Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, today marks 52 years since that fateful Roe v. Wade decision, a decision that has tragically ended countless unborn lives. The Supreme Court, not too long ago, did find that it was unconstitutionally put in place, not legislated, but done by the stroke of a pen at a court. This week, thousands of people across the country are coming together in Washington for the March for Life, showing their unwavering commitment to standing up for the unborn and pushing for a culture that values and protects life. Every life is precious. It is our duty to defend those who can't speak for themselves, even though there are those that would say it is just a clump of cells. Well, those clumps of cells always, always, every time develop into a human, not a puppy, not a waffle, always a human. For people to try and deny that science is ridiculous. That is why I am honored to receive the A+ rating by the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life Scorecard for the 118th Congress, a recognition of my own dedication, but that of so many of my colleagues, as well, that we all back each other up on. Protecting life doesn't stop there. We need to make sure that mothers have the information they need and the support they need so they can make informed decisions, rather than glossed over by abortionists.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, on his first day in office, President Trump wasted no time in addressing California's water crisis by signing the memorandum titled ``Putting People Over Fish: Stopping Radical Environmentalism to Provide Water to Southern California.'' We are very pleased with the President's strong actions on that and many fronts yesterday. We look forward to working with his administration on that. Now, it did say ``southern California.'' As a Representative of northern California, I was like, what are you doing, Doug? We want people to understand that, due to stories like this--this is Lake Shasta up in Shasta County, just north of Redding. It holds 4\1/2\ million acre-feet of water when full. It is part of the Federal project known as the CVP, the Central Valley Project, built in the 1930s. We have an opportunity to raise it 18 feet, add 600,000 more--that is a different story for a different day right now--as well as the other projects we have around the State that hold a lot of water; Lake Oroville, right near my home, 3\1/2\ million acre-feet. The President wanting to have water that is already available, useful for other Californians, instead of being lost or not stored to begin with, I appreciate that directive. You know what, we have plenty of water in California that falls on the Sierras in rain and snowpack, if we would capture it. Instead, we have this situation year after year. This poster is a bit dated, but it is the same thing year after year. It shows how much water is being lost out through the Bay Delta. We have this massive flow, in this particular timeline, 7 million acre-feet came in. We are losing 6\1/2\ million acre-feet because we are just letting it go out. It is not helping the delta smelt you have heard about. The delta smelt, they can't find it anymore. They do trolls, and they can't find it. It is gone. Even with all the extra water that has been pushed out since 1992, it never did help the smelt. Maybe too much water actually drowns the fish or something. I don't know. We don't need to flush that much water through the delta even to keep saltwater intrusion from coming back up and affecting some of the Delta. We need to be trapping that water. We need to be saving that water for the San Luis Reservoir and for crops which would be helpful in the San Joaquin Valley. Also, when we talked about southern California--my colleague just talked about the horrendous fires down there. This is a reservoir right near the Pacific Palisades, which burned to the ground. This reservoir had that been full, would have had enough water to last several days instead of just a few hours that their hydrant system had. That is what it looks like full, more or less. That is what it looks like empty. It was empty. It had been empty for nearly a year. What kind of management or planning is that where they don't need to tell the fire department it wasn't full at the time? They are supposed to be doing some kind of repair on it. It probably could have been done in a couple of weeks. Instead, they are putting it out for bid and this or that. Probably, their local staff could have done it, they say. We lost that opportunity to trap water. Get this: It holds about 40 acre-feet. I just showed you how many hundreds of thousands of acre-feet go out through the delta. You could fill that up in minutes if you could somehow channel the delta into that. Yet, this is what you get. Instead, we would have the opportunity to have those reservoirs full, and have southern California have what it needs. Also, let's not forget the San Joaquin Valley, which President Trump knows a lot about. They grow these amazing crops. So many of them come from down there, as well as my part of northern California, to feed the United States and even the world. These products--when we show you these percentages here--these are percentages of crops that come from California that Americans use; not just Californians. If we don't grow them in California with all this abundant water we have, then where is this stuff going to come from? Where is this food going to come from? We are going to have to import it or do without it. We think, well maybe we don't have mandarins anymore, maybe we don't have avocados anymore. We will just eat something else. Why? We need to have these choices, and we have the ability to grow them because we have plenty of water when we trap it. Even in drought years, there is still enough water that comes down. With that, the management of water supply is also tied back to fire management. Unfortunately, what my colleague was talking about, the horrific fires in southern California, this is some of the brush that grows on the hills above those areas. It is a pretty arid climate down there. We know that. If we are smart about it, we can actually be removing this brush, and make it so that if fire does happen, it is just burning weeds at a slow pace instead of being driven by the Santa Ana winds at a high rate of speed, 80 miles an hour. You can't beat that. Firefighters can't beat that. They do their best efforts. They have got to try and at least make a line of defense at the city, but when it is flowing over the top of them like fire does and like happens in my district all the time, it is humanly not possible. This is how we stay ahead of it; removing this brush in the timber areas, like in my district where fire burned 1 million acres one time. We can be removing brush. We can be removing dead trees and small trees. We are still leaving the forest, but it is a thin forest. It is a managed forest. Instead of empty promises being made--empty-handed like Gavin Newsom time and time again saying: Oh, we are going to do something about the water. We are going to do something about the fuel in the forests. No, he isn't. He is dragging his feet on seeing the water supply built in California. He needs to be directing his people on the water commission, directing people on the water control board to make things happen to build these projects as expeditiously as possible instead of just trying to slow down the lawsuits. We need to do this to scale. We need to do this with speed. We are tired of the empty talk from the Governor. President Trump is leading the way on his first day, showing the path forward on helping our water supply, on helping our forests, helping the people in our State at home and our country to have what they need. No more empty promises. No more nonsense. Gavin Newsom needs to get out of the way. Let President Trump--instead of putting aside $50 million in the legislature, which is what they are talking about to fight Trump, and they want to tie that to State aid for southern California for fires. Talk about conditions--we hear about conditions a lot around here. Oh, no, conditions. You are making conditions on the State legislature to tie $50 million to fight Trump with lawsuits for State aid.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, on day 1, President Trump took bold action to revoke the unrealistic Biden mandate that aimed for 50 percent of all new cars to be electric by 2030, only 4\1/2\ model years from now. This decision protects Americans and industries from being sacrificed on the alter of radical environmentalism. Automakers can now focus on innovation and consumer desires, rather than being forced into a one- size-fits-all EV agenda that stifles competition and choices for real people. Gavin Newsom's California has been a cheerleader for these extreme policies, pushing mandates that hurt working families and drive up costs to meet their California goals. President Trump's move rejects that failed approach, puts common sense back in the driver's seat. That is part of a broader effort to restore energy independence, roll back harmful regulations, and ensure America isn't crippled by radical climate agendas. Today's actions are putting the needs of Americans ahead of an out- of-touch environmental elite. Instead of empty-handed promises by Gavin Newsom, we have President Trump who is focused on a forward-moving approach on real solutions, leading the way to support our economy, our workers, and our future.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, California had at least one piece of welcome news. The typically out-of-control California Air Resources Board has decided to pull back on some really overreaching truck and train regulations. CARB, as it is known, an unelected body appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom, has decided to withdraw a Clean Air Act waiver to the EPA for both the Advanced Clean Fleet and In-Use Locomotive Regulation rules. The Advanced Clean Fleet and locomotive rules were unrealistic from the start. The technology doesn't even exist on a market basis to run these trucks and trains, so maybe California should just be an island unto its own without these delivery devices. It would have placed an unnecessary financial burden on the businesses, the consumers, and the economy as a whole in my home State. President Trump has long been outspoken against regulatory overreach such as this. It is encouraging to see California finally getting a clue on that and beginning to follow that kind of thinking. Governor Newsom's appointees at CARB have been responsible for pushing many of these costly mandates in some of our other States. Even this Congress sometimes looks at emulating those to the detriment of consumers, like taking away their stoves, taking away their cars, the whole works. Mr. Speaker, it is time they start considering the real-world impact. At least this go around, maybe because of pressure coming from here, they pulled back and got this one right.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we see it every year, especially in the West. When fire season hits, it can be very devastating. Some years were better than others. In the northern part of the State that I represent and some of my colleagues in surrounding States, we got hit pretty hard in the forested areas, some of the grassland areas, et cetera. As you know right now, southern California, the Los Angeles area, is taking it really badly with the annual Santa Ana winds. It is an extraordinary amount of wind and strength of the winds, driving the fire to a point that hasn't been seen in at least 60 years in that area. It is devastating towns and causing unmeasurable damage so far. The fires are still raging. It is by the grace of God that maybe the wind will stop. Maybe it will shift somewhat and give the firefighters a better chance to get ahead of it. We know they are valiantly fighting. As it is right now firefighters are coming from all over the State and neighboring States as well, to weigh in on that with the aircraft, the equipment, and the firefighters on the ground to make the stand. It is going to be extremely difficult until the winds die down. We pray for rain to help them out as well. It is not unfamiliar for me in my northern California district with several large fires in the last 6 years. We have had the Paradise, California, fire known as the Camp fire, which burned many acres. Importantly, 90 percent of the town was burned down, and 85 people lost their lives with that. Other towns in my own district were consumed as well in later fires in Greenville and Canyondam. In a little town called Doyle, it blew right through part of that. It happens year after year. It really boils down to: What are we doing for preparedness? What are we doing to treat the lands and have the conditions that we need to be more successful? You are not going to prevent fire completely. You are going to have it. When one occurs, you need to be able to have a fighting chance, and our firefighters have the ability to do that. Mr. Speaker, joining me today during this Special Order is my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Bentz). We share that Oregon-California border, and we frequently encounter many of the same issues on fire, on forestry, on water and water issues Mr. Speaker, to tell his story about what has been going on in