Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate the opportunity to present and to carry this Congressional Review Act that is, indeed, trying to keep some reality involved in the listing of species, as well as the overall operations of government and forming of regulations. Mr. Speaker, in support of H.J. Res. 78, we want to block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's misguided decision to list the San Francisco Bay-Delta population of the longfin smelt as being endangered. What we have is actual evidence. Former director of Stanford's Center of Conservation Biology wrote a piece on this listing, including these highlights: The Fish and Wildlife Service abandoned its allegiance to using the best available scientific information. The proposed listing ignores salient information gaps and shrugs off technical peer-reviewed criticisms that go to the heart of the argument for listing the species. To list this species, the Fish and Wildlife Service employed unreliable data, presented results from analyses that cannot be justified, and made troubling predictions for the fate of the fish that are built on flawed assumptions akin to a house of cards. The Fish and Wildlife Service used piecemeal data to try and establish population trends and size of this using detection methods not even designed for longfin smelt to justify its action. Basically, there is no science, and this has long been sought by environmental groups since they have run out of the regular smelt after tens of millions of acre-feet of water have flowed out to the delta. Indeed, they need to be looking more at the issues going on with the effluent coming out of bay area cities from underpowered sewer systems that affected the delta so negatively and not some idea that farmers are getting too much water. At a point where farmers have now just gotten bumped up to a 50 percent allocation here the other day by State and Federal water managers, we are seeing that it is going to negatively affect the food supply not only for California and its production but for the whole country. Mr. Speaker, we have statistics that show that the amount of water flowing into the delta is hardly being tapped. Indeed, 80 percent of it goes right on out of the delta into the Pacific Ocean. It is interesting to hear my colleague from the north coast talking about rebuilding infrastructure as part of a solution that we should be talking about here. Mr. Speaker, we talk about it a lot, and hopefully we can move the ball on it. We have an opportunity to build Sites Reservoir, which would provide 1\1/2\ million acre-feet of new storage; and raise Shasta Dam by 18 feet, which would provide 600,000 acre-feet of new storage. If we would operate the pumps in the delta, we would fill the San Luis Reservoir that would be available to the Central Valley. It came up 200,000 acre-feet short this year, which is about the same amount as what they are predicting this listing will cause to short the Central Valley farmers down there if this listing is allowed to happen. Instead, we get more and more water being demanded for environmental purposes, which really doesn't fulfill an environmental purpose. Instead, the blame gets shifted to something else: talk about tariffs. Mr. Speaker, we are tariffed so heavily, almost 300 percent, on our dairy products that are going into Canada. Something needs to be done for a reset. Rice into Japan will be up to 700 percent at some point. Tariffs need to be looked at, but that is not this conversation. The longfin smelt is being used as the latest weapon to take water away from farmers and take water away from people. We grow some of the richest crops in the great Central Valley of California--tomatoes, pistachios, and almonds--and they will be denied to the whole country. They will not come from somewhere else unless we import them with lower quality standards, et cetera. We have, indeed, a lot going on here that is not really truthful. It is sad to hear my colleague from the north coast. Although we are in parallel districts, the First District and the Second District, it seems like we are in parallel universes when I hear him starting to talk about defending agriculture because it is these policies: introduction of wolves; not rebuilding water infrastructure but tearing down dams on the Klamath that now causes people to be subject to flooding; the water allocation of the Scott and Shasta Valleys being taken away by some emergency drought declaration at the same time as they are being flooded; and one thing after another being taken away from farmers and given to wolves instead. My Democratic colleagues want to introduce 1,700 new grizzly bears into California as one of their ideas, which would devastate livestock. The ideas that are coming out of this building and the regulatory buildings here are the ones that are choking off agriculture, making food more expensive, and taking away options for people to buy great California-grown products instead of having to import them. It is coming from here. It is certainly not the fault of what the Trump administration is trying to do in addition to building more water reservoirs and having more water available for people. Why was it that delta pumps were able to fill San Luis Reservoir 2 years ago to the brim, to the full mark, and they can't for the last 2 years?

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the additional time. Mr. Speaker, it is because of additional water flows that are demanded by the environmental left and certain Representatives in this building. A lot of times, they get them. It seems that the courts are stacked against farmers against this, but we have to fight back. One tool that we have is H.J. Res. 78, to review what government does and hold it accountable for when it does last-minute, unscientific pronouncements. In this case, it is yet another species that my Democratic colleagues use as a weapon against agriculture and against people's needs. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time on this.

