Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. If we take it up now, we can generate the funds necessary to suppress brush buildup, to plant new seedlings and to restore these forests for the use and enjoyment of our children. If we wait for the normal bureaucratic reviews and litigation and delays, we will have lost these forests for the next several generations. The irony is that 16,000 acres of that same forest were destroyed but were on private land. The owner, Sierra Pacific Industries, is in the process of salvaging the timber on their lands. They will be done by this summer, and then they will begin reforesting from a portion of those proceeds. Meanwhile, the public lands lay unattended. Let me tell you something. Within a couple of years, the difference is going to be dramatic. We will have fully salvaged and reforested private lands next to neglected, overgrown public lands that are dry with scrub brush and just waiting for the next fire. The public management of our lands will be judged in comparison with the management of the private lands, and if we maintain current law, we will have been held in the balance and found wonting.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, last August, the Rim Fire destroyed 400 square miles of timber in the Sierra Nevada. It left behind hundreds of millions of board feet of dead timber that can still be salvaged, but, as I pointed out earlier, time is of the essence. Within a year, the fire-killed timber loses much of its value. Yet the current environmental review process takes a year to complete, and then litigation starts and runs out the clock on what remains of that perishable resource. Sixteen thousand acres of the destroyed timber is on private land owned by Sierra Pacific Industries. It does not face the bureaucratic obstacles that we face on the public land. SPI is already halfway through its salvage. It will be completed by summer. They will use a portion of those proceeds to replant their devastated acreage. Meanwhile, the timber on the public land continues to rot and decay. The earliest the Forest Service can conclude its environmental review is August, and then the litigation process will start, and then it will be too late. The cost will be hundreds of jobs, millions of dollars of lost economic activity, and millions of dollars of lost salvage revenues that could otherwise have been used by the Federal Government for reforestation of the public lands. Now, title IX of the bill in its current form was based on bipartisan language introduced by Senator Tom Daschle to expedite salvage in the Black Hills National Forest, but these provisions were opposed from the other side of the aisle. So I sat down with the Forest Service and opposition offices to work out a process that will assure that salvage can begin by spring, while maintaining both environmental and judicial review. And I particularly want to thank Chief Tom Tidwell for his technical assistance and that of his office. This amendment is the product of these talks. It authorizes the Forest Service to select acreage for salvage where there is no wilderness, ESA, historic, or other legal restrictions. It authorizes them to implement the draft EIS that is expected to be completed by April and deems the draft is compliant with all applicable environmental reviews. This will allow salvage to begin under their direction in April. It authorizes the Forest Service to modify the draft EIS in response to public comment and allows for judicial review of the final EIS based on ecological impacts. It merely bars litigation based on process, and it bars temporary restraining orders. This will allow the timely salvage of a portion of the public lands destroyed by the fire while the final EIS is prepared and while any judicial review proceeds. Finally, it authorizes the Forest Service to use the millions of dollars raised by the salvage for forest restoration in the devastated Sierra. This compromise language assures compliance with all environmental laws and maintains judicial review while assuring that salvage can begin this spring. It is also important to the economy of the region that has been devastated by the fire and by increasingly stringent Federal restrictions and land acquisitions that have ravaged the timber, livestock, mineral, and tourist industries upon which these mountain communities depend. It means jobs for hundreds of lumberjacks, mill workers, truckers, and all those who support them.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, California's drought is nature's fault, but our failure to prepare for it is our fault. In California, the ruling Democrats have not only obstructed the construction of new dams for the past 35 years but they have also actively sought to tear down existing ones. They have substituted conservation for desperately needed storage, and now that we face drought, we find that our few reservoirs are empty, and our conservation options are already exhausted. Worse, in the first years of this drought, 1.6 million acre-feet of water was dumped into the Pacific Ocean for the care and amusement of the delta smelt. Mr. Chairman, 800,000 acre-feet--enough for 4 million Californians--was deliberately drained from our now empty reservoirs just several months ago, knowing that that water was desperately needed to support the threatened human population. Part of that water was taken from Central Valley farmers, who now face economic extinction. This bill corrects these tragic policies. It is true, we cannot make it rain, but we can take measures to stop this lunacy, increase storage capacity, reinforce existing water rights, and ensure that we never again must face a crisis of this magnitude. This bill allows for the expansion of Lake McClure by 70,000 acre- feet. It gives local water agencies the ability to store additional water at New Melones. It sets deadlines for additional storage. It authorizes local water districts to partner with the Federal Government to expedite expansion of existing reservoirs and construction of new ones, and it reverses the policies that put the delta smelt ahead of the needs of thousands of farmworkers and millions of consumers. Now, the people responsible for these policies say that this steals water from northern California. It does not. This is only water that would otherwise be lost to the Pacific Ocean. This bill restores the bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that guarantees the delta the water that it needs and grants a portion of any excess to the Central Valley. This historic accord was broken when Central Valley water was expropriated for the delta smelt. This bill restores that accord while making provisions to increase the overall supply. The other outlandish charge is that this measure overrides State water rights. It does exactly the opposite. It specifically protects State water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy--local, State, or Federal. We have listened to the environmental left for 40 years, and this is where it has gotten us. It is time to reject these voices and return to the commonsense and proven policies of abundance that produced the prosperity that we once enjoyed.