Oregon, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Bentz' perspective on that as a neighbor, and our constituents year after year suffer some of these same issues. You were showing that poster of our forested areas in the north and in the forests in the west you have the opportunity to manage those lands to be much more fire resilient. Again, you are not going to completely prevent fire, but you can have fire where it can be a lot more manageable or simpler to put out when it is not raging so much. You have here an example, on the right of this, of an unmanaged forest. You see how crowded, how dense that is? That means you have more trees, dense trees, and the trees are competing with the limited water supply. They are then weaker; they are more prone to have insects come and drill and kill the trees and just make it a tinderbox. Over here, this is managed land. If you look at old photographs from before we started putting all the fires out Smokey Bear style 100 years ago, forested lands were a lot more--had a lot more open space in it, meadow areas, and a lot more gaps between the trees because there was more of a natural effect of natural fire going through and taking out a lot of the lower brush, the pine needles and all that, and the big trees with their thicker bark stand and go on. You had lots of fire back then too, before man intervening, but there was a balance of nature of that. We started with the Smokey Bear program and put out all fires, which is good, but we stopped doing the management in between that nature would do, thinning forests, removing brush because up until the first few decades of the Smokey Bear program and putting out the fires program we were still managing the forests. We were utilizing those wood products. What nature might have burned out we were taking out, and that is where our wood and paper products were coming from. In about the 1970s when the Endangered Species Act's efforts were kicking in more so then it got a lot harder to get timber permits. It got more difficult to do anything in the forests especially on Federal lands where environmental organizations were trying to basically shut them down and add more and more monuments, for example, or wilderness areas that are basically no-touch zones. Here is another example of a forested area. This part on the right is an area that had burned out a long time ago on public land. Over here, the fire affected this private land as the government's fire basically spreads into everybody's land. What you see there is that the private parties got back to cleaning up their land and planting it back. You see those trees that are, oh, maybe 15 years old, I will guess, they are coming back. That forest is coming back. The Federal land that is not being managed is still the same as it was. You see dead snags. You see brush coming in. You see this is going to be a fire zone when all the brush burns the next time there is a fire in that area. Why is it our friends, our colleagues in southern California have to be subjected to this because they also have management needs in their adjacent areas, part of the moonscape you see in southern California right here. Some of their challenges include--they are not so forested in the areas closest to the cities. They have more of this. They have more of the hilly areas with a lot of brush on it like that. They need fuels reduction projects too in the more arid southern California. Their forests are a little further east, a little higher up. They have attempted fuels reduction projects, but the environmental movement sometimes shuts them down. Let me tell you about those a little bit. There is one that was under way along the Angeles Crest Highway corridor, one that was completed and did 1,800 acres. It took 2 years of analysis to approve the decision to complete that where a simple environmental review would have been done sooner and only affected a small amount of acreage. A very noble project that would have helped would have been near the Eaton fire in southern California, which would have been initiated in August 2020. If you look at that project, it was clear--it isn't clear if it was actually approved or implemented because the effect was that there is very little brush clearing that got done there. When you boil that down to what does that actually mean, it is that if you don't clear the brush, if you are held up due to environmental regulations and delayed permit periods, then you are going to be fire prone. The Santa Ana winds are going to come each year no matter what. In this case, they burned through that brush and came right up to the edge of town. We have seen that in Altadena where in one case here we have what is known as San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, and the Eaton fire has burned through that. This monument was recently expanded even more so. What happens with a national monument? As I mentioned a moment ago, it becomes almost hands off, don't touch, don't manage. No equipment can go out there and do fuel removals and very little other can happen in national monument or wilderness areas. In the designation, it did acknowledge the risk of wildfire and the need to manage it. But what happens? Lawsuits, litigation, and the hands-off approach happens; as a result, the fire that started in that area is what fed into and consumed part of Altadena in southern California. Now we will talk about the Pacific Palisades, which is the first one greatly affected as you have seen burning much of that community down. They had a safety project there that maybe in and of itself would not have been the complete be-all and end-all for helping them. You still need the brush lands work to be done so that fire can't come rushing through in areas so rapidly. In the Pacific Palisades, they had a pole line that they were going to upgrade from wooden poles to steel poles and also upgrade the equipment, harden the lines so they are much less susceptible to fire or high winds. In which case, a lot of those winds in my area of northern California if you got a wind warning, then they shut down the power, a Public Safety Power Shutoff. It is like a Third World country. We have to shut off the power because the wind blows. It is a preemptive effort so that branches and things don't blow into the power lines and cause fire like we have seen happen at least a couple times on big fires in northern California and other areas. When we prevent this work, we put ourselves at greater risk. In Pacific Palisades they had a pole line they wanted to change out, as I said, with the harder system lines and steel poles, and they were prevented from doing so. Let's see the plant one here. As the work was being done, somebody came along and claimed that they had an endangered species here. This is a variety of vetch, milk vetch, and they claim it is unique only to that area. It was somewhere around the area where they were changing the poles, and they made them stop the project and put back whatever vetch they may have been disturbing there in the process. That is the one unique to that area supposedly. Here is when it grows all over the place in northern California either wild or as a crop. People use it for a cover crop to put nitrogen back in the soil. It is really hard to tell the difference, but it is something the environmental movement uses the slightest difference to make that something, oh, my gosh, we have to stop this because it is an endangered species. That is pretty dubious. I can relate also a recent story when they are talking water storage and water projects, the Tellico Dam, which you may have heard of in the late 1960s, early 1970s that they were putting in place in Tennessee, part of the Tennessee Valley Authority, that it was going to provide massive benefits to the people of the area with hydroelectric power, stored water for water use, flood control, recreation, all the good things. Somebody from a university was out there poking around, and they thought they found an endangered species that they dubbed the snail darter. For several years, it was the battle over the snail darter. Nobody could really prove anything. Because the project was so important, after other efforts were exhausted, a bill was run through Congress in 1979 to make it where the Tellico Dam could be built. There was still ongoing litigation after that, but it got to operate. Finally, what we have learned many years later is that the TVA was operating pretty well and that the biologists at that time somehow had information to remove the snail darter from endangered to threatened status in 1984. In 2022, it was removed from the endangered species list. Here is the kicker. Just this month, a study revealed that the snail darter was not a distinct species. It wasn't a distinct species. Look at these two different forms of the same plants. In this case, it is a weed because it is not helping anything. It is a crop in some areas with the vetch. The snail darter was not a distinct species but actually an eastern population of what is known as the stargazing darter. This really raises concerns about how genuine the efforts of the environmental left are, to make claims about species identification being so narrowly specific to a particular area. This is what we and the folks in the Pacific Palisades get to suffer with on at least having that pole line able to be helpful and not furthering the fire with a hardened, newer pole line. So many things are California problems, we hear time and time again. We have to ask what is going on with the leadership in our State. I am sorry this has to be a problem for the other 49 States. What we do sometimes has to flow over to others and costs taxpayers of the rest of the country on these issues. We hear a lot of talk here about conditions being placed on the aid for southern California. There are not conditions for what is happening right now. The firefighters are being sent. Every effort is being made to put the needs of getting the fire out and helping the people who are in immediate need to have the shelter and other things they need in order to get through this timeline. I guess what we are talking about, and what Mr. Bentz, our Speaker, and others are talking about, is: What is the accountability, further down the line, on the many billions they are going to be seeking in order to rebuild? It isn't unheard of to have conditions on other situations in the rebuilding phase. This is the emergency phase. Nobody questions immediate help for the emergency phase, and that is what is disingenuous about this argument that is going on. Nothing is being held back from getting through the emergency timeline here. We are going to get the fire out, and we are going to get the people who are displaced in at least a fairly comfortable situation until the slog that goes through rebuilding happens. We have lived it right up in Paradise, California. We are grateful for much great help up there, but in Paradise, conditions had to be put on rebuilding homes out of resilient materials. The power lines are being undergrounded up there. There are trees that are being removed. The dead trees and damaged trees are being removed. The landscape will be different so that Paradise does not have the same issue in 40 years. We will have resilient homes that will stand up to fire. We will have the things in place that are going to make it resilient. I think it is pretty fair to ask, if billions are going to be sent to anybody after a hurricane or after a flood, what are you doing in the flood zone about making sure you have strong levees or maybe not actually building in a particular floodplain that is highly vulnerable, and in these other zones? It is reasonable to ask these questions. We are talking about 50 States' taxpayer dollars here. ``Oh, you are so insensitive to talk about costs and money,'' and this and that. No. We are getting through the emergency. We are helping people, and there will be help after, but it isn't unreasonable to say: What does it take to put things back in a way that is going to be stronger and more resilient going forward, especially when we are talking about many, many billions? As I have said, they have done that in the other areas where I have been affected or my people have been affected. It is not unreasonable to say you need to have harder and more resilient areas that are going to be fire resistant. In this case, in southern California, we want them to have these things. Let's talk about the water supply for a moment. We found out that, as we have heard time and again, the hydrants ran out of water. There are several pieces to that story. There are some realities, too, such as how much you can push through the fire hydrants for a fire that size. Yes, that is a reality. What happened? Let's back up from that a little bit. They did have a 117-million- gallon reservoir that was empty. The Santa Ynez Reservoir had been emptied for the purpose of repairs. I guess that is okay. We need to repair things, but what is the timeline for that? They emptied that 117-million-gallon reservoir last February. My understanding of it is that they waited a couple of months to start to put out a bid for the repairs that were needed on the cover of the reservoir. They don't want foreign things to get in there because it is a drinking water supply, as well. Then, they didn't really let out the contract, it is my understanding, until November. They