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 rise today to recognize a great American hero, Private James ``Stanley'' Mitchell, who volunteered to serve our great Nation in World War II and died 82 years ago in a Japanese POW camp in Luzon, Philippines. Private Mitchell's remains were located and identified and have been returned to his family, a testament of his courage and sacrifice. Private Mitchell was born in Joplin, Missouri on October 2, 1917. The family would move frequently during his early life, eventually settling down in Hamilton City, California. On March 4, 1941, Private Mitchell enlisted in the United States Army and was deployed as part of the 31st Infantry Regiment on assignment to Clark Field in Luzon, Philippines. Ten months after his initial deployment to the Philippines, Imperial Japanese Forces would bomb Pearl Harbor, bringing the United States and all her territories into World War II. Japanese forces begin a full-scale invasion of Luzon, Philippines on December 22, 1941. The 31st Infantry Regiment stood defiant and courageous against overwhelming Japanese forces until their surrender on April 9, 1942. Private Mitchell joined approximately 72,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war (POW) on a 65-mile march known as the Bataan Death March. These brave souls endured torture, starvation, disease and ultimately death at the hands of the Japanese forces. By the end of the march, only approximately 52,000 American and Filipino POWs remained live. Private Mitchell and many surviving POWs would be held at the Cabanatuan POW Camp. Conditions would not improve for these courageous men. On January 7, 1943, Private Mitchell succumbed to starvation and disease, dying at a weight of only 70 pounds. Private Mitchell was buried in one of the many mass graves at the camp. The Cabanatuan POW Camp would be liberated on January 30, 1945, with only 489 POWs remaining alive. Unfortunately, 2,656 brave American POWs had lost their lives at the camp. Private Mitchell was the first World War II casualty from Hamilton City. His status as a POW brought great sadness and pain to his family. The news of his death brought devastation to his parents and family. His remains were exhumed and identified in September of 2024. Private Mitchell's remains were brought home to the United States on May 3, 2025, and he will be laid to rest between his parents at the Los Molinos Cemetery, in Northern California. Private Mitchell's story and sacrifice will not be forgotten. His legacy and impact to our community will continue to be felt. His return will bring closure to his family. God bless Private Mitchell and welcome home.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I am a California resident, and I am also a California businessman. We have a farm in northern California where we actually operate three highway trucks, and I would probably only have two except for State mandates make it to where one of my older trucks, which is a fine-running vehicle, is only allowed 1,000 miles per year to operate under an agricultural situation. Consequently, I had to buy yet another truck that was newer than 2011 in order to be able to comply with these mandates. Soon after, when the State had said: Well, if you buy a 2011 or newer engine-powered truck, you are going to be good for a long time. That is until they change their mind and take away the mandate. What many people did was purchase, in good faith, vehicles they thought would last for maybe 20 years, 25 years, or whatever their needs are. I am especially talking about mom-and-pop operations that don't buy new trucks with massive turnover like operations with many, many trucks in their fleet that run them 500,000 miles and turn them over. What we have with these mandates is more and more difficulty to even operate trucks. There is an old saying: If you have got it, a truck brought it. In California, you may not be getting it anymore. By the time 2035 comes around, and they ban the sale of internal combustion engine trucks and cars in California, what are we going to replace them with? That takes no account for the great strides that are made to make cleaner running diesel engines in all these vehicles and gas engines in automobiles and pickups. With the technology, we have to add this DEF fluid to our vehicles to make sure that they are running in compliance. What credit is given as a transition to more and more of these trucks meeting this mandate helps deliver cleaner air quality? No credit is given. It is just more mandates. CARB sits down there in Sacramento thinking up more and more mandates all the time, taking away barbecues, gas-powered stoves, and gas-powered everything, even gas-powered generators. I still don't know what you are supposed to replace a generator with if you can't power it on gas or diesel when the power goes off. It is ridiculous what is coming down the pike. Where California goes, there are several other States that want to follow as well because they think we have got it going on with these mandates. They want us to take away these trucks and take away the ability to have diesel-powered vehicles. Diesel, like it or not, is going to power things for many decades to come. The technology for batteries and the generation of electricity that is needed to keep all these going on the grid--if you have, say, a neighborhood where three or four cars in three or four homes are electric vehicles requiring that power supply, you would have to change the power lines and the transformer in the neighborhood by the time just a few of these vehicles are in place due to the intense load that is required to fast-charge these vehicles; let alone a truck fleet in a particular area. If there are 50 trucks or whatever in an operation all required to be on electricity and charging overnight, the grid people are going to laugh at you on that. This is at the same time as they are removing hydroelectric dams in California. They may not renew the nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo, also known as Diablo Canyon. They got a 5-year extension a couple of years ago. Is it going to go beyond that? That plant alone represents 9 percent of the power grid in California. They keep taking away the generation of power. They don't permit the new generation of power except for wind and solar. They want to turn farms in the Central Valley into solar farms perhaps. Take a look at the Ivanpah installation down in southern California where two-thirds of that is being shut down. They have the giant tower and the mirrors all pointed at it. That one is being shut down due to economics. If the economics on renewable power don't work out, where is the power going to come from? Who is going to drive the trucks? How will we get deliveries when these vehicles aren't purchased? The price of these is 2.5 times what a regular truck costs. If people would pass my legislation on the Federal excise tax, making the $20,000 to $30,000 of additional tax, a tax that was put in place to pay for World War I, on the price of new trucks, maybe people would have a little more relief. We do not need this mandate. The Federal Government should not give California more waivers. It was okay back in the 1960s when things were bad in southern California, but air quality has improved vastly due to these vehicles and other measures that have been taken. Agriculture has the ability to burn its refuse, clippings, tree removal, and all that. That has been banned in the San Joaquin Valley now. There have been a lot of strides or moves made. Yet, they are never satisfied at CARB in Sacramento. Other States will monkey see, monkey do what California does to the detriment of all consumers. All prices of goods delivered, the prices of production where trucks haul raw materials, and then the finished products from field or forest or mine to be manufactured or refined will just go up across the board. We don't have the battery technology to have these trucks go more than really 150 miles, whereas diesel-powered trucks, depending on how many tanks they have, can go 400 miles. Mr. Speaker, we need to reject the waivers.