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 174-250 when the gentlelady introduced it in 2012, and it deserves a similar fate on the floor today. Let's be clear about what it does. It singles out Central Valley Project participants who pay their Federal loans off early to a punitive surtax that is imposed on no other Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States. Their surtaxes will be passed on to consumers through higher prices. Now, the Central Valley Project was already singled out for a punitive tax-- about $50 million annually--by Congress in 1992 to fund an array of environmental slush funds. I believe that beneficiaries should pay the cost of water projects but that they should pay only the costs of those projects and no more. These are not cash cows for the Federal Government to milk until they are dry. When the left speaks of corporate farms, they leave out the fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated, and that is who we would be singling out for this special tax. That tax is then paid in only one of two ways: by employees through lower wages or by consumers through higher prices. I have a modest suggestion. Perhaps we should start putting people back to work rather than running them out of business. I have often criticized the gentlelady and her colleagues for policies that have created the conditions that indirectly send water prices through the roof, but this proposal does so quite directly and dramatically. I think that is why so many of her colleagues on the Democratic side abandoned her 2 years ago and why they would be well advised to do so again. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, it ought to be obvious to everyone that, once you have paid off a loan, you don't keep paying interest on that loan. Why? Because you have already paid it off. That is what every project managed by the Bureau of Reclamation does. When they are given permission to prepay the loan--to pay off the loan just the way you would pay off your home loan early--they no longer are charged interest for it. The gentlelady would single out the Central Valley--and the Central Valley alone--for this punitive surtax. I have often wondered why the policy seemed to be aimed at the Central Valley. I don't know what it is that my friends in the opposition have against the thousands of farmworkers whose livelihoods depend upon farming in that region, but they have been waging war on that hapless and helpless group for far too long. This is another example of singling them out for a special punitive tax paid by no one else in all of the Bureau of Reclamation experience. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, more than any other, focuses on the central issue surrounding this bill: What comes first-- families or fish? In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act carved out 800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated for fish and wildlife purposes. That water came out of the allocations for the Central Valley that all sides had agreed to. At the time, it was promised that the water would be replaced. That promise is unfulfilled to this day. Worse, the Federal Government began treating this allotment as a floor rather than as a ceiling. In the mid-1990s, a zealous official in the Department of the Interior preempted State water rights and ordered that more than 1 million acre-feet of water appropriated by the Central Valley Project be used for purposes not authorized under water rights permits issued by the State of California. This bill reestablished the 800,000 acre-foot allotment agreed to by all sides when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt promised: ``A deal is a deal, and if it turns out there is a need for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal Government.'' This provision redeems the promise that was broken by Mr. Babbitt's deputy, and the provision that the gentlelady is offering would have us delete that provision. I might add that, also under this bill, the 800,000 acre-feet can be recycled by communities once it has met its environmental purpose rather than being lost to the ocean. To those who tell us they like recycling, this is the ultimate recycling bill. I might also point out that an amendment that had a very similar effect 2 years ago was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 178-247 in this House. I would recommend that we do so again today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from the Central Valley (Mr. Valadao), the author of this measure.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, like Tennyson's rotting mackerel in the moonlight, this amendment shines and stinks. It states the obvious: the bill will not harm delta drinking water supplies. Well, of course it won't. After all, the delta counties are senior to the Central Valley in their water rights and so they have first call on that water. Under this bill, no agency of the State or Federal Government can take that right away. Furthermore, under this bill, the delta counties can also reuse environmental water that otherwise would have been lost to the ocean, making this the ultimate water recycling bill. This bill in no way affects the quality of drinking water in the delta or anywhere else. The proof of that is the fact that in the years following adoption of the Bay Delta Accord, which H.R. 3964 merely restores, never was it suggested by any water agency that drinking water or agricultural water was adversely affected in any way, shape, or form. By placing this provision in the bill, it immediately opens it up to litigation that could tie it up in the courts for years. The mere allegation by a single litigant, no matter how outlandish, no matter how contorted, could stall these vitally needed reforms. It would also give this administration the ability to claim a right to nullify this law based on such a fiction. A few years ago, when Central Valley water was being diverted for the delta smelt, I confronted the Secretary of the Interior in the Natural Resources Committee. I pointed out that with thousands of farmworkers unemployed, with a quarter-million acres of prime farmland destroyed, with food lines in the agricultural capital of the West, with unemployment in some of these communities reaching 45 percent, he had the authority to suspend the diversions and restore that water to the Valley to stop this human tragedy. He acknowledged that he had that authority, but he wouldn't use it, he said, because doing so ``would be like admitting failure.'' The amendment before us would give the same administration the excuse to ignore reality and act on ideological whim. When this amendment was offered 2 years ago, it was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 177-243 in this House. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), who introduced the predecessor to this bill 2 years ago.