lost 9 months fooling around in order to do something that is so critically important. Water supply in southern California is a pretty big deal, and it took that long. I am not sure that any repairs have even been started yet, from the photographs and such. Maybe they are doing some preliminaries. They say it is supposed to be ready by February, so we will see. They had to draw on three 1-million-gallon water tanks to try to keep the Pacific Palisades hydrant system going. If you had the ability to have that 117-million-gallon source ready, that would have lasted a heck of a lot longer than the few hours the hydrant system did, just based on the 3 million gallons in the tanks there. We want to talk water supply in California anyway. Gavin Newsom, the Governor, is not helping much. Indeed, his legions of regulators are stopping the water that needs to be stored in California and moved from the places where it is plentiful to the places where it is needed more so, such as the aqueduct system and storing water in the San Luis Reservoir. There are two sets of pumps, a Federal set of pumps and a State set of pumps. The one the State of California governs is running 15 percent of capacity or so right now. Why isn't that running at full blast, topping off San Luis Reservoir, which the San Joaquin Valley and southern California can draw upon? We have hundreds of thousands of acres of crops that have been idled because there is not enough water. We have enough water. Even in more drought-like years, the amount of water that runs out to the ocean is incredible. It would blow your mind what we are not taking advantage of. This is a poster I had. It is a little bit older here, but it illustrates the basic issue that is more or less true every year. The amount of water that flows into the delta right here--this is the middle of the timeline--is about 7 million acre-feet. Lake Oroville and Lake Shasta combined, when they are full, hold 8 million acre-feet, and the amount here in this illustration shows about 6 million of it went flowing out to the Pacific Ocean. People ought to be angry over this, that we are not capturing more of that water and topping off here in the delta. The San Luis Reservoir would be just down from the delta a little bit. Two years ago, remember, we had an amazing amount of rain in California in the Sierras, and we were able to top up everything. Tulare Lake was re-created once again. It is an area in the San Joaquin Valley that, in the past, had been kind of a lake. Because of farming and such, they have been able to recapture that, some of the richest land making some of the best crops in the world come from out there. That is how much water, rain, and snow we had, and it topped off just about all the dams and lakes everywhere. Then, we had a similar amount in 2023, yet the San Luis Reservoir did not get filled for the 2023-2024 season. It got barely over halfway full because they couldn't run the pumps. Why? It was because of a fish situation they had in the delta. The crazy thing is that the fish that they are trying to save actually had come in in a heavier population than normal, so in the process of pumping moving water, they trapped a little higher number of fish than normal, too, because there were more fish to begin with. So with that, they said you have already exceeded the quota of fish you can take for this year. They ratcheted the pumps down, and they weren't able to top off the San Luis Reservoir or deliver water to the San Joaquin Valley or to the aqueduct that would have helped maybe top off some more of the reservoirs in southern California. Santa Ynez Reservoir is one we have heard about, and I have spoken about it a little bit. This is the picture of that. This is more or less full. Over here is what it looks like empty. It kind of reminds you of a stadium or a racetrack or something. When they have the ability through the aqueduct to bring that water from somewhere else and fill that up, the poster I just showed you, Mr. Speaker, the amount of water flowing out to the Pacific would fill that in a matter of minutes if you somehow harnessed all that and dropped it in there. It would have to come down through aqueducts and other means, or they even have wells, as I understand, that can fill that if they don't have the upper lakes above that the ability to fill that. What it boils down to is that our leaders in California, starting with the Governor, have not been pushing in the direction that would give us the water supply we need that would help everybody and help with the crops. Instead, as I mentioned, it comes down to fish in the delta. It comes down to the delta smelt, which so many of you have probably heard of around the country. Why do you even know about that, Mr. Speaker? It is because, time and time again, we talk about the water woes of California. So many people in this country enjoy the crops that are grown in California. You can see here, Mr. Speaker, walnuts, for example, just about 100 percent of what Americans consume is grown in California, and almonds, tomatoes, mandarins at about 96 percent, and avocados. We are heavy in avocados, and probably in this area, we are talking not far from the fires. Grapes, wine grapes, so much of it comes from our home State. Americans enjoy these products, like olive oil and table olives. If it is not grown in these areas, then where do you want it to be grown? Where do you want it to come from? A mismanaged water supply means it doesn't happen in California, which means 90-something percent or above of all those crops coming from there will have to come from a foreign country, if at all. That means people's choices have changed. It means their diets have changed. That is why California's water is important to everybody. That is why the management of it is important. That is why the management of these forested lands and grasslands are important. It is because these have an effect, too. They have an effect on air quality. When we had a huge fire in my district known as the Dixie fire a couple of years ago, it ended up being a 1-million-acre forest fire and consumed a couple of towns, which I mentioned to you, Mr. Speaker. That smoke plume was big enough and dense enough that it was actually able to rise up, come all across the country, and affect the East Coast. People in Washington, Philadelphia, and New York were actually told not to go outside or do exercises on those days for health reasons. Mr. Speaker, remember the fires from Canada about 1 year ago? They affected people in the same way. The Canadian ones were not that far from here. This one came all the way from California. Our water supply would help L.A. and others to be able to have a better chance of fighting fires by keeping all their reservoirs full. Governor Newsom wanted to claim that all the reservoirs were full. They sure aren't all full up north, are they? That is where the water comes from, by and large. This effect we are talking about is important to all Americans, especially if you want to keep the food products that you are used to coming and if you want to have the air quality not affect the East Coast from giant fires. It is also just the idea of why we would have our fellow Americans suffering from this needlessly because of a lack of leadership that is coming, in this case, from Sacramento, as they kowtow much more to the environmental groups to keep their records at 100 percent rather than doing forest management and brush management, which I showed you here, and kowtowing to where they found a variety of vetch that is indistinguishable from the vetch that grows everywhere else. I face that in my home county, too. They are looking for things in order to stop people from being able to build homes on the foothills. They look for the species of the day to do that. It is basically trying to distinguish different subspecies that they are so infinitesimally able to distinguish that it really turns into a game. We saw that with the snail darter, and we are finding it out with more and more things. A fuels reduction project would be tremendously helpful. We need much more green light. We need the Forest Service, which manages or has under its purview 193 million acres nationwide. When they came up with the plan about 3 or 4 years ago that said we want to manage 20 million acres over 10 years, that is 2 million acres a year, and 2 million is about 1 percent of their 193 million. That means it would take 100 years to get over all the lands. Well, the trees grow a lot faster than a 100-year cycle, especially the small trees and the understory I was talking about that creates the fire-prone areas. A dense forest is one that is going to be a tinderbox, and we see it and experience it all the time. It takes leadership on that, and it takes having the public understand. When we talk about forest management, people are scared to death by a handful of environmental groups: You guys are going to clear cut everything from here to Oregon or wherever. That is not the case. This isn't the 1880s, the bad days, when they kind of came and plundered the West, seeking wealth, and all that. We have rules. We have regulations. We have smart people that manage these and want to take care of their assets. These are family operations in many cases. They go on generation after generation. Yet, they are having that taken away--farming, ranching, timbering, mining. I will talk about mining for a moment. California is trying to push these mandates instead of focusing on the stuff people need, such as highways that flow and water being stored. Let's look at the dam there. We have an opportunity when we are talking about water supply here. This is Shasta Dam in my district in northern California. It is a Federal project. I think we have an opportunity in this Trump administration coming up to resume some of the work that President Trump led during his first term to talk about a possible raise of Shasta Dam. This dam was actually designed to be much taller when it was built back in the late 1930s, and it would be pretty simple to add 18 more feet to that. That is the plan that is being looked at. It is called a quick and dirty 18 feet. There is nothing quick about any of this process. That would add 630,000 more acre-feet. Can you imagine that? Mr. Speaker, that Santa Ynez reservoir poster I showed--instead of gallons, you put it in acre-feet--holds about 40 acre-feet, okay? This would add 630,000 more acre-feet to this dam that already holds 4.5 million acre-feet. This is a key to the State water supply right here, Shasta and then Lake Oroville, right in my backyard at home, which is another 3.5 million acre-feet. We wouldn't have that much if we didn't have the vision to build those in the 1930s and 1960s under Democratic leadership. President Roosevelt and Governor Pat Brown had the vision for it. What is going on now? Everything is all about going into a shell and living in a cave under some environmental interpretation. Where is the leadership? We also have the opportunity in the western part of my district to build Sites Reservoir in Colusa County. It would hold about 1.5 million acre-feet. Imagine 1.5 million more acre-feet, plus 600,000 more acre- feet from Lake Shasta, 2.1 million acre-feet of water we are losing and already have available to us. We are just losing it out to the Pacific. The poster showed how much water is going out to the ocean that isn't being used for human purposes. Do you know what? That water flowing to the delta isn't even helping the delta. The delta smelt is basically extinct, and they do what they call trawls. They look for it. They try and capture and do counts on them. We have put so much more water through there. Starting in 1992, legislation here caused 800,000 acre-feet to be taken away from farming and ranching at that point and push more through the delta. Those numbers have completely gone up since then. The State water board is contemplating even more being pushed out to the delta, freshwater being turned into saltwater. Some people say: Well, you can do desal. Desalination? Great. You can. It works in some places, but it is really expensive. It consumes a lot of power. It consumes an amazing amount of power, the electricity to separate the salt from the water. Just a few minutes ago, if you were upstream, you would have captured it while it was still freshwater. You would have it available without that extreme expense. Well, you can still desal in California anyway. You guys have a lot of money and the know-how. Well, a group called Poseidon tried for 20 years in southern California, I think in Huntington Beach, one of the beach towns. They fought and fought and fought to work through a process and to get permits. Every time they would get something thrown at them, they would try again and say: Okay, if we mitigate for this and we take care of that, we can move forward with the project. Then they would come up with something else. After 20 years and many millions of dollars to build that desal plant, ultimately the California Coastal Commission, yet another layer of bureaucracy and people who say ``no'' to what you might want to do on the coast, ruled against them, and that is it. They are out. There will be no desal plant in southern California. Somebody please tell me, what is the solution going to be to add more water supply for California? Well, conservation. Conservation is