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for leading this. For my dear colleague from Michigan who just spoke on that, I greatly appreciate she got most of the way there. Indeed, why we have the Congressional Review Act is to reel in out-of-control bureaucracies and bad mandates that come down the pike. That is why we have H.J. Res. 88, led by my good colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce). We are supposed to take back when government gets out of control. In this case here, people are not going to have control of their automobile choices. We see, with the mandate coming down the pike here, that by 2026--that is next year. This current model year is almost over with, 2025 vehicles. By 2026, it will be a requirement of 35 percent of vehicles sold--in one more model year in these States, 35 percent. At the current rate in California and New York, about 10 percent of these vehicles are being sold. How the heck are you going to jump to 35 percent in a year? Nobody wants to buy these cars. Mr. Speaker, as you see when you go talk to the dealers, they have to have a certain number of vehicles that meet these mandates on the lot that aren't selling in order to get a Jeep or something you want that has a gas-powered engine in it or a pickup with a bigger engine it. They have to sell a certain number of these other ones to meet the quota. They can't sell the other stuff because they are not what people want to buy. When talking about vehicles to be replaced anyway, these cars cost half again as much as a similar size, similar used car. Who is supposed to afford that? Go down the supply chain here. People with a lower income probably primarily buy used vehicles. There is going to be a bigger premium on used cars on the market that are going to be less available to people with more moderate incomes. As it is, we are going to see the $7,500 incentive done under the IRA disappear soon. When we are talking $14,000 more per vehicle anyway, and that $7,500 incentive is gone to people who can file a tax return with all of those complications on it, because there is a large standard deduction, thanks to the JOBS Act legislation a few years ago--most people can't even take advantage of that if it is there. What are we talking about? By 2035, 100 percent of these cars are going to be battery-powered. What were we just saying a while ago about the power grid? What were we talking about with all of these data centers coming online using mass amounts of new electricity? When are we going to talk about that we can't produce power plants in this country? We can hardly get out of our tracks to build nuclear plants. They are tearing down hydroelectric plants in my district that make CO2-free power. We love to stop CO2, right? That is what this whole electric deal is about. Let's go back to 1990 in California, when CARB, the California Air Resources Board, decided we are going to require that by the year 2000, 10 percent of all vehicles have to be zero emission. What happened? Mr. Speaker, go to your dealers there and you see these little golf carts with license plates slapped on them that are pretending to be automobiles. They are trying to get those into the market. Nobody is going to buy that. Nobody is going to drive that. They are not even safe. CARB had to relent on that year 2000 goal, and they are going to have to relent again on this and on the trucks because it isn't realistic for real consumers, for real people. They don't want these cars unless they can get a sticker and drive in the fast lane in California on that, but that is a narrow group. One of the automobile reps I talked to drives from Sacramento up to Oroville and then has to go on up to Susanville. He is unsure if the pickup he has, which is a new electric pickup, is going to be able to make the whole trip. They are uncertain whether he can cover that trip, about a little over an hour here and about an hour and a half up the mountain to get the job done. People have uncertainty about even being able to rely on these vehicles. We have all heard the story about someone who bought a new pickup. I think he is from Michigan. He bought a camper, the whole works. It was to take his family on vacation. He made it about two States away. He had to stop and recharge so often that he finally took the truck to a different dealership, a different brand, and traded it in and bought another one with a diesel and finished the family vacation on that. This is the stuff they are going to put normal consumers through with these mandates, and it is going to happen in many States. A lot of times people in an industry, auto manufacturers, they want to just have one standard. They will take the worst standard that affects everybody, like food labeling and stuff, and foist it upon everybody else. We need to pass H.J. Res. 88 and give people a choice.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the resolution I have to overturn the listing of the San Francisco Bay Delta population of longfin smelt, which is being done under the Endangered Species Act. This listing was not based on sound science. It was forced through by a lawsuit and a court order at kind of the last minute in the Biden administration. Of course, that is not the way environmental decisions should be made. This was done on the heels of the regular delta smelt, which for over 30 years has had tens of millions of acre-feet of water shoved out through the delta to supposedly sustain that delta smelt to no effect because they have been trawling the area, looking for the fish, trying to find the fish, and haven't found any since I believe 2017. The Endangered Species Act has been weaponized for decades to shut down water deliveries, halt forestry, and cripple farming, ranching, and mining across the West. The Biden administration and activist judges have turned the law into really a political tool. The Fish and Wildlife Service overlapped this new listing on top of delta smelt regulations that already sends valuable water out to the Pacific Ocean in droves. It hurts farmers, families, and every Californian who depends on a stable water supply. We must stop these bureaucrats.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore) for leading us here tonight. Picking up on what he said, we are in the first 100 days of a new administration. I have to harken back just 101 or more days ago to what had been going on the last 4 years. The first thing that comes to mind is the border situation. As my colleague was saying, how does that make a lick of sense with what was going on there? We are allowed and supposed to have a sovereign border if we are going to confine ourselves to the country. In the days previous and in the formation of this country, for people to immigrate here, they had to bring a skill. They had to bring sponsorship. They needed to bring something that added to the growth of America. That wasn't seen at the time as racist or hateful or anything else. People from all backgrounds and from pretty much any continent were coming over here and being part of that. We had immigration laws that made sense. We really have never lost our immigration laws. They weren't being enforced a lot in the last 20-plus years or so. When we talk about common sense, it just went out the window on that issue for a long time. We are gaining it back. We have seen that the illegal border crossings, by and large, across the country have dropped by 95 percent under President Trump. We knew that is what we were going to get, and that is what voters asked for. It didn't take a bunch of new, comprehensive immigration laws to do that. It took enforcing the laws we had on the books. It took enforcing and having the will to say: No, we are not going to do this anymore. Guess what? We are still pro-immigrant. It just means legal immigration. It means following our rules. It means coming through the ports of entry and applying under the various ways one would apply for particular visas--student visas, tourist visas, work visas. Apply and ask for permission. We lock our cars when we park in this town. We lock the front door on our houses when we leave. We are allowed to have gates on the entry to this country. I say gates with well-oiled hinges. Somebody staffing them will then say if an immigrant has his papers, come on in. If he doesn't