Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, providing flexibility for more parts of California does not, indeed, punish any other part of northern California. With that, we have to dispel some of these notions about what the end goal is for this legislation and for my amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. McClintock for managing this bill and for his help on this. I am pleased to support the bill, the GROW Act, which, contrary to some claims, protects northern California water rights and keeps more water in the north than the status quo. I should know because I represent the source of the overwhelming majority of California's usable water. The underlying bill improves water efficiency by allowing junior water contractors in the Sacramento Valley to carry over water supplies from one year to the next in Lake Shasta, retaining access to those supplies the following year, which promotes efficiency when you are banking that additional water for future use. This amendment improves the bill by ensuring that all Federal water contractors in the Sacramento Valley have the same ability to reschedule their water supplies. Mr. Chair, under the current system, water contractors are forced to use it or lose it. If water allocations are not fully used each year, the ability to access that water is lost. Now, around Washington, D.C., that use-it-or-lose-it attitude usually means a lot of money that sits in certain agencies' bank accounts or in their pots, it is just used up. Why would we want to do that kind of thing with water? We need to be banking it and saving it, where practical, to be usable in the next year or to pass to others who could use it as well. During wet years, farms and ranches may choose to reschedule a portion of their water for the following year. This bill and this amendment will significantly improve planning and delivery of water supplies by ensuring maximum flexibility, flexibility which we need, and allowing water to be accessed when it is needed most. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I have a presentation here, but, first, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my friend, who has a very important topic to cover as well. I appreciate his friendship and his strong leadership on the things that really count around here. Liu Xiaobo Resolution

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Smith for standing up for that important issue and making that known. So, I thank him, and I appreciate him joining with us tonight. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the devastating impacts that illegal marijuana grow operations are having on our public lands--even private lands, as well. As pictured here, this is not an uncommon scene in my district in northern California, in many of the Western States, or anywhere where people think they can get away with it, where someone may not be paying attention. We see that very often on our Federal lands because, honestly, regretfully, they are not managed very well and they are not managed very often. We hope to see that turn around under this new administration, this new leadership, that U.S. Forest Service lands have more attention to them, that they are managed more with timber harvest, thinning, things of that nature, to make the forests healthier. This certainly does not cause a healthier situation for our forests, as you see pictured here, the amount of damage that can come from that. I will tell you a little bit about it here. The devastating effects inflicted on the habitat and wildlife due to the nonpermitted water diversions, extensive grading of the terrain-- which, people in agriculture and construction have to get permits to do grading--and use of illegal toxicants and pesticides purchased outside of the United States--chemicals, products you can't even use here, that haven't been subjected to an EPA label process that ag chemicals and household chemicals have to do--this is what is coming in and being used on our public lands, poisoning them, poisoning the wildlife, and making it very dangerous for any people that might go in there. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, many threatened and endangered species which we are bending over backwards to try to recover, to try to protect, have tested positive for these poisons and other contaminants used at these illegal grow sites. Preliminary tests of game animals, including birds and deer, have also tested positive for these illegal pesticides, again, that are banned by the EPA, not allowed to be used in the United States, haven't been subject to the labeling requirements that are legal materials that we use in agriculture and other things that they have gone through. So it is difficult to understand how the Federal Government can spend extensive resources going after farmers, ranchers, miners, whoever for doing legal operations. In agriculture, it might be disking or plowing. In mining, it might be panning for gold or normal mining operations. So we have people cultivating their land for food. We have people extracting minerals that are needed for our daily lives, whether it is paving a road, driveway, concrete, whatever it might be. We have people legally doing these actions. They are the ones who have been--at least until recent months with the new administration--harassed with rules that hadn't even been subject to congressional attention. But at the same time, until recent months, this blatant criminal activity has been allowed to stand. Is it because