great. Use less when you can. People are using so much less that they don't have yards anymore. They get yelled at if they wash their car. There are golf courses shutting down. We don't really have to resort to Third World ways of doing that either because we have so much supply that comes, even in the lighter years, from the other areas if we just save it, distribute it, and wisely use it. We can still do the environmental things we need to do. The delta doesn't need nearly the amount of water flowing through it to flush the salt. They don't want the salt to intrude too far up and get into other areas where people draw water or it might affect fish. Even the effluent is something we need to work on, too. A lot of the cities around the delta have sewer treatment systems that sometimes don't keep up. They are not treating it down to really clean water and sometimes there is an emergency, it overflows, and it goes untreated straight into the delta. Good water from other areas has to go flush through there and clean that up. Why? Why do we have to do it this way? Is it to keep some people's environmental scorecard at 100 percent because they don't want more development; they don't want cutting trees; they don't want building water supply; and they don't want us to add lanes to the highway? Instead, we get things like high-speed rail. They are still pushing high-speed rail in California, a project that was initially passed narrowly on the ballot to use $9 billion of taxpayer bond money to help develop what would be a $33 billion rail project to make a fast train from SF to L.A. Within a year, they raised that number to $42 billion. I remember because I was there in the legislature. Then, 2 years after that, they said it is not going to be $33 billion, and it is not going to be $42 billion. It is going to be $98.5 billion. This is 2011 numbers. The number is now somewhere around $130 billion. They have spent maybe $15 billion or $20 billion or somewhere in there. Now they are seeking more Federal money, about $6 billion to $8 billion more Federal, of your 50-State taxpayer money, in this boondoggle. It was supposed to be completed in 2020. They only have a few bridges built and no track laid. They are building it in the central part of the State from a place called Merced to an almond orchard, somewhere around Bakersfield. I think it is near Wasco or Shafter. Can you imagine the ridership between those two areas? It is ridiculous. Yet, people say: Well, we should just give a blank check to California. Not when they make decisions like this. We want to ensure that, if California is going to be moving forward on that, that they are going to do much more. This is a picture of Gavin Newsom at Paradise, where I was with he and President Trump just a few days after the fire in Paradise. Trump warned him then: Look, man, you have to get out and do the management of the forest. You have to get this stuff off the forest floor. He said raking it. Then they made fun of him for saying raking. Well, there are actually tools called rakes that they use in forestry to move this material. Here you have Trump saying: What the heck? Pointing the way here. You have Newsom, empty-handed, saying: Well, I don't know, man. We have got to try. It is 6 years later, and he has done very little to help California to be more fire safe. A fire a couple of years after that in a different part of Butte County ended up being called the north complex--because several fires burned together, and they call that a complex. We had grant money waiting to go to help local folks do a thinning and planning around some of the little communities there and make those areas a little more fire safe and make fire spread slower. What happened? After 1\1/2\ years' worth of fooling around, fighting permits, the fire broke out anyway and burned the whole place down, and the grant money didn't get used. This is what goes on. Governor Newsom is not doing much to help these water projects move along with any kind of speed. He feigned it a little bit on the Sites one year saying: Well, we are going to make the lawsuits end--end the lawsuits faster on it. I guess we should be thankful, but he is not directing this commission, his water boards, to do much to really, really help, whether that is in the north on our water storage or in the south on the infrastructure there. Actually, he was blaming the locals on the conditions, whether it was Santa Ynez reservoir or the hydrants. He said: Oh, that is a local thing. That is a local thing. Yet, he wants to come down there and start talking about the vision for a new L.A., L.A. 2.0, or Los Angeles 2028. They are going to have the Olympics there in 2028, I think. He is already giddy about how they are going to change L.A. into something else. Is this going to become a new planned community of 15- minute cities and people having limitations on how they are going to live there? Is that what you want? It seems to be where they are going because he is actually giddy about it. You should see the recordings. He was doing a little dance and stuff like, yeah, we have got a new plan for this. We are going to bring everybody. It is appalling. People are angry. They are angry at this leadership. How they can have a situation where that Santa Ynez reservoir was empty and the L.A. Fire Department wasn't even aware of that and didn't know they would not have that kind of water supply for a period of time that they maybe would have counted on? The dots aren't connecting here. Since the State regulates so much of this, then what is the State doing to ensure, since they have a lot of fires in L.A. and have the Santa Anna winds every year, that they are doing everything they can to make sure it is not vulnerable? Are we doing everything we can to help streamline permits to build up the infrastructure even more? They aren't. They throw more out. They find more species every day, every week, to throw up a roadblock. The leadership there happily seems to acquiesce to that. When we talk about what we are going to do, there absolutely has to be accountability for it. I am grateful for the amount of emergency help that has helped so many Californians in fire-prone situations in other areas, and it isn't their fault. The U.S. Forest Service has a lot to be questioned about on how they manage lands because their Forest Service lands are adjacent to many of these towns. Indeed, the towns grew up as logging towns, and they used to be able to go out to those areas and manage and use those and cut trees for the Nation's wood and paper product supply needs. That all started shutting down in the 1970s due to the spotted owl and whatever other species du jour they can come up with to do that, or water quality issues. Oh, my gosh, they are going to affect the water quality. We already know how to do that. We don't cut trees near the creeks anymore. We don't do much near the creeks and the rivers. We stay away. They know how to do that prescription. It still takes forever to get a permit to do any of these things. As the State moves toward more mandates on electric cars, on electric stoves, and electric trains and trucks--thankfully, a mandate got pushed off a little bit on trains and trucks because I don't know how people were going to get their supplies and get provisions if nobody can ship it in because of vehicles that don't even exist at the level of emissions that they are talking about. Just let attrition do its job. Let everybody replace the trucks with new trucks over time, and maybe even us farmers could buy the ones that are only 10 years old that are still nice, running trucks when we only use a few thousand miles a year. No, we don't even get exemptions for that. It is one thing after another to try and do business, to try to be a farmer, to be a rancher, to be a miner, or anything in the State of California and so much of the West. I hope this place doesn't emulate some of the regulations that California has coming along, like one called the PRO Act, which means you basically have to be in a union in order to work. You can't be a self-employed contractor. These are the things that come from California that they are trying to push here. Thankfully, we are going to have a change in direction here in leadership coming from the White House. If we are going to be more successful, we have to consider the Endangered Species Act working the way it was intended, the way Congress passed it back in the early 1970s. I don't think the weapon that has turned into would have even passed in Congress because nobody would have wanted to have been responsible for what you see now, with people being sued to death if they have a stocked pond on their land. Somehow that can be interpreted as you have now changed the waterways and you have changed the ability for a species to be there, like the raise of Shasta Dam. They are going to find a species there to keep it from being raised. It is an existing dam which already had plans on the books to make it taller to begin with, except the war came along, and they kind of put off raising it more. They will find a species to try and stop it from being raised a mere 18 feet and adding 600,000 acre-feet. Endangered Species Act will be used to try and stop the type of timber management that is needed so badly in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and every other area. One of the counties that I have part of the forest in that is known as the Mendocino National Forest on the western part of my district and flows into the coastal area, 97 percent of that national forest has burned over about a 20-year or 25-year period. What a stellar track record. Yes, 97 percent of this particular forest that we are supposed to manage has burned over this period of time. That is worse than an F grade. It is astounding that the citizens are putting up with this. What I see happening in southern California is they are pushing back on the leadership that has gotten us into this situation. We are going to be there for them. We are going to be there right now as we are, as the firefighters--not me, not us, but we are making sure that things are going to be provided so they can get through this immediate emergency, get the fire out, get people stabilized, and then go forward in the rebuild process. There is nothing wrong with asking for accountability on how we keep out of the situation in the rebuild, as they did in Paradise, as they do just about everywhere else to improve so we don't subject the next generations to the same danger. Why would you do that? So you don't have cockamamie ideas like Governor Newsom and others have on re-envisioning L.A. and all that. What does that mean? Does that mean people are going to have choices? Does it mean they are going to have freedoms? Is there going to be some mandate there on how they are forced to live and how they are supposed to stay in tight communities, things like that? I do have a degree of anger over this as well because I have been watching it long enough as a legislator, as a private citizen, and watching this happen to my neighbors, watching this happen to the taxpayers of the U.S., but of California. So many people are leaving the State that were in business or have a retirement. They are not going to stay and pay for this anymore. They are angry, too. Leadership is important. Competence is important. Having the fire systems ready at the go, and if it isn't ready enough, if it isn't big enough, then we talk about: Well, how do we make them better? How do we make them bigger. How do we have more capacity for the hydrants? How do we have more water waiting for us? How is the fire department not allowed to know that the people running Santa Ynez Reservoir have had it empty for nearly a year and that they might draw upon that? Mr. Speaker, three million gallons in three tanks versus 117 million just up the hill. That would have stretched a few hours' worth of firefighting ability to several days out of that 117 million if it had been there and available. Being able to fill that 117-million-gallon reservoir over and over again with the aqueduct, with the water that could come from the north--no. Instead, it is running out to the ocean. No. We can't build the reservoirs we need to add to the water supply that everybody needs, people need, SoCal needs. The crops in San Joaquin Valley that I showed you are so important to people all across the whole country. There are people in my neighborhood that need it. Again, there is plenty of water. There is plenty of know-how. The loggers, the timber people, so many of them are unemployed and have the know-how that could be managing the forest in a way that is ecologically sound and correct. They are not allowed to do it. Do you know we have to fight every year for something called SRS, the Secure Rural Schools fund that costs taxpayers? I am blessed that there is not pushback on that. We used to have a timber industry that the receipts from the timber we would cut would go for these local--the money stayed locally, the timber receipts, at least a portion, for counties to pay for schools and roads. That is why it is called the Secure Rural Schools. It pays for the county roads, at least in part, and the local schools. With the spotted owl and the environmental movement taking the ESA and weaponizing it in the early seventies, late seventies, and the eighties, those timber industries died off. The