have his papers, he has to go back and apply. There is a process for that. Why is that so tough? When I see interviews on TV, talking with President Trump or Tom Homan or anybody, the interviewers just don't seem to grasp that--well, so you are against immigration, you are against people coming across. No, it is legal immigration. Follow the legal process. What is so tough to grasp about that? It just amazes me how that isn't mentioned. It is the duplicitous of the media and sometimes the interviewers on that, they are just not able to quite connect those dots. When we talk about the 95 percent, we also note that the number of got-aways, the individuals who intentionally avoid detection, pose some of the greatest dangers. The number of got-aways is also down by 99 percent. We have seen lately the reporters down on the border can't find a single illegal immigrant coming across these times. Indeed, we have seen some dramatically good results. The catch and release is over. Since taking office, President Trump has deported more than 139,000 illegal immigrants. We hear a lot of caterwauling about that. Oh, the humanity. It is horrific. Well, he hasn't done the most yet. Under President Obama, the numbers are probably triple of that only because different Presidents and different parties actually--look at the floor speech or the State of the Union speech, you can go back and listen to President Clinton talk about that years ago. Hillary Clinton has talked about it back before something changed politically and they completely switched on that. We have had bipartisan support for border control. Go back to 1986, when a deal was struck with Ronald Reagan, the Democrats, and Tip O'Neill and the gang. He allowed for amnesty. It is the ``A'' word now. There is a distrust around striking additional deals like that. Reagan said, okay, we will give amnesty to the ones that are here-- back in 1986, it was a much smaller number than we now have here illegally--in order to have strong Border Patrol and Border Patrol infrastructure put in place. A stronger fence and all that. Well, that wasn't fulfilled. We never really got the whole border barrier we needed in order to make it much simpler and easier for our personnel down there to be able to do their job. President Trump is backing that up by having a barrier. Is it perfect? No, Mr. Speaker, no thing is going to be perfect because you build a better mousetrap and somebody finds a way around it. At least it deters the massive tide. Is it symbolic? Is it actually a good barrier? It is probably both. It also shows that the U.S. is determined to enforce its border and that that alone is going to deter people. They are not going to try it now because President Biden isn't waving everyone in and giving them a free T-shirt. When we see that 150,000 illegals have been arrested, many of them gang members, we have success. Violent gangs, like MS-13, have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations. Hallelujah, it is time. What do we see in the news lately? Some of our Democrat colleagues are bending over backwards to go to El Salvador to bring a guy home. How about half of that effort being expended over the Israeli hostages over there after the horrific Hamas attacks back on October 7 of the previous year? President Trump has taken these measures. Gang leaders operating in Virginia, Florida, and New York are now in custody and off the streets. President Trump shut down the Biden-Harris migrant app which had served as a fast pass into the country. Why would we develop an app to make it easier to come into the country illegally? President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportation and dismantle criminal networks operating on U.S. soil. That is a useful tool that the left is trying to throw out. Hopefully, it will succeed in tests in the court. Construction of the border wall resumed. More than 85 new miles of barrier are already in place. There is still a lot to do, but at least we can keep it funded and get the job done and aid our border personnel. Taxpayer-funded goodies for illegal immigrants--luxury hotel stays, food stamps, special college funds--at least at the Federal level--have been eliminated. California is still giving that away as fast as they can. We have a Medi-Cal handout of $9.5 billion to illegal immigrants in the State of California. We are going to hear caterwauling there on some of the other things for cost-cutting measures being done here federally. California could take a long leap towards that just by not funding illegal immigrant activity. Sanctuary cities are finally being held accountable, as they should. President Trump has taken legal action and moved to cut off Federal support for jurisdictions who refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement. Why would they not cooperate with Federal law? It is a violation of Federal law. I see more and more local municipalities pushing back against State mandates on this. I commend them for doing so. Some of my northern California counties have done it. The city of Oroville did it. Siskiyou County has done it. Others have and others will continue to do so. What it has done is helped to deliver justice. We passed the Laken Riley Act. It is now law. It even got bipartisan support at the end. It is a powerful reminder that this administration will never forget those whose lives were taken by illegal immigrant crime. This is real leadership. These are promises made. These are promises kept. President Trump is helping to get that done for all of us. For those of us who have been here a lot longer and have battled on this issue, we are seeing common sense applied to our border and so many other things as a result of President Trump's leadership and partnership with the House and the Senate.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, my home State of California's vehicle sales mandate removes consumer choice. Americans are not choosing electric vehicles. They still prefer and rely on internal combustion engine-powered cars. In most States, EV sales aren't even close to the mandate. New York, for example, is supposed to reach 35 percent electric vehicle sales by 2026, but they are barely at 10 percent today. The Biden-Harris EPA granted these waivers after they lost the election in a clear attempt to lock in California's extreme electric vehicle requirements in their environmental agenda. These mandates don't just affect California. Other States copy as well. They impact every State by raising vehicle prices and limiting what Americans can buy. The policy threatens jobs across this country and forces companies to spend more to replace their fleets. Our electric grid cannot handle the surge in demand for mass EV adoption. Neighborhoods with three or more houses in the neighborhood that have these electric vehicle chargers, have to replace the wires and transformers on those poles in that neighborhood. The infrastructure is not there. The desire by the market isn't there, yet the government is trying to force this mandate on people. H.J. Res. 88 restores fairness and protects Americans' right to choose the vehicles that work for them.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the first 100 days of the Trump administration. President Trump's efforts have secured the border. Southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent since March of last year, from 137,473 in March of 2024 to only 7,181 in March of 2025. Customs and Border Protection encountered 29,000 illegal aliens nationwide last month, down 88 percent from 246,000 encountered in March of last year. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested 32,809 illegal aliens during the first 50 days of the Trump administration, way less than last year. More than 100,000 illegals have been deported. On the energy front, gas prices are down 6.3 percent and will continue to do so with America First energy policies. The Consumer Price Index has only increased by 2.8 percent in the last year. Egg prices are down 56 percent. On jobs, the economy added 10,000 manufacturing jobs, good jobs, during President Trump's timeline here. We will see more jobs and continue with a strong economy.