law enforcement can't go into those--areas they are not authorized? I know local law enforcement is really interested in doing this. But it has been a hands-off approach by some of our Federal officials who have either not wanted to put the resources together or haven't had the wherewithal to put enough of the resources together to go out and enforce on these foreign nationals doing these devastating things to our lands and the danger they cause. What good are these Federal laws and statutes if we do not properly enforce the law to protect our public lands? We are protecting, on one hand, again, the wrong people by inaction; and we are criminalizing normal activity, people farming, ranching, mining, et cetera. The priorities have been backwards. I hope to see a big change in that with the new direction of the new administration. As if the environmental effects are not disturbing enough, the safety of the general public is at risk. Heavily armed drug cartels are using our National Forest to engage in large-scale illegal grow operations. You can see the haul on some of the weapons that have been taken from some of the raids that have been successfully done. This is pretty dangerous stuff. Somewhere in the picture are people who have grenade-launching devices, if I am not mistaken. So what kind of situation do we have going on where this kind of heavy armament is coming into our forests? And on the other hand, law-abiding, Second Amendment-loving Americans are subject to confiscation, threatening high cost of ammunition, multitudes of anti-gun rhetoric that, again, makes you ask the questions: Who are we protecting and who are we criminalizing? U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, has been forced to temporarily close refuge units during hunting season to protect the public from stumbling on to an illegal grow that might be guarded heavily by these criminals with these weapons. In 2012, the DEA's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Report indicated more than 10,000 or more illegal firearms seized nationwide in raids. This is the people's property. The public should be able to hunt, fish, camp, recreate with their families on it as they wish, safe from this criminal activity. Unfortunately, the number of illegal grow sites on Federal lands continues to rise at an alarming rate. Even in States that have legalized marijuana for recreational use, like California-- regrettably--and Colorado, they still are doing the illegal grows in lands that are in States that have so far legalized marijuana. According to the U.S. Forest Service, in 2016, the Pacific Southwest region saw a 52 percent increase in marijuana production on Forest Service lands compared to a previous year. So maybe the answer hasn't been in legalizing marijuana grows. The activity is still going on. It is still a sought-after market for those people who want to be using it. While the statistics seem staggering, it is believed that the true number of illegal grows on Federal lands is actually much higher than that 10,000 figure, much higher than what has been documented, much higher than the 52 percent increase that we are talking about. So with the heavy rainfall that the Western States saw this winter-- thankfully, we have gotten the rain--the regions are expecting an even higher surge of illegal marijuana production on the people's public lands. The law enforcement capabilities of the U.S. Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management are not currently equipped to handle an issue of this high magnitude. These law enforcement officers are doing what they can with the resources allotted and the permission they are allowed by their higher-ups, but we need much more additional means and support to develop a coordinated approach to enforce against these foreign nationals and others that are doing these illegal grows, despite what the public might be wanting with legalized marijuana in their own grows. While confronting the challenges of illegal marijuana cultivation in our National Forests is a large undertaking, it is important that we face this head on. Strong enforcement needs to come from the Federal Government that is supposed to be overseeing these lands. So we are talking about scenes like this right here. This is what is allowed to happen. That is why criminalizing people doing legal activities, such as farming, ranching, mining, what have you, for tiny, very narrow occasional violations, this is what is being fostered out there. Look at this. The trash that is allowed to happen; empty chemical containers; everything else involved in the grow; people camping up there illegally, because the Federal Government, until recently, does not seem to have an interest in enforcing against these illegal grows. Protecting our public lands from these destructive environmental threats, making sure our National Forests are safe for the public's use, for the habitat, for the wildlife, these are of key importance. This is what the public demands that we do. It is our job to keep the public safe and the lands, as well, in good stewardship. Much more needs to be done. The Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, they have immediate jurisdiction over these. They need to allow and partner with local law enforcement as well, who knows the lands better than anybody in Washington, D.C., ever would. And I don't need to remind you once again that marijuana is still classified, Federally, as an illegal drug. So these States--no matter how the voters have been