60 



cause this adds a tremendous burden to the district. OK. That is 

 the end of my questions. We still are in a vote. Anybody else? Let 

 us see. Now, that would be a fourth round of questioning. At this 

 point, I think we have got to draw this to a close. 



Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, how long is this going to go on? 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. You have a right to ask questions. Do you want 

 to ask any? 



Mr. Radanovich. No. I don't want to ask any. The only question 

 I have is how many times are we going to go around on this? 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. 



Mr. Radanovich. We have got two more panels. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Under my authority as Chairman 



Mr. Miller, Mr. Chairman? 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Miller. 



Mr. Miller [continuing], under the rules, every member of the 

 committee is entitled to ask questions of every witness for five min- 

 utes. I have one more five minutes left to me, and I would like to 

 follow up with Mr. Nelson. I am prepared to do that before we go 

 to a vote. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, let me just clarify. Under the rules, as I 

 understand it, it is discretionary of the Chairman as to the number 

 of rounds of questioning we have got. 



Mr. Miller. Under the House rules, it states that each commit- 

 tee shall apply the five-minute rule to the interrogation of wit- 

 nesses at any hearing till such time as each member of the commit- 

 tee who so desires has had an opportunity to question each wit- 

 ness. And the parliamentarian — ^we just went through this on the 

 Education and Labor Committee. I am entitled, and what I would 

 like to do is finish it. This is a very important matter as we all 

 know, and what I would like to do is I would like to follow up with 

 Mr. Nelson. I am more than happy to do it when we come back 

 from the vote. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Why don't you do it now, and then we 

 will go to the next panel. 



Mr. Miller. I want to go back to the contract because I really 

 think it is the core of the issue here on renewal. The scenario that 

 you lay out, Mr. Nelson, that you have both the veto on the trans- 

 fers and a right to water quantity and renewal in perpetuity sug- 

 gests that there is not much outlet for the reallocation of water 

 should the people of the State of California decide that that should 

 be done in the future. 



Mr. Nelson. I would like to reverse that and ask you a question 

 back if I may. How is that different from the other 80 percent of 

 the water users in the State of California 



Mr. Miller. Because of this fact, you know, and that is this: just 

 as we reallocated resources in the Federal Government, we closed 

 down bases in California, and people make those changes. In this 

 case, it may come that because of the increase in population and 

 our different economic growth in the State of California, you are 

 going to have to rethink about the reallocation of that water. 



The one place, like it or not, where some changes can be made 

 in some cases with minimal hardship certainly than if you went 