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the March jobs report shows that 228,000 jobs were added last month, far exceeding expectations. Private-sector growth led the way with 209,000 new jobs, nearly double the pre- election average. Wages are rising with hourly earnings up nearly 4 percent over the past year. Government job dependence is shrinking with only 42 percent of new jobs in government-related sectors, down from nearly 75 percent under the Biden administration. Federal employment dropped by 4,000 as the administration cuts government bloat. In the 365-day period from the day President Trump was elected, there was a deficit of $2.2 trillion. In the 365 days previous to right now, it is only a deficit of $1.6 trillion. We have a long way to go, but it is a giant improvement. Construction jobs remain strong, and industrial production is hitting a record high. Manufacturing output has grown nearly 1 percent over the month. Auto production has surged 8.57 percent, and core CPI inflation is at a 4-year low, easing pressure on consumers. America's economy is back.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to pass legislation around here. There is a process. It is not really easy to get elected, whether it is here or the Presidency. There is a lot of power that has been bestowed to those that are elected. We see more and more lately a situation of one judge who is able to step in and say, oh, I don't like that and set aside an executive order or set aside a law that isn't necessarily even a constitutional problem but more philosophical. That is completely wrong. A district court judge should not be able to block a national policy just because they disagree with it. Darrell Issa's bill puts an end to nationwide injunctions where one judge, often with a political agenda, overrides the will of the voters and halts policies meant to improve our economy, secure our borders, or cut government waste. Judges were never meant to act as the veto on the executive branch. Their job is to rule on cases before them, not sweeping national edicts well outside of their judicial district. That is what is happening. We have seen activist judges block Federal employee reforms, stall border security measures, and obstruct regulatory rollbacks. A single judge in San Francisco even stopped the termination of probationary Federal employees, interfering with efforts to make government more efficient. It is wrong, and we need to pass H.R. 1526.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this is a moment that you don't wish to ever have to do here, but it is time and it is proper that we recognize a fallen officer from the northern California town of Marysville. Police Officer Osmar Rodarte was a dedicated law enforcement officer. He was a U.S. Army veteran. We lost him in the line of duty in just recent days. He was a loving husband and father. He made the ultimate sacrifice while serving with the Marysville Police Department. Officer Rodarte was taken from us at the tender age of just 27 years old. He was a proud graduate of Rio Linda High School, class of 2016. He answered the call to serve, enlisting in the United States Army before returning home to the law enforcement role that he loved. As an officer, he was known for his dedication and professionalism. On the day he was taken from us, Officer Rodarte was participating in a multiagency operation targeting transnational drug trafficking organizations which has been horrific on the lives of so many Americans. He was trying to make a big difference on that, doing critical work and helping keep our communities and our streets safe from the scourge of fentanyl and other drugs. His sacrifice reminds us of the risks law enforcement officers are always up against. Each day when they go out the door, kiss their spouse, and go out on duty, they know that risk, as does their family. The reality is still way too harsh when it happens to one of our own. Of course, Officer Rodarte was much more than a public servant. He was a father, husband, brother, and friend. His fellow officers called him a true hero, and those who knew him best spoke of his deep dedication to his family. In the aftermath of this loss, the people of Marysville, Rio Linda, and the entire north State have come together in mourning, offering prayers and support to his family. He leaves behind a wife and child facing this unimaginable loss. No words can fully ease the grief. We must ensure his sacrifice is not forgotten. His service in uniform and in life is a testament to his character and his sense of duty. We honor Officer Rodarte's bravery, service, and legacy. To his family, his fellow officers, and all who knew him, our prayers are with them. May he rest in eternal peace. God bless him, his family, his friends, and his fellow officers.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the March report for jobs showed that 228,000 jobs were added that month, far exceeding expectations. Private-sector growth led the way with 209,000 new jobs, nearly double the pre-election average. Wages are rising, with hourly earnings up nearly 4 percent over the past year. Government job dependence is shrinking, with only 42 percent of new jobs in government-related sectors, down from nearly 75 percent under the previous administration. Federal employment dropped by 4,000 as the administration cuts government bloat. Construction jobs remain strong despite concerns over labor shortages. Federal telework rates have dropped over 16 percentage points, aligning with private-sector norms. Industrial production hit a record high. The manufacturing output grew 0.9 percent month over month. Auto production has surged 8.5 percent. The core CPI inflation is at a 4-year low, easing pressure on consumers, on family budgets. America's economy is bouncing back, stronger, leaner, and built for growth. Under President Trump's leadership, this momentum will continue.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life, service, and memory of Officer Osmar Rodarte, a dedicated law enforcement officer, a U.S. Army veteran, and a loving husband and father. Officer Rodarte made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty while serving with the Marysville Police Department, tragically taken from us at just 27 years old. Osmar Rodarte was a proud graduate of Rio Linda High School, Class of 2016. He answered the call to serve his country, enlisting in the United States Army before returning home to continue that service in law enforcement. As an officer with the Marysville Police Department, he was known for his dedication, professionalism, and commitment to keeping people safe. On the day he was taken from us, Officer Rodarte was participating in a multi-agency operation targeting transnational drug trafficking organizations, work that is critical in keeping our streets safe from the influence of dangerous criminals. His sacrifice is a reminder of the risks our law enforcement officers take every day to protect the people they serve. Officer Rodarte was more than a public servant. He was a father, a husband, a brother, and a friend. His fellow officers described him as a true hero, and those who knew him best spoke of his unwavering dedication to his family and loved ones. In the aftermath of this tragic loss, the people of Marysville, Rio Linda, and the entire North State have come together in mourning, offering prayers and support to his family. Osmar leaves behind a wife and child who now face an unimaginable loss. No words can fully ease their grief, but we must ensure that Officer Rodarte's sacrifice isn't forgotten. His service, both in uniform and in his everyday life, is a testament to his character and his deep sense of duty. We honor Officer Rodarte's bravery, his service, and his legacy. Our prayers are with his family, his fellow officers, and all who knew him. May he rest in eternal peace. God bless him.