For any of you that were listening to the debate as we debated the amendment in the general debate on this, it is very, very evident that this bill is focused only on California--only on California. And the reason I make that point, because part of the reason that California is in this situation is because of Federal law and Federal regulations. Now, one of the ironies here, there is a lot of ironies when you look at these motions to recommit, but my good friend, the sponsor of the motion to recommit, I believe, was in office, or overseeing, at some time when these water projects were passed for California. And here is the interesting point, because he makes the very, what is a valid point, one worries about preempting State law. But the Central Valley Project in California preempted California law when it was passed. Nobody heard anything about that then. The San Joaquin River project preempted State law. I just want to make this point. No other State is affected. This is a California-centric piece of legislation.
Share
More from Doc Hastings
On Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 650, providing for consideration of H.R. 4617, the Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy, better known as the SHIELD Act, under a…
I have an amendment at the desk. The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 13, beginning on line 6, amend subparagraph (C) to read as follows: (C) Availability of plan.-- (i) In…
I was not present for rollcall No. 448, S. 756--the First Step Act of 2018. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the measure. ____________________
I would advise the gentleman that I have no further speakers, and I too am prepared to close.





