National media like The New York Times called it the most significant water reform in California in 60 years. Well, unfortunately, all of that, too, is repealed, just swept away by the overreaching preemption in this bill. The amendment I am offering, Mr. Chairman, would say, at least let's save what the national media and just about everybody else in the water world had called the most important thing, the best thing to happen in California water in the last 60 years. Let's save that from preemption as this bill goes forward if the amendment is made in order, and I would request that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on it.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the public trust doctrine and the coequal goals articulated in that 2009 California legislation are the centerpieces of California water. Without those coequal goals codified in that State law, the entire Bay Delta conservation plan is over. It is done. It has zero chance of success. Without the public trust doctrine and other State laws in critical years where a fully allocated and appropriated system like we have in California, where tough balancing decisions have to be made by the State water board, without those basic tools for how to do that job, they can't do their job. They can't allocate a diminishing resource, and the entire system of water and water rights allocation is thrown into chaos. So to hear my friend talk about his concern for litigation, I have to say, this is the recipe for endless litigation, confusion, and uncertainty in California. This is essentially throwing a grenade into California water that would ignite a water war unlike anything we have ever seen. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply request a ``yes'' vote. It doesn't have to be partisanship. It doesn't have to be taking water from one part of the State or from one set of users and giving it to the other, scapegoating the 3-inch fish. There is actually a way to solve water problems, even in California where water is scarce. We did it in 2009. It was widely recognized as historic, important, and positive. Let's save those 2009 water reforms from being roadkill from this reckless piece of legislation and vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for offering this motion to improve a deeply flawed bill. California is home to over 100 federally recognized tribes, including over two dozen in my congressional district. Many tribes, including the Hoopa, the Yurok, and the Karuk in my district, depend on wild salmon as both a vital source of economic opportunity and a respected way of life. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, some of the water impacted by this bill is critically needed by tribes in my district. This bill explicitly waives State and Federal law in a way that almost certainly would lead to additional diversions from the Trinity River, which would undermine tribal fishing and water rights. The Yurok Tribe in my district has written about provisions in this bill that they would undermine the Federal Government's ability to meet its Federal trust obligation to protect, preserve, and enhance the trust resources of that tribe. This House has an obligation to clarify that this cynical bill would not diminish any protected tribal water and fishing rights, and so I urge a ``yes'' on this motion to recommit, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on January 27, 2014, my flight was cancelled and I was absent for rollcall votes 24 and 25. Had I been present for rollcall vote 24, on passage of H.R. 2166, I would have voted ``yes'' and had I been present for rollcall vote 25, on passage of H.R. 3008, I would have voted ``yes.''