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will take up the Senate's amendments to the budget resolution, an essential step in moving forward with the reconciliation process. This vote paves the way for meaningful action on securing the border, strengthening the tax code to support our families and economic growth, and investing in reliable domestic energy, which ensures a strong national defense and setting the country on a healthier financial path. Passing this amendment allows the House to begin drafting instructions for committees to take up these critical priorities in their subgroups. The challenges facing the country require decisive action, and this process is key to delivering real solutions Americans have voted for and have been waiting for. With this step, the groundwork is in place to advance policies that strengthen the economy, protect American interests here and abroad, and create a more stable future. Let's quit hemming and hawing and get this thing done. Then we will see the positive, productive results the American people have been begging for for several years.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak a little bit about the SAVE Act and what it is supposed to do to ensure election integrity for our country. The commentary that this is somehow going to disenfranchise people who normally vote is just part of the rhetoric of this place that obscures that our elections aren't completely secure when we have millions of illegal immigrants in this country who have been given driver's licenses, IDs, without having passed the muster of actually doing citizenship efforts. Why should that apply to elections? You already see municipalities around this country trying to give the right, the privilege, of votes to people who are not here legally. In the previous example given, if someone has had a recent marriage but their name doesn't quite match yet because they haven't gotten their legal documents, there is a provision for that called provisional voting that you can utilize at that time of election and then go through the process of proving, yes, this is my citizenship in order to ensure that we have elections with integrity. When our elections are key to deciding who makes the laws in this country, who makes the policy decisions, they need to be secure. If we can't trust the people in office who are actually chosen by American citizens, what exactly do we have? Only American citizens are supposed to vote in Federal elections. Weak laws have made it, as I mentioned, easier now for noncitizens to get on the voter rolls in certain municipalities. When President Biden took office, that administration let at least 4.6 million illegal immigrants into the country, with nearly 2 million more slipping in without being stopped, and these are probably low numbers. It is hard to estimate. Some blue States, as I mentioned, have given these individuals driver's licenses and other benefits, which then can help them in loosely run State election rolls illegally register to vote in Federal elections. We need to draw the line at least at Federal election levels. Some blue cities have let them vote in local elections to cause even more confusion and abuse of the process. It is deliberate. Federal law has blocked States from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, making it easier for the system to be exploited. That is actually against the Constitution. How would the SAVE Act go about fixing this? Chip Roy's SAVE Act would require proof of U.S. citizenship and identity shown in person at the place of election when registering or on voting day. This rule would apply either when someone signs up at the DMV, a government office, or through the mail. Making fair exceptions, if someone is a citizen but doesn't have the usual paperwork, like for religious reasons, they could go through, as I mentioned, an alternative process with strict rules like sworn affidavits. The bill also makes sure there are accommodations for disabled Americans so they aren't wrongly excluded. It addresses cases when someone's documentation might not match their legal name, as I mentioned here, with their name change through marriage, divorce, or adoption. Some people, especially married women, may face these issues if their IDs don't exactly match. Under the SAVE Act, it would require setting up a process in the States to confirm the identity in these cases, therefore allowing them to vote while it is being sorted out. It could include showing legal documents like a marriage certificate or a court order proving a name change. These provisions ensure that legitimate voters aren't turned away while still keeping strong safeguards against fraud. In cleaning up the voter rolls, the SAVE Act requires States to remove noncitizens from voter rolls and gives them access to Federal databases to help verify citizenship at no cost to the States. Election officials that ignore these rules or allow noncitizens to register can be sued and penalized, as they should be. The Election Assistance Commission will also update Federal registration forms to make sure these new security measures are properly put in place. This matters because Americans deserve to know that their vote counts and isn't canceled out by illegal ballots. What an insult. This isn't about politics. It is making sure only legal voters decide who represents us in Washington, as well as at the State and local levels, as it should be. The SAVE Act is a simple, commonsense way to restore trust in our elections and keep them honest. If we want fair elections, Congress needs to act and act now. The SAVE Act helps to protect our democracy--which isn't really a democracy; it is a republic--enforce our laws, and make sure that American citizens, not foreign nationals, decide our future. It is common sense. Let's get it done.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the No Rogue Rulings Act is about stopping unelected judges from blocking a President's entire agenda with a single ruling. This bill, introduced by my colleague from California, Representative Darrell Issa, puts an end to nationwide injunctions that overstep judicial authority. Judges were never meant to act as a veto in the executive branch. When a district judge issues a nationwide injunction, they override the will of the voters by halting policies that one judge happens to disagree with politically. This is about restoring balance. The Constitution sets clear roles for each separate branch of government. The Issa bill ensures judges can rule on the cases before them, nothing more. Without this fix, activist judges will keep blocking policies on national security, the economy, and regulatory reform. Passing the No Rogue Rulings Act means the judiciary won't be used as a political weapon to stall a duly elected President's agenda.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, we must use budget reconciliation to fully repeal the so-called Inflation Reduction Act's, IRA, green subsidies. They are a trillion-dollar disaster, driving up energy costs, undermining grid reliability, and forcing out dependable power sources like coal and natural gas as well as the hydroelectric dam destruction we see happening. Keeping even one of them threatens real spending reductions and makes it nearly impossible to rein in the national deficit of around $2 trillion brought on by the Biden administration and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The stakes are very clear. Europe's energy crisis shows what happens when a country relies too much on unreliable renewables. Meanwhile, China profits off of our bad policies, selling us solar panels and electric vehicles while expanding its own coal production and power plants. We cannot let the left's green welfare agenda weaken our energy security while boosting our biggest adversary any longer. Full repeal means saving taxpayers $1 trillion in wasteful spending, easing inflation and lowering costs for families and small businesses, and restoring energy security by stabilizing our grid. Reconciliation is the way forward.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here as we conclude the week. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take the time today to highlight some of the work that we are doing in the Western Caucus, made up of over 90 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. I have been privileged to become the chair of that group this year. Chairing the caucus, I get to bring up a lot of key issues on the floor and kind of illustrate to the people who are watching and wish to pay attention how important the issues are that we are taking up and continue to advance while working with the Trump administration. One of the cornerstones, indeed, is energy. We call ourselves the Western Caucus, but the issues are a little beyond the Western States. Indeed, they are rural issues. They are issues that affect all of our States and the opportunity to strengthen our entire economy with what we have available in the Western States and in rural areas. Indeed, our oil and our energy come from many, many parts of the country. The original oil patch was actually in western Pennsylvania. The Western Caucus is less about maybe what the real estate is, but more about the concepts of advancing rural issues and the ability to extract resources and to utilize resources in an ecologically sound way. We are all about that, too. The U.S. gets a bad reputation sometimes that people who are in these industries are misconstrued by environmental groups and such as being against the environment and against doing things properly. The bottom line on that topic is that unleashing American energy and our mineral resources, strengthening agriculture, and tackling the real challenges facing our country, like the devastating wildfires in the West, are key issues that the Western Caucus faces. One of the things that can help with some of these issues will be modernizing the Endangered Species Act that has been around for over 50 years, and I see the futility as it is interpreted these days in layer after layer of court decisions and lawsuits that basically just hamper the ability for us to do the things we need to do to have stronger energy availability and have the other resources that are key to a strong economy for our country and not import all of these products. Indeed, with the goals set out, at least by some, to have further electricity usage for appliances, which we have talked about this week on this floor, there is requirements. There is people being mandated to change what their appliances are powered by. When you have a gas-powered stove, gas water heater, and on and on with mandates, whether it is my home State of California or has come through the previous Biden administration, this has taken away consumer choices and taken away the best choice for a lot of people for how to power these devices. That extends also to automobiles, trucks. If you have it, a truck brought it. That is an important aspect to remember, as well, is that just by merely sweeping away the ability to have gasoline and diesel, as California is doing and that they are trying to do and that the Federal Government had been doing until the end of the Biden administration, that is going to cost a lot. It is going to make it a lot less convenient and a lot more difficult to get raw materials and products from where they are created to where they are needed. The Endangered Species Act is part of the issue that needs to be modernized, as well as getting over the lawsuits and litigation that is used as a weapon, whether it is by Federal agencies or by so-called NGOs or environmental groups. We have been working in this Chamber, as I mentioned, this week to help deliver solutions to lower energy costs, cut red tape, and reverse the Biden administration's relentless overreach, from blocking costly energy efficiency mandates on consumer products to stopping unnecessary restrictions on American manufacturing and energy production. We want these things to be manufactured here by American workers, using American technology, American efficiency, and the cleanliness that comes with it. We are much more efficient and much cleaner than what happens in Chinese manufacturing. Our natural gas that we use in this country is actually cleaner than Russian natural gas. We should be exporting more of that to Europe and helping them out instead of them becoming dependent on the long reputation we have had with Russia there. When we are talking about these overreaches by government by these regulations, it really drives up prices, burdens businesses, and makes us more dependent on foreign products, foreign energy, et cetera. Let's restore American energy dominance, support these industries that put food on the table, clothing on our backs, and shelter above us. We should support them to make our country stronger and more independent. We will push back against the policies that are failing and harming rural America. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues, some of whom will be joining me during this time here, and what they are working on as part of our Western Caucus partnership here. I see a couple of my colleagues have arrived here. I would like to recognize, if the gentlewoman is ready, my executive vice chair. The gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy) is with us here--I am pleased to have her as a partner and friend on the Western Caucus--to inform us on the issues that are particular to Utah, but also the Western States, as well. I am really, really pleased that she has stepped up to be in this role here, and I appreciate her quite a bit. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy).

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Maloy for her remarks. I appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentlewoman a little bit about the Antiquities Act because I have shared a lot of that frustration, as well. The Biden administration, on the way out the door, declared several monument areas--a couple in California, one on the ocean area. It really seems it has been down to just being an executive action with very little input by Congress, and I know that is what she is working on in her legislation. I can think of a couple of recent examples. Over 600 million acres are turned into an ocean monument area. When you do the math on that, that ends up being about a million square miles of a 1,000-mile square. That is a giant chunk of ocean that is no longer really usable for normal things like fishing and things like that. In my home State, up in my district, they declared almost a quarter- million-acre area--they really had little consultation with the folks there. It had like a mining operation, and the timber management needed to happen, so it has been quite abusive. I ask the gentlewoman what she thinks the long-term effects have been on energy in the West, energy exploration, and the types of things we need to be doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. LaMALFA. I agree. It seems that it has really flipped into this one direction on the invoking of a new monument or wilderness area, what have you. I know your State of Utah has been hit pretty hard by several. It is not that we are against these measures to protect particular areas, but what we are talking about is gigantic swaths of land instead of something a little more focused. The original intent was a focus on the particular historic or geographic areas, maybe like an old-growth forest area or something like that, areas where there might be Native American ruins that we want to particularly focus on. Instead, we get these gigantic acreages. I know the Trump administration is going to be looking at some of these here as he did previously. I also like what you were speaking about on your geothermal process there because it should be an all-of-the-above way of looking at things, on types of energy we have available, and geothermal is clean power. It is one that is available 24/7. You don't have to wait for the wind to blow, the Sun to come up, or the clouds to go away. We need a lot more baseload power. Look at what is going on with the tech centers, the amount of AI that is going to be coming onboard and the amount of energy that it is going to be consuming. These data centers are going to use a mass amount of new electricity if they are allowed to, and they have talked about wanting to do it all as renewable. If geothermal can be a source in those areas, that is one thing, but we are going to have to get real on where our power is going to come from because we have to have reliable baseload power. Geothermal has had a very difficult permitting process. Any idea what kind of timeline? How many years does it take to get one through if you can get them through?