number of mills we used to have in California--which are an important partner in all this. We need to have those wood mills, so if we finally do get around to logging this product and what people need that we will have the infrastructure to actually do something with it. Instead, since those receipts are gone and since that economy is gone, my constituents, my county supervisors, and other locals have to come here hat in hand to D.C., can you be sure the Secure Rural Schools fund stays in the next appropriation bill or whichever mechanism we are working on at that time. Would you put that in there for us? Geri Byrne, a good friend, is heading up the Rural Counties of California. She has been an important partner on that, and I would hate to have to look her in the eye and say: We will try. We think we can get it done. We will probably get it done. Will we get it done in time? We have to get it done before March, otherwise the counties are going to be upside down on that fund that they need to get through that year. Wouldn't we rather have the receipts come from the forest? Wouldn't you rather have people doing the work, to produce the timber and wood products and paper products that you need from America and not have to have these good folks come hat in hand and beg for another taxpayer fund? I know what side I am on. We are held up by leaders, whether it is at my State level or some back here in D.C. in these agencies that are just completely thinking about something else. The urgency to get things done, the urgency to get permits done, they don't seem to care how long it takes to get a permit done. There are people out there waiting, people waiting to do whatever the construction project is, whatever the clearance project is. It makes you wonder. That is why I am excited about this DOGE group that Elon Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy are working on to say what parts of government are working and what parts aren't. Where do we fund? Where do we not fund? Because taxpayers have every right to ask those questions as well. We are talking about this situation here, taxpayers have a right to know: Are they going to do better next time? Yet, the mantra seems to be like, oh, you are placing conditions. Conditions is the dirty word of the week on this. It is all rehearsed. It is all coming out on the same memo. Let's think of another word. Guardrails. Is that good enough? Put guardrails on it. It doesn't matter the euphemism. You need to be sure that Federal taxpayers are going to see at the end of the day the wise use of that so we are not back here in 40 years doing the same thing over again. That is so hard-hearted and cold. No, it is not. We are going to help those folks. I am grateful for the help we have had in the north. I know the folks in southern California, once they get their feet under them, will be too. I think they want the freedom to be able to reestablish themselves in little towns like Altadena. A lot of nice, regular folks there. This isn't the rich elite. These are more regular folks. They just want a chance to maybe get back to how they were, and I hope we can help them do that. I hope we can somehow get them back to where they were. Maybe it will be with more resilient homes next time made out of different materials. That is good. We also need to help them with the brush clearing on the mountains above there that are being stopped by regulations or the funding getting pulled back by Newsom. Mr. Speaker, $100 million, I think, got pulled back and part of that would have been the brush clearing that is so badly needed, which creates a buffer when the Santa Ana winds blow fire toward you. If you don't have that brush there, you have got a much greater chance of stopping the fire before it hits the houses there. So the people in Altadena would like to have that help, I am sure. They would like to have people that are accountable to bring the leadership that is needed to have that readiness. We assume, as citizens, that things are ready. We assume our police force is ready, the fire department is ready, the infrastructure is ready, the water is being stored. I guess we assume that because we assume we have smart people in those positions that are thinking ahead. We are doing our day-to-day jobs in this Republic. We are not a democracy; we are a Republic. We elect these people that are supposed to be thinking about that stuff. Certainly, I come down here and rant about this on the floor and whenever I can in committee, and others always want to talk about something else, like the mass inflow of illegal immigrants that cost California so much money. California is spending money on a whole lot of things. I mentioned the high-speed rail. We are spending money on a whole lot of things that aren't helping its citizens and, indeed, helping someone else-- some that are here illegally, giving benefits that are outrageous. Well, why should the Federal taxpayer basically help subsidize that? California, during the COVID era, drew about $20 billion from the Federal Government to help supplement unemployment benefits and after a period of time when it was clear, they weren't going to pay it back. California, instead of paying it back, has now decided to sack employers by doubling the unemployment insurance amount they have to contribute as part of the pay package for their employees. It went from 0.6 to 1.2, I believe. That is going to cost the employers. Ultimately, it is going to cost the employees themselves, because there is less ability to give raises. All of that is because California blew the $20 billion on something else instead of the maintenance obligation of paying it back to the Federal Government on that unemployment fund. Is this good? Is this an accountable record that people say: Oh, yeah, just give them money willy-nilly. Not a chance. Not a chance. So we can demand accountability and not be bad people for it. We are looking for solutions that are long-term and we will help those folks. Our hearts are with you in southern California because I know at the end of this, instead of the rhetoric you are hearing that might be getting you wound up, you would like accountability as well. You are already angry at some of the folks down there. You are angry at some of the folks in Sacramento that are putting--you are probably angry that the Democrat-controlled legislature is putting, as a requirement, as a condition for some of the State aid that should be going to southern California, the $50-million package of lawsuit money they want to use to fight Trump. That is tied together in a package right now in the State legislature. So they are pointing at us for talking about accountability. We don't even have a package put together quite yet as we still have to assess all the damages postfire. We are doing everything we can to help during the fire with what people need, but postfire, you then have to assess that. That takes a little bit of time, and we need accountability. I hope people demand accountability to the people that put them in this place to begin with in California and at the local level. We are with you on this. We are with you on that accountability. We will be there to help the right way. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Endangered Species Act. Indeed, it was designed back in the early seventies and passed with bipartisanship. It was signed by Richard Nixon to protect endangered species. What we see with its implementation in my home State of California and many other areas around this country, especially in the West, is significant misinterpretation of it. Indeed, it has been weaponized to stop many things that would be good for people, even for the environment. We are talking about forestry, forestry practices that would make our lands safer and less fire prone. We are talking about the water supply that would help valley farmers. It would help urban areas, and it certainly would help the situation in Los Angeles right now. What I have depicted here is a brush clearing project that was just above Pacific Palisades and other areas in L.A. that they actually had underway for a while until a national monument was declared above an area called Altadena. It stopped the ability to keep clearing brush. With national monuments, you are not allowed to go in there and do anything because it has to be left pristine and preserved. That ties in with the endangered species as well. We see the results. Instead of clearing this brush, we get results like this. This is happening right now in southern California, tragically, needlessly. We will continue to see this. I have seen it in my district. I have lost 3\1/2\ of my small towns in my district in the last 6 years, including the Paradise fire which took 85 lives, 90 percent of the town, Greenville, Canyondam, and a smaller town called Doyle that was burned on the east side. Again, the Endangered Species Act being manipulated and weaponized against doing the work we need to do is partly at fault. For example, when we talk about water in California, let's look at the delta smelt for a moment. The water supply we should be building in California is impeded because the water has to be shipped out to the Pacific Ocean, supposedly to help the delta smelt. The water increases have happened since 1992. The legislation here increased another 800,000 acre-feet per year. Then it is built up from there to, hopefully, or somehow help the delta smelt. This is Shasta Dam in northern California which we are trying to get filled right now but is going to be less useful for people as more of this water is dumped out to the delta. What does that mean for southern California? Well, for example, let's take a look at this. This is the Santa Ynez Reservoir which currently is empty, supposedly for rehab and some maintenance. This is what it is supposed to look like full. That is what it looks like right now. It seems people in southern California who are supposed to be in charge didn't even know it was empty. This holds approximately 40 acre-feet when it is full, which is 117 million gallons. When full, the Shasta Dam here holds 4\1/2\ acre-feet. We have been discussing a raise of Shasta Dam. It would be easy to raise it 18 feet. That would cause about 630,000 more acre-feet to be available to be stored in California. With that, can you imagine what 600,000 acre-feet could do to help? It could fill this in minutes with the amount of water going out to the Pacific Ocean. The Endangered Species Act is being used as a weapon against raising an existing dam that was built in the thirties there that would do that. They will find a species of the week to do that. In this case I believe it is a salamander. Let's go back in time a little bit. You have probably heard of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Tellico Dam. That project was an idea that came about in the late sixties, and the construction was going to happen pretty soon after that. What they did is some biologists, I think from the University of Tennessee, were out on a hike and discovered, he thought, she thought, whoever it was, that there was something called a snail darter in the river there. Starting in about 1973, or soon after the ESA was put in place, it was listed in 1975 as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, leading to a legal battle that took a long time and was finally settled. It went to the Supreme Court and was finally settled by legislation passed in Congress in 1979, which exempted the Tellico Dam from the ESA protections and allowed the giant project. It was going to make so much hydroelectric power, store water, and be available for agriculture and people. They actually got it done. Instead, the biologists took this so-called snail darter and moved populations to other rivers in the area. The species was then reclassified downward from endangered to threatened in 1984. Finally, in 2022, it was removed from the list. Interestingly, when we talk about the weaponization of ESA, a study that was just released revealed that the snail darter isn't an actual distinct species but is actually just another population of one called the stargazing darter. This raises concern about a specie's identification when really what it is being used for is a weapon. This is what the snail darter actually looks like because it doesn't exist as its own. This is what they are doing in southern California. I just showed you the picture of the fires. There is a project near Pacific Palisades that was going to remove some vulnerable power pole lines that were made of wood and some lower hanging wires and other equipment with some stronger, more fire-resistant ones. They started on the project, but they discovered a species of vetch which is grown as a crop in many other areas, as a cover crop or what have you. They discovered one called, I think, Braunton's milkvetch. We grow cow vetch all the time in other areas. I have another picture in another speech. When placed side by side, they are the same picture. These are weaponized to stop a project that could have been helpful in keeping Pacific Palisades from burning due to downed power lines. It probably wouldn't have been the key piece, but that has certainly happened in plenty of other areas around the State where downed power lines, due to the wind or branches and stuff blowing into them, have caused several fires, including the Camp fire in Paradise I mentioned that killed 85 people, and started a fire called the Dixie fire which burned a million acres. Frequently, we have in northern California what we call public safety power shutoffs where people just have their power shut off because the wind might blow hard enough to blow branches into power lines somewhere. We sit without power like a Third World country. This all traces back to the inability to do the forestry management where I was talking about water storage and to have a water supply for southern California. What it boils down to is we need the leadership like President Trump is going to provide and what Gavin Newsom has been stopping as far as helping us with water storage and helping us get the water to the farmers and urban areas as needed.