duped, coerced, overwhelmed with dollars at the ballot box and on campaigns, this is still an illegal drug. It is an illegal activity that has been going on. So I hope what we are hearing from the Department of Justice--they will be looking really hard at whether this is even a legal activity in States that have been legalizing marijuana, and the harmful effects it is going to have on society as this stuff gets more powerful, more potent, and more available to kids. We have a job to do. It all starts right here: taking care of these lands, the habitat and environment for wildlife that we all care about, the habitat for people, and the water quality. What is going to come out of here as the water runs downstream through this stuff? What is that going to mean for our streams, rivers, lakes, to the water supplies that the people draw from here, that the animals draw from here? It is not good. So the Federal Government needs to take a stronger approach, whether it is DOJ, in concert with the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and that input from local law enforcement in local communities. This could be a very good team operation if we are allowed to do it and we aggressively go after that. I am seeing the seeds of that in the conversations that are coming out of our agencies here in Washington, D.C. Let's push forward on that and let's hear from the American public on making this happen as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, finally, this week, we are taking up two pieces of legislation that will address a huge problem in my home State of California for a long time. As California moves more and more towards becoming a sanctuary State, already having several sanctuary cities, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 move in the right direction toward law and order and what people expect from their government in providing for the public safety. We go back to the story of two Californians I can think of off the top of my head immediately, Kate Steinle and Jamiel Shaw, Jr., taken needlessly by people who shouldn't have even been in the country. They were illegal immigrants who were allowed to slip through the system and cause the death of both of those fine young people in California. Juan Sanchez was an illegal immigrant with a record of seven felonies. He had been caught and deported not once, not twice, by five times. He should not have been on the streets of California. But on July 1, he was roaming around free in San Francisco. He stole a gun out of a Federal officer's car, fired shots in public, and shot Kate Steinle in the back. San Francisco is a so-called sanctuary city, but it was not a sanctuary city for Kate Steinle. By shielding illegal immigrants from Federal authorities, sanctuary cities are disobeying the law. These actions have fatal consequences, as Kate Steinle and her family found out. Action we take this week on H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, will toughen the punishment for illegal immigrants who reenter the country. The second bill, H.R. 3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, cracks down on sanctuary cities, protects the public from dangerous criminals, and sends a message that if you are not with us in enforcing the law, then you are not going to receive funding or other help from the Federal Government. I think that is finally the right message coming out of Washington, D.C., for those who don't uphold the laws and see to the first duty of government, which is to protect and stand up for the safety of its citizens.

Mr. LaMALFA

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

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this week, in the Natural Resources Committee, we passed my bill, H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters Act, called the GO Act. It will help people be able to access public lands, national parks, U.S. Forest Service land, and BLM land for recreational activities without the litany and long wait of having to get permits. This will streamline that process. A couple of aspects include getting all the different agencies to work together to have a one-stop permitting process and shorten the length of time it takes to get these permits so that people can have events that are compatible with the use of these public lands and enjoy them. Indeed, no one is trying to hurt the environment, and we don't need a 6-month study every time somebody wants to have a bikefest or a jog through their public lands. We think the GO Act will be a very important, helpful tool, especially during the summertime, when people like to get outdoors and enjoy their public lands.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the importance of the Secure Rural Schools program. In over 700 counties and 41 States, timber was once an economic engine, supporting tens of thousands of jobs while keeping critical government operations going strong in these communities that house tax-exempt Federal land. However, in recent decades, restrictive forest management regulations, combined with devastating partisan environmental campaigns, has resulted in access to our Federal forests being cut off, blocking any economic activity opportunities. Rural counties do not want to come to Congress every year to beg for money they should be getting to generate in their own backyards anyway. Money that should come from Federal and State land, though it may take up most of their county, now generates no economic value for them. Reauthorizing Secure Rural Schools is very important and will provide, though not a permanent solution, at least a temporary one until we get back to the wise management of our Federal lands instead of watching them burn each fall, as we see in the news. We can't sit back and watch rural communities suffer until we wake up to that reality. As Congress works to implement commonsense forest management policies, it is imperative we keep the Secure Rural Schools program in place so rural communities will have the funding for schools and roads that they need.