Mr. LaMALFA. Indeed, as another example, there was a copper mine--it is not the same as a geothermal power plant, but one particular one in the West took 29 years to permit. When you are talking about any kind of thing that is moving forward on self-sufficiency in minerals or energy dominance that the U.S. needs to have, it takes a decade or more, in many cases, to get this done. A desalination plant in southern California, along the coast--I think out of Huntington Beach; the Poseidon project it was called. They fought for two decades to try to get a desalination plant. We can't build water storage in California, it seems, or other areas, so everybody says, ``Desal, we can use the Pacific Ocean,'' until you try to permit it. They fought for 20 years to work through the permit process and jumped through every hoop, like what requirement will make them happy to take care of the brine, the landscape itself. After all that time, they were still denied by the California Coastal Commission and others to be able to do that. Permitting does need to be reformed, not thrown away, because we want to have a process where people can have a say and a look at what is happening. By the same token, when we talk about the Antiquities Act, people need to have a say, as well, not just 2,500 miles away in Washington, D.C., where a stroke of the pen does it, as Ms. Maloy mentioned here. Local input from their legislature, their Governor, and their delegation to D.C. basically was ignored on national monuments that were done in Utah. We didn't hear a whole lot up in northern California on the one done recently, either. It was kind of one-sided. I appreciate you bringing those to the forefront here today, and you are welcome to make any more comments you wish, but we will move on a little bit to Western water for right now, too. It is a key issue for agriculture and hydroelectric, with safety from flood, and even recreation, as well as a lot of the folks who are wanting more water for fish needs, fish passage and such. They sure enjoy the benefits of having stored water in the Western dams or any dams. I will point out as an example here Shasta Dam in northern California. It is the Central Valley Project, as it is known. It is a Federal project built in the thirties that came online strongly in the early forties. This is an amazing project. Indeed, it is the cornerstone of California water as well as some of the Colorado River water sources we have, but this is 4.5 million acre-feet in one dam and one lake up in Shasta County, California. The way it is operated is extremely important, and when we don't have as good of decisions being made, at least in my opinion, on how that water is stored, how it is kept, and how it is allocated, then people suffer on that unnecessarily. Right now, this lake sits at about 600,000 acre-feet still to fill it up. The thing that gets me is that we are seeing farmers and others in the water districts in central California in San Joaquin Valley, where so much of our important food supply for the whole country comes from, stuck at 35 or 40 percent of what used to be the normal allocation. Part of that is that they can't point to the water supply. I think it is a bit of a misnomer. There is plenty of water around. I will illustrate that here in a moment, but this lake, when it is 4.5 million acre-feet full, along with our other lakes, why isn't that allocation to agriculture and others closer to 100 percent? It hasn't reached 100 percent in a long time, and a lot of that is based on what we talked about a moment ago here, the Endangered Species Act and its weaponization in the last 50-plus years. It is not a matter of us not caring about species and trying to recover them and conserve them. It is that it is used as a weapon to stop further water storage or the other issues we were talking about, other energy projects, even forestry practices that would be helpful to not have continued wildfire at the massive scale we are seeing, especially in the Western States. What I want to see happening for Lake Shasta, for example, is that they can use more scientific forecasting of what the systems of weather are going to be looking like in a given year, in a given season. We are about to end the rainy season as the Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers--Army Corps is in charge of flood controls, so they control the top portion of this dam, Lake Oroville down near where I live, and many others around the whole country. Their charge is for flood control. They will require that a certain gap from the top of the dam down 40, 50 feet or so. A particular amount of storage has to be available until the end of the rainy season, which is pretty much April 1. At that point, you are allowed to fill the lake. The lake can fill on up. Over 600,000 acre-feet down, they are assessing the snowpack, more or less, as I speak, but with still another weather pattern coming in here quite soon that would probably enhance that snowpack number, as well. What gets me is that we have allowed Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps 2 million acre-feet to leave this lake, to leave this system, since early January, and that has flowed down, in this case, to Sacramento River and on out to the delta. If you want to see something about delta numbers, this poster here isn't quite updated, but it illustrates how the water flows down from the north and such and flows through the Bay Delta out to the ocean. These numbers are a little bit older. I have to update my poster here, but it shows a gap. In this case here with this timeline, 29 flowed into the delta. Down below, it shows 22 million acre-feet flowed out. That is a heck of a lot of water to lose that we didn't capture more of. We have an excellent opportunity to do better at that and keep more water for hydroelectric power, agriculture, recreation, and people's use in the urban areas. There is a bit of a misnomer that people in agriculture use way more water than what is actually the case. Of stored water in the State, 50 percent goes for environmental purposes, 40 percent and descending goes for agriculture, and about 10 percent for urban and people's use. That is of captured water. There is about another 50 percent of the total rainfall and snowpack that falls on the State that flows out to the ocean or other areas that ends up being--basically, you could call it environmental water as well because people don't get to use it. It is doing what it does in the rivers and streams and such. We keep hearing that these farmers are wasting water, and people in the cities have to conserve more. Conservation is good. Farmers using better practices is good, as well. If you are telling people in the urban areas--and wait till this really happens to them. This is when we will get their attention, when they get rationed down to 42 gallons per day per person and you see these kinds of numbers. When you see that much water going out to the delta because we have people refusing to build the storage and run the pumps, for example, at the south end of the delta, that could be filling up what is known as San Luis Reservoir, which hasn't been topped off yet. It was topped off 2 years ago, but last year and this year, under similar snowpack and rain circumstances, they haven't allowed the pumps to run hard enough to fill it. I am hoping--a lot of stuff seems to be based on hope--that we can have enough melt into Shasta Lake or Lake Oroville and the other large ones that they will fill up and there will be enough water for everybody. How do you count on having that amount of water, that amount of rainfall, in March and April? I have lived there my whole life. You don't always get heavy rains in March and April that would help top off these reservoirs. It is, indeed, important to California, but it is an important Western issue, and what gets produced in those areas is important to everybody. I recognize that it is not just a California issue, but an entire Western issue. That is why the Western Caucus will be focusing partly on that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich), another colleague of mine who will bring his perspective on what is happening in the great northern area of Alaska and the amazing amounts of resources they have there that this country enjoys and consumes, and it does so responsibly as well. I thank him for joining us.