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to impose yet another environmental study that could lead to more water being diverted away from families and farmers and flushed out into the ocean. If you support throwing more stored water out to the ocean and making this crisis worse, then this amendment is another step toward that end. Now, those who speak of ``resiliency'' and ``adaptability'' are using these terms to propose that dams evacuate more water storage earlier in the water year to account for faster snowmelt from the mountains and rain-based inflows. Now, just today, the East Bay Express reported that water managers deliberately dumped 800,000 acre-feet--as I said earlier, enough for 4 million Californians--into the Pacific Ocean that they knew was desperately needed as the drought continued to worsen. Folsom Lake, the principal source of water storage for Sacramento and its suburbs, is nearly empty now because of those releases. We watched the Sacramento River at full flood all autumn and wondered what in the world were they thinking. The fact is a hydrology consensus does not exist on this, and we should not be asking the GAO to investigate terms that are based on a lack of scientific consensus. This amendment does nothing to restore water that continues to be lost to punitive Federal regulations and may, in fact, contribute to new regulatory overreach. Californians are in a drought crisis now. It is time for action, not another bureaucratic study with no end in sight. This is why we must not impose studies in this bill or create steps to further erode water storage. We need to build more storage and capture more water, and that is precisely what this bill does. This bill is aimed at implementing a permanent solution to California's water crises so we can put people back to work permanently and restore balance back to California's water supply. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the gentlewoman is.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my objection to this amendment is similar to others of its ilk. It would allow litigation to block implementation of this bill indefinitely. There is, of course, nothing in this bill that would interfere with the State's water bond or its groundwater monitoring or groundwater conservation. Indeed, it will improve groundwater conservation since it brings balance back to surface water deliveries and restores the incentives for groundwater recharging. The poison pill is not only the prospect of indefinite delay based upon the allegation of a single individual that can find the ear of a sympathetic judge. It is introducing the subjective standard of coequal goals for the delta. The term ``coequal goals'' is something that is subjective. A term like this is subject to litigation not only at the State level but will be used as a means, if this amendment is adopted, to litigate this bill and delay the balance that it restores. That balance was established by the bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that was hailed by all sides as a historic agreement to serve the coequal goals of human prosperity and environmental protection. When that agreement was signed, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt assured all parties that ``a deal is a deal, and if it turns out there is a need for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal Government.'' The water diversions for the delta smelt, based upon the same opportunity to litigate that this amendment renews, shattered that promise. This bill redeems it. The amendment should be rejected. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the gentleman from California is.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marine Staff Sergeant Sky Mote, a man who faithfully served and then made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. He was recently awarded the Navy's second highest commendation for valor, the Navy Cross. Growing up in El Dorado, California, Sky enjoyed 4-H, Civil Air Patrol, and loved camping with his family. At Union Mine High School, he lettered in track and cross country. From an early age, Sky was motivated to join the military by a deep desire serve his country. Upon graduation, he promptly enlisted in the Marine Corps. Sky spent nine years serving his country in the United States Marine Corps, including a deployment to Iraq and two deployments to Afghanistan. To those who knew him, it is no surprise that Sky not only served, but served with gallantry and meritorious distinction. Sky was awarded the Navy Cross, a Purple Heart, the Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal, a Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal, two Combat Action Ribbons and three Good Conduct Medals. On August 10, 2012, Sky was serving with the prestigious 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion as an Explosive Ordnance expert in Helmand Province of Afghanistan. During an attack inside the base perimeter by a rogue Afghan policeman, SSgt. Mote rushed into action rather than escaping to safety. Sky's courage and initiative in engaging the gunman, while exposing himself to mortal gunfire, halted the enemy assault and undoubtedly saved lives that day. Sky Mote will be deeply and sorely missed. He leaves behind his mother and father, as well as four brothers. The United States is blessed to have young men of character and heroism to defend our freedoms. Mr. Speaker, SSgt. Sky Mote lived and died as an embodiment of the virtues that built and continue to preserve our country and it is my privilege to rise to honor his memory today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the opposition has erupted into a veritable Mount Vesuvius of misinformation on the California water bill, and I would like to address a couple of the major points that they have raised. This does not preempt State water rights. It specifically invokes and protects the water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy-- local, State, or Federal. This is a legitimate constitutional function of the Federal Government that dates back to the 14th Amendment, and it is made essential by the unique relationship between the Federal and State governments with respect to California water policy, the mixture of both the Central Valley project and the State water project. To the ridiculous comment that this is a theft of northern California water and that northern California is united in its opposition, nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, this bill protects the north from any attempt to override established California water rights law in reallocating water from the north. Just to illustrate this, I would point out that it was these provisions in the last session of Congress that the California Association of Water Agencies specifically pointed to in support. They said this: The bill, if enacted, now contains provisions that would not only protect the interests of senior water rights holders in the Sacramento Valley but would also provide significant material water policy improvements to current Federal law. The bill, if enacted, would provide an unprecedented Federal statutory express recognition of and commitment to California's State water rights priority system and area of origin protections. Finally, to the argument that we cannot make it rain, there is not enough water to go around. Well, that is true. One of the reasons is because in this third year of drought, we have dumped a total of 1.6 million acre-feet of water into the Pacific Ocean that was desperately needed to support the threatened human population of California.