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, Governor Gavin Newsom's High-Speed Rail project has been a symbol of fiscal mismanagement, and now the Department of Government Efficiency here in D.C., known as DOGE, is stepping in to examine the situation, as well. Originally projected to cost $33 billion back in 2008, the price tag has now ballooned closer to $130 billion. Despite an initial completion date for 2020, now it is, at best, by about 2030, maybe even 2035. Zero passengers have ridden on it because it is not possible yet. This boondoggle has already consumed $6.8 billion in Federal funds of all U.S. taxpayers. Now they are asking for $8 billion more, which is way short of $130 billion. DOGE's analysis paints a grim picture of a project spiraling out of control with no end in sight. Governor Newsom keeps funneling California tax dollars into this never-ending pit, ignoring needs like critical water infrastructure which could be helping all of our State, including southern California, if we could raise Shasta Dam and gain 600,000 new acre-feet. We would have the ability to not be short-funded on the brush removal that needs to be happening in southern California, as well as the forestry management all over California. Instead of empty-handed promises by Governor Newsom, we need to have President Trump leading the way.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, California has had a lot of problems inflicted upon it, partly by nature and partly self-inflicted by governing. As we bring resources and aid to southern California and reflect here on these horrific events happening with the fire down there in the Pacific Palisades and surrounding communities, it is very sobering but also points out the need for leadership and competency in preparing for it. It is really basic stuff. The north part of the State has been through it many times, with the losses of communities. We all remember the Paradise fire. Eighty-five people lost their lives, and 90 percent of the town was consumed. We have to do better in the preparation ahead of time before fire season on how we treat the lands and have the apparatus ready, instead of complications due to contracts, for example, with the Forest Service not being ready to have the equipment that would be there in the forests, and on and on. I appreciate that, and we are going to do the best we can to move as quickly as possible for the folks in southern California and then ongoing to build up the infrastructure and the work that needs to be done. As tonight's topic has been, when we are talking about protecting our citizens and our border, California, as well, under the direction of Gavin Newsom, has become a haven for illegal immigration. The taxpayers are footing the bill for an ever-expanding list of unbelievable benefits that are being given to illegal immigrants. From healthcare to education, sex changes, homes, the whole works, California is pouring resources into supporting those here illegally while our own citizens, as we mentioned, are struggling with many things in burning communities, as well as the more day-to-day stuff: overcrowded schools, strained healthcare systems, and increasing public safety concerns with gangs, crime, and on and on. We have sanctuary policies statewide, not just in cities, like we see around the country. This is a statewide sanctuary policy that protects illegal immigrants from ICE being able to pick them up when it is found that we have illegals in this country that could be processed federally and, hopefully, deported. Cities across California are openly defying Federal immigration laws, creating safe havens for those who have broken the law. These sanctuary cities as well are not just a burden on our resources; they are a threat, as I said, to public safety. We have seen this firsthand, most recently in this country with the tragic loss and death of Laken Riley, and you will remember a few years ago in San Francisco on the wharf there, Kate Steinle was killed by a bullet from a gun that an illegal immigrant had found, taken, stolen, or whatever. Those lives are gone, and it is a tragedy for their families. What are we going to do to avenge them? What are we going to do to make it right? These two innocent women lost their lives due to these violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants who are protected by these sanctuary policies. Tomorrow, hopefully, we will take up the Preventing Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, introduced by my colleague Nancy Mace from South Carolina. This crucial bill aims to close the loopholes that would allow violent offenders to slip through the cracks and continue to pose a threat to our country. It is high time we prioritize the safety and security of our citizens and the needs of our people, particularly women, who would be and have been the victims of these violent crimes. In my home State, California's approach is not sustainable. We are overcrowded and overrun with crime, gangs, and broken services, as I mentioned. Governor Newsom's policies are draining our resources and compromising public safety. His priorities are illegal aliens and all sorts of benefits for them, which we keep seeing on and on, again and again, as the State is running a deficit and spending on things like high-speed rail instead of helping on fire safety and having our water supply renewed for all those good reasons. Instead of prioritizing the well-being of California, the State is offering a free pass again and again to those coming into the country illegally. We have become the State that is the magnet for all of it, away from the other States. As we have said, it is high time to put a stop to this. Let's stand behind this legislation, the Preventing Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and ensure that we are doing everything possible to protect our cities and the people who live within them, especially the women, as we think of Laken Riley, Kate Steinle, and too many others who have already paid the ultimate price. We need to focus entirely on the needs of folks like that, and hopefully, there will be some sense of closure or satisfaction for their families to see that at least we have done the right thing ultimately. With President Trump coming in, in just a few short days, I think we can finally get the momentum to do what we need to do with enforcing our border and allowing legal immigration, allowing people who we invite into the country. We are still for immigration, just follow our rules, follow our laws, and pass a few reasonable tests in order to be part of the American Dream. We extend that. That is what the country was based on for so many years, and it has completely gone awry in the last 50. Why does the Biden administration and my colleagues on the other side believe that this is good policy and keep getting away with it politically? Why is that seen as a good thing? I think folks have really had their fill of it now because they are seeing it really showing up in their pocketbooks and their ability to afford a home, have a job, and not continue to get further and further behind, as this country has always aspired to have the next generation be just a little bit better off than the previous one. Mr. Speaker, that is not happening now. You can lay policies such as this right at the feet of our poorest border, as well as bad energy policies and other things causing inflation. With that, this is a very important thing we are working on this week, so we can assure the women of this country that we are behind them. We do have their backs on this violence, as well as the previous legislation mentioned, on women and girls in sports having a safe place to play and enjoy and excel without men somehow interfering on those fields, in those locker rooms. It is common sense. I can't believe we are here at this point. We are battling back here in this Congress with Republican leadership doing so. I appreciate Mr. Moore leading us here tonight, and I thank him for the time.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, this morning I highlight a piece of legislation I intend to cosponsor that is sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), my good colleague. It is known as the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act. The bill aims to prevent the U.S. EPA from issuing Clean Air Act waivers that would enable State-level bans or restrictions on gas and diesel vehicles. This bill would ensure that Americans can select vehicles based on their individual needs and financial situations without undue government interference. My home State of California is once again leading on the wrong things. The agency called the California Air Resources Board is intending to ban the sale of gas and diesel-powered cars, trucks, and SUVs by 2035, only 10 model years from now. Now, who the heck is CARB, especially since this has far-reaching effects across the rest of the country? There are six or seven other States that are seeking to emulate what CARB is doing. This regulation seeks to force a transition to electric vehicles regardless of their affordability, availability, or practicality for many residents and families. The Biden administration EPA has granted the necessary waiver very recently at the end of this era, allowing CARB to enforce this mandate at the State of California level, which sets a precedent that can lead to similar bans in other States across the country. Believe me, it will happen. Several other States are already looking at this. You end up with the manufacturers having to produce two different types of vehicles for this State or that State, making them more expensive, and heaven knows the difficulty that is producing electric vehicles anyway. Rural Americans and rural Californians face long commutes and rely heavily on reliable, affordable vehicles. I represent a very rural area. There are people who are afraid to take electric vehicles very far with the inability to know if they can charge them and make it back. The mandate poses significant financial challenges, as EVs remain more expensive than their gas- and diesel-powered counterparts. They have more expensive tires, and they are harder to get parts for, among other things. There is a very, very limited charging infrastructure. The fact that the Biden administration has put aside billions for charging stations and only built about seven or eight in the whole country over the last 3 years shows that it is very impractical. EVs are an unviable option for many. The mandate would not only increase the cost of living for individuals and families but reduce transportation options for many rural residents and even urban residents that maybe have a car that is already paid for that they would soon see they wouldn't have the ability to keep. Additionally, part of the mandate is quietly eliminating fueling stations, making fuel more expensive, and making fuel harder to produce. In my home State of California and the country, when they ban the pipeline coming from Canada, it makes fuel harder to get. It is coming from all edges. Taxing people out of this is part of their goal. Of course, the power grid of my home State, California, is already struggling to deliver electricity to meet existing energy demands, with the currently frequent blackouts and energy shortages. We have these blackouts in my part of the State, and we are starting to see them in southern California with the unfortunate massive suffering going on due to the wildfires. They have to preemptively shut off the power to particular areas if they think the wind is going to blow too hard and cause foliage to blow off trees, shrubs, and whatever onto the power lines and cause an outage or a blackout and, therefore, a fire along with it, as has happened many times in my district. Mandating this shift to electric vehicles would place additional strain on the grid, leading to more outages and much higher energy costs. California has not demonstrated the capacity to expand the grid infrastructure. Indeed, they are tearing down dams in my district--and they have their eye on more--that make clean, CO2-free hydroelectric power. The grid gets even tighter due to this. This raises serious concerns about the feasibility of this mandate, yet they force it forward. The practicality of converting to all these electric vehicles, as well as the appliances that California, Biden, and others are trying to do with electric stoves, water heaters, and all that, means where are the materials and the minerals going to come from to produce these electric appliances and vehicles. We can't mine as it is. On average, it takes 29 years to build a copper mine in this country. Are we going to import it all? Are we going to have poor kids and slave labor in other countries continue to supply us so we can be pristine? CARB's members are not actually directly accountable to the public. The resources board is appointed by the Governor. They don't have to answer to anybody, and they frequently don't. We have a direct threat to consumer choice. Indeed, this is what Governor Newsom wants us to have, fires that burn out our vehicles. We need to have him stand aside and let President Trump lead the way on allowing us to have our vehicles.