Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2954, Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3864, Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by stating that I am strongly opposed to H.R. 3964, for a variety of reasons, but primarily because it does nothing to address California's drought. However, I would like to raise two points about the bill's process and debate.

I offered an amendment that would sunset provisions of this bill in the 2015 water year. I did this because the bill's authors stated that the bill is intended to be a short-term measure. Yet my amendment to limit the duration of the bill was prevented from coming to the floor for a debate.

I offered another amendment, which was actually proposed by the bill's authors. A few weeks ago, the Speaker, the majority whip, and the bill's authors held a press conference in California, where they bemoaned the fact that the Senate would not come to the negotiating table to address long-term water shortage issues.

I agree with them that a bipartisan discussion in both Houses of Congress is appropriate. That is why I offered an amendment, using their own suggestions, to establish a joint select committee to address drought issues in the West. It would be comprised of 10 Members, just as the bill's author recommended, and would work out a comprehensive solution.

That proposal, too, was rejected, as was a similar amendment by my California Valley colleague, Mr. Costa. We wanted to bring the House and the Senate to the table but are being denied the tools we need to do just that. How can the bill's authors claim they want a bicameral discussion, yet deny a vote on this issue--one which they just advocated for?

I am trying to establish a set of guidelines with what the bill's authors say they want, but they won't even allow it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source