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the storied life of one of my constituents, Stanley David McEtchin, better known as Stan. Hailing from Vancouver, British Columbia, Stan passed away on June 9th after 92 years of enriching the lives of those around him. For the past few decades, the small town of Paradise, CA has known Stan as a pillar of the community whose sculpted metal artwork decorated shops and houses all across Butte County. But before his creative artwork made him a local celebrity, Stan served in an even higher calling, volunteering in his country's military in World War II. In 1943, Stan volunteered for the First Special Service Force in the Canadian Army and served as an ammunition supplier and medic. His unit, known as the Devil's Brigade, was an elite American and Canadian commando unit that preceded modern special operations forces that we have today. In 2014, Stan and the rest of the Devil's Brigade travelled to Washington, D.C., where they were awarded with the Congressional Gold Medal for their heroism during the Second World War--the highest civilian award in the United States. What makes Stan special is that he is known for his Congressional Gold Medal and for his distinguished military service, but also for his creativity and his artwork that help unite his community. Most people in Paradise, California would surely tell you that his metal artwork adds a distinct personality to his small town. I consider myself fortunate to have known him--and our country fortunate to have gained such a good man from our northern Canadian neighbors. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lamborn, for his leadership on this, and Mr. McClintock for bringing the bill in chief forward here that I am asking to amend today. This amendment ensures that State-led projects can also enjoy the coordination that the bill itself will do, State-led surface storage projects such as Sites Reservoir. These will be defined in the WIIN Act and they will be eligible under H.R. 1654's permitting. Doing so enables States to direct their own resources towards infrastructure needs at lower cost and improves States' ability to partner with the Federal Government on projects that provide both State and Federal benefits. Adopting this amendment to include State-led projects will allow the development of more water infrastructure more rapidly and at no additional cost to the Federal Government. For example, in my home State of California, the voters have approved billions of dollars toward infrastructure projects such as Sites Reservoir--not too far from my neighborhood--which will include enough water storage for millions more people in our State. Now, if you know the saga of Sites Reservoir, the locals there will tell you they have been talking about it, studying it, poking it, prodding it for about 40 years. Bureaucracy plays a major role in that. So the bill in chief is not looking to change environmental laws or get rid of environmental laws. Indeed, my colleague on the other side of the aisle talked about having an honest discussion in this area. Well, an honest discussion would show that the bill in chief is one that is merely coordinating. It is not changing the Water Quality Act. It is not changing NEPA, CEQA, or anything else, other than getting these people all in one room to coordinate at one time. Yes, we, indeed, have costs involved, because people give up, whether it is private sector money or the people that pass bonds as State voters give up after a while because they don't think their dollars are actually getting to the projects, when they hear needless, endless delays, when we have this game of bureaucratic badminton being played by various agencies knocking one idea to another, taking years of time and additional costs, especially those surprise ones at the last minute. Lake Oroville is in my own backyard. Now, what we have seen there since the crisis happened with the breakage of the spillway is that coordination under an emergency, where, even though there are some trying to throw roadblocks in there, people recognized coordination was needed, because when 188,000 people have to evacuate an area due to some unknown factors with how the infrastructure is holding up, then they saw the need to fix it. And the spillway at Lake Oroville is going to be fixed pretty rapidly over a 2-year period and made usable in this short amount of time. So that is how coordination can work to get a needed project done when it can be an emergency. What we need to quit doing is waiting for emergencies like this and on levee projects when we know for years and years that levee projects--highways, bridges, other infrastructure that have this bureaucratic badminton played when people are trying to get these projects done--need to be coordinated. That is what this bill does. My amendment adds to it, again, an important ability for State dollars under State-led infrastructure projects to be included in that. So I think it makes