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that women's sports are under threat, and it is high time we actually finish the job and take a stand against the threat against them. I am very happy to partner with Mr. Steube once again in supporting his bill, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which is about fairness and ensuring that female athletes have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, on their own playing field. Title IX was designed to give women and girls equal opportunities in sports. Biological males competing on those same fields with them undermines that intent and puts these athletes at a disadvantage and a lot of discomfort. This isn't about being exclusionary. It is really recognizing biological realities and protecting the integrity of women's and girls' sports. Female athletes should not have to compete against those with inherent physical advantages. This bill ensures that women can continue to compete fairly, earn scholarships, earn medals, and achieve their athletic goals without being sidelined by unfair competition. We must protect these opportunities and rights. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Steube bill and ensure that in the future women's sports remain fair and competitive, especially for women. Misguided policies erase what has been built for female athletes all this time.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I have to do a reset here and say: Why are we in here even having to discuss this? It is amazing to me that the idea that we would have XY chromosome males competing and taking the place of women and girls in sports is just mind-blowing. Where are we at in the country, where are we as a society, that we are doing this? It is beyond comprehension that we are doing this to our girls. Where are the feminists? Where are the people who have fought so hard to get rights for women but now they fade into the background over this transgender situation that we are advancing way too much in this country? The young ladies depicted here, Paula, Lily, and Riley, whom I know personally, shouldn't even have to be in this position here. I commend them for being such strong leaders, coming from being athletes trying to do their thing, just trying to compete for medals, scholarships, and things, and having those taken away. They have stepped forward to be leaders when they didn't ask to. They probably were not even that comfortable with the spotlight. Certainly, they have been subject to abuse in doing so. God blessed them with their leadership in stepping forward. We need to back them up by passing this legislation and put this to an end.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, well, it is everywhere. You can't avoid it in the news, and it shouldn't be avoided. It is so horrible. The fires we have now in southern California are devastating so much there, so much value, so much loss, and up to 24 lives lost now. It is an incredibly unnecessary happening that has been raging in L.A. It happens every year with the Santa Ana winds. Up in the northern California area that I represent, we have had that devastation already many times: The town of Paradise, town of Greenville, town of Canyondam, and others were completely obliterated. Our Governor Gavin Newsom has been up there to see those fires, especially the Paradise one when President Trump came to Paradise and visited to see the devastation. At the time, President Trump asked him and others: What are you doing to clear the land in such a way that makes it less fire prone, to rake the forest floor? Then people made fun of that word, ``rake,'' which is actually a technical term for some of the equipment used in forestry to make sure areas can be a little more fire safe by thinning trees, removing brush, and removing dead material on that. The question is, as Governor Newsom goes out on site and waves his arms and tells us it is someone else's fault, then what has he learned in the last 6 years? More importantly, what has he applied since he had this photo op in Paradise as the new Governor of California? It looks like not much, not much action. Certain promises were made to be aggressive on land management in California and certain claims were made, but the actual numbers are one-fifth of the amount claimed that had been treated, the work that had been done in California. We have seen time after time more and more fires: the Camp fire in Paradise listed here, 85 lives lost, 90 percent of the homes; the Carr fire near Redding; the Zogg fire on the other side of Redding; the Park fire last year, 400,000 acres from Chico all the way up to Mount Lassen; the Dixie fire, 1 million acres. This is all northern California. Now southern California is getting international coverage, and rightfully so. What are we going to do? What is Newsom going to do? Well, he wants to blame it on climate change. Time and time again, we are hearing about climate change and we are hearing about carbon dioxide. Here is the same chart I show off and on on this floor: Carbon dioxide represents 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. It has barely changed. Look at the rest of the chart, what isn't CO2. They want to just make it a climate change story. What are we doing to make things more fire resilient in southern California? This is the Santa Ynez Reservoir just up the hill from Pacific Palisades. The portion on the right here is what it looks like more or less when it is full. Here is what it looks like presently. It is empty. It has been empty since last February. They have been fooling around for nearly a year supposedly repairing the cover over the thing. It holds 117 million gallons of water. They report to us that there are three one-million gallon tanks that ran out, the third one by 3 a.m. on the night of the fire above Pacific Palisades. What would another 117, approximately 40 times the storage of those three tanks, have been able to do for them had it been available, had the maintenance been done? Well, the Governor is going to start an investigation on it now, kind of like when he starts an investigation on high gas prices due to policies he does that drive up the cost of fuel, make fuel and the refineries not available, and quit drilling for fuel in California, which we have so much abundance of near that Bakersfield area, et cetera. What are we doing here? Why is this reservoir empty? Why has it been empty for nearly a year to make a little repair in the cover that may have been able to be done by reservoir staff? It is incompetence at all levels here. What do we have going on? Is there enough water supply? He says, well, we have plenty of water. Presently, this is Shasta Dam in northern California, and it is dumping water right now. It is dumping water out. It still has a million acre-feet of space left, but it is dumping water because they want to have room at the top to conserve for more weather. Okay. I guess I understand that. However, what are they doing with that water down below? Newsom's plans have stopped the delta pumps from running at full capacity to fill other water systems around the State, such as San Luis Reservoir, which is about 70 percent full right now and doesn't have a storage problem for flood, as well as making sure the aqueducts are filling all the other reservoirs such as the one we just looked at, Santa Ynez. They could fill that in a short amount of time. The amount of water that runs out wasted, running through the delta in an hour, would fill that Santa Ynez Reservoir. It would take a long time locally because they have to rely on either wells or coming from some other water source we haven't quite ascertained yet because it is hard to find information. Is Governor Newsom going to help or is he going to be a detriment and just go on camera and blame everybody else and blame the President? We need real work done to make fire conditions much safer in California and the West.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I am showing you what a managed forest looks like here and an unmanaged forest looks like here. In my district in northern California and much of the West, forests burn millions of acres year after year, such as a million-acre fire in my district a couple years ago, 600,000 acre, and on and on it goes. It occurs because the lands are not managed, not allowed to be managed by environmental lawsuits and such. Governor Newsom, the Governor of California, promised after 6 years in office, when he came to my district in Paradise, to do more. He said: We have done all this acreage. We have done all this work. He actually overstated the figure by five times. Here we have now the situation in southern California where this brush is catching on fire. In the high winds, it is just a tinderbox that blows into the neighborhoods and burns down Pacific Palisades and all the others affected like that. They have suspended their brush program there, so Gavin Newsom can't point and say we have done all this great stuff here and blame everybody else like he does, waving his arms around. Instead, they have not done the work, and they have put people in danger, as well as the issue with water in California flowing out to the Pacific instead of being stored to help keep their storage facilities full so they can fight fires. It is mismanagement.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, California is on fire once again. Only now, instead of burning up the red counties and the forested areas to the north, it is devastating portions of Los Angeles. Everybody is seeing it on the news. Every year, we know the Santa Ana winds are going to blow. Every year, we know that there is going to be risk. What is our Governor doing to help stop the risk? He is doing virtually nothing, other than showing up for press conferences and waving his arms around and having long-practiced monologues about how it is someone else's fault, this or that. It is time for the Governor to either bear down or get out of the way because California keeps suffering. My counties up north had the Carr fire, the Camp fire, the Dixie fire, 1 million acres, and now it is hitting the constituents of southern California hard. Why does this have to keep happening? Why is nothing being done to mitigate the issue of forest management, of brush management, and lower the risk? Why is the water being cut off at the hydrants? Is it because he won't allow us to build the water storage we need for a growing population and for growing crops? We need to build the Sites Reservoir. We need to raise the Shasta Dam. We need to not let all the water keep rushing out to the Pacific Ocean through the Delta to supposedly save a smelt that doesn't exist. We need to get cracking on this. Governor Newsom needs to get at it or get out of the way.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, in another one of the eleventh-hour, thumb-the-nose-at-the-American-people moves, the Biden administration has decided to transfer 11 Guantanamo detainees from the war on terror back to Oman, which is a reckless move that puts American lives at risk and is an insult and a slap in the face to those who have fought for freedom in that area and who have tried to stop the likes of al-Qaida. Our soldiers, our fighting people, and everybody who has cared at all about that has to be taking this as a slap in the face because justice never was done. These detainees, many of whom have ties directly to terrorism, are being resettled without facing justice. This action weakens our national security and signals a dangerous leniency to those who have plotted against our country. Despite the administration's claims, releasing these individuals only increases the likelihood that they will return to their extremist roots and try to maybe pull off another 9/11 along with the cells that are already in this country. We have already seen a recycling through of some who were released during the Obama era. This prioritizes political agendas, especially at the very end of this term, over the security of the American people and those who have fought so hard.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of our chairman, G.T. Thompson, of the Ag Committee and many of our colleagues in making sure that this year-end agreement we have is going to also include the importance of agriculture. Agriculture is in big trouble with the commodity prices and disasters they face around the country. Many of these amazing crops you see right here on this poster board, Madam Speaker, would not exist, and, without this aid that we have in this package here, they will be in big trouble and maybe not get the finances here. Some of the finest quality crops anywhere come from California and the U.S. Also, some of the finest quality staff we have, our Ella, a staff member who works on this floor, will be leaving us pretty soon and heading over to a different building to work in a new Member's office. We will still miss her and her high-quality work and her thumbs-up like an empress up there in front. Madam Speaker, I wish Ella best wishes and good luck. God bless Ella.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this week is National Bible Week. I am proud to be able to stand up here and proclaim my own devotion and adherence to the Bible and Biblical principles. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Doug Lamborn of Colorado, who led a Special Order on National Bible Week last night here in this Chamber. I am sorry I wasn't able to take part at that particular time, but I wanted to continue that. Mr. Lamborn has been a faithful servant in making sure that National Bible Week is always proclaimed and recognized each year here, and I appreciate him as a colleague. Of course, we will miss him, as he has decided to go off to other pastures from this body. God's blessings on him and his family. As we know, during this National Bible Week, throughout American history, the Bible has been a guiding light, shaping our culture, government, and moral foundations to the good. We hear a lot of talk about separation of church and state. That isn't really a truism. It is more about the State shall not establish a particular religion, but it is certainly fine for the Founders and our leaders to use that as a guiding principle. Indeed, they did, from Washington all the way through. As we reflect on this week, it is important to remember that the Word of God has always provided clarity, strength, and direction to this Nation. In Psalms 119:105, we are reminded: ``Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.'' In a world filled with uncertainty and confusion, the Bible serves as a beacon of truth and wisdom. It calls us to live with integrity, to honor one another, and to acknowledge the divine responsibility we have to God. Indeed, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. As leaders, citizens, and people of faith, we must continually seek guidance from our Scripture. It is extremely important and a guide in my own life, as well as that of my family. The Word of God is not just a historical document, although it has always been found to be proven historically accurate. It is also the foundation of our morals and the source of wisdom that has indeed shaped our country. During National Bible Week, let us renew our commitment to uphold these principles to guide our actions with the truth of the Bible and to honor God in all we do. On top of that, it will soon be Christmas as this body tries to complete its work for the end of the year. Let's remember the reason for the season, as it is put. That is the birth of Jesus Christ, our Savior. Amongst all the hustle and bustle of Christmastime, let's not lose sight of the fact that, indeed, that is why we celebrate. Merry Christmas.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I can't emphasize enough how important it is for the ag economy and for the security of this country that my home State of California provides so many of these essential crops in high percentages. Many of these crops you see, 90 to 99 percent, even 100 percent, are grown in my home State. What does that underline for you? It underlines the need for my home State to have a water supply to grow those crops. Each year it seems more and more is being taken away regulatorily from farmers and given to environmental purposes. We need to build more storage in my home State. We need to build what is called Sites Reservoir. We need to raise Shasta Dam. We need to look at other projects. We also need for the pumps at the delta to be running full blast at this time of year when we have this excess water running out to the ocean and filling up the San Luis Reservoir so we have that water supply for the southern part of the State in the San Joaquin Valley. We need to do all these things in order to ensure that we have the crops to put the food on the table for Americans. At this time with the ag economy suffering so much across the country, we need to do everything we can to make their jobs easier.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about how Washington's obsession with overregulation is making life unnecessarily difficult for everyday Americans. Under the Biden administration, their energy efficiency standards have become weapons of control, driving up costs, limiting choices for households, and strangling economic growth. Under Biden's anti-energy agenda, American families are feeling the pinch every time they turn on a light, heat their home, power their appliances, or fuel up their vehicle. These so-called efficiency standards don't lower costs; they shift the burden onto people's wallets and purses. In my home State of California, we have seen the impact firsthand. Between skyrocketing energy bills and blackouts caused by these misguided policies, families are paying more for less reliability. Indeed, the blackouts we see in California are for two chief reasons. First, on a hot day in July or August or September, you can see the grid actually having to shut down manufacturing and shut down businesses so the rest of the grid doesn't collapse when people are trying to air-condition their homes or other businesses. Secondly, we have what are called public safety power shutoffs, which, when the wind blows in California, we actually have to shut off the power lines in some cases because the fear is that trees or branches or whatever might fall upon the power lines can cause a blackout and the failure of the equipment, or, worse, a wildfire. Indeed, in my own district, we have suffered with enough wildfires to last eons. Just to name a few: a million-acre fire known as the Dixie fire just this year, the Park fire where hundreds of thousands of acres were destroyed and many homes damaged, and the Camp fire a few years ago where 85 people lost their lives. It is all sorts of mismanagement by my Governor in that we are not managing our forests. We don't have the electrical grid to have 24-hour sustainability even in a tough time of year. There are remedies for that. We could be building more nuclear power plants. We could be building more natural gas plants and not regulating them out of business. We should be building more pipelines to get natural gas, which is extremely efficient and low cost. We cannot be doing dumb things like tearing out hydroelectric dams like is being forced upon us in my district in northern California where four hydroelectric dams have been removed. What do you get with a hydroelectric dam? You get water storage, you get flood control, you get water for agriculture, you get the hydroelectric power, and you get recreation. That has been taken away. When you are talking hydroelectric power, a lot of people are worried about CO2 and carbon dioxide. Hydropower is a zero CO2 emitter as is nuclear power. We seem to want to regulate these things out of business, regulate them to not be part of our grid. Instead, we opt for the idealism of a few solar panels and windmills, which have a very limited life and are very inefficient. This is the future the Democrats want for the rest of America, like in California, where energy is neither affordable nor dependable. Soon gone will be the days when you can buy the appliance that best works for you. Bureaucrats now want to dictate what kind of washing machine you can have, what stovetop you can use, and even how long your dishwasher should run. They even want to dictate what light bulbs you can use. A new mandate in California is talking about how State buildings, schools, things like that, have to start changing their light bulbs out by an arbitrary deadline. It doesn't matter if the bulbs have burned out or been used up or the ballasts have been used up. They just want to change them out. This will cost schools, for example, hundreds of millions of dollars throughout the whole State to have to just arbitrarily change these out instead of attrition over time. I am doing that on my own farm, my own ranch, where when a ballast goes out or a set of bulbs goes out, let's change it over to LED at that time, and then you are saving the costs. They don't care about that. They just have this mandate. We are limiting options, and the government is telling you that it is good enough for you, for your home. Californians know this all too well. We have been forced to live with these policies that now Washington, D.C., tries to emulate. It just continues to strangle our economy. From manufacturers forced to spend millions complying with ever-changing rules to even small businesses struggling under higher energy costs, these regulations hurt all of them, large and small, as well as families. The more we hamstring energy production and force businesses to conform to out-of-touch mandates, the less room we have for growth and prosperity. There are a couple of key drivers that are making things less affordable with inflation, the high cost of energy being one of them. The other is government overspending, as we are going to find out here pretty soon this week. These policies are rooted in the same far-left ideology that has driven inflation. They have weakened our energy independence and have left America less competitive on the global stage. We need to do better.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that when you go to get a permit to rebuild your roof or go open a new bank account that you think: Could I do even more paperwork? Well, that is going to be applied to cars now and other vehicles through the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission. They finalized a new rule to do just that to small business dealerships, the so-called CARS Rule. An estimate of this rule by the Center for Automotive Research claims it will add at least 1 more hour to purchasing a vehicle and over $24 billion in new regulatory costs across the 40 million transactions expected for consumer vehicles and hundreds of millions of consumer inquiries expected each year. Even though this rule was supposed to only affect consumer sales, the FTC recently stated it would now apply to heavy-duty trucks, tractor- trailers, and schoolbuses, as well, which are almost exclusively bought by businesses and governments, not consumers. Not even once did the FTC mention the words ``heavy-duty trucks'' or ``commercial transactions'' in their original proposal or the cost- benefit analysis that they are required to carry out. A business buying a new cement truck and a family buying a minivan are two very different things. It only makes sense in the mind of a Washington bureaucrat that they somehow should be regulated the same way. Next Congress, we need to fix or nix this sort of thing.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, beyond the usual incompetence on the border security that the Biden-Harris administration has exhibited, they are now sneakily selling off materials intended for the border wall in Arizona. These are materials that taxpayers have already paid for and were meant to secure our southern border. Earlier this year, I visited the border once again and saw firsthand the challenges that our agents, local law enforcement, local businesses, and local communities face every day and the impact that these challenges have on them. Border agents are stretched thin as they work around the clock to try to protect us, yet this administration continues to undermine their mission at every turn. This isn't the first time. Last year, they sold off materials intended for a critical 20-mile stretch of border wall, leaving gaps. The gaps are easily found, and they pour through. Members should see the trash and the stuff that is on the ground in the arroyos from the people passing through illegally because they have a green light. Their actions sent a clear message from this administration: border security isn't really a priority for them, even though Vice President Harris tried to pretend so in this last election. Americans want secure borders. Instead of addressing this crisis, the administration is doubling down on failed policies that are just putting our border at risk.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to help celebrate the passage finally this week of the National Defense Authorization Act, a key step in strengthening America's security and supporting our military. It was a strong, bipartisan vote showing there is unity on America's military. The bill ensures our military has the tools, the resources, and the capabilities to promote readiness and deadliness. With its cutting-edge technology, critical infrastructure, and much-needed pay improvement for our soldiers and their housing, it is a broad approach that is really going to help with meeting the all-around needs of meeting those goals. It demonstrates a clear commitment to protecting our Nation and defending freedom for this country and our allies around the world. Indeed, the best war to fight is the one you never have to fight. That is why, when we have a strong military that is ready, the deterrence factor is one of the best things we can have for avoiding conflict and avoiding unnecessary bloodshed. We are sending a powerful message with this legislation. With the challenges we face as a country, the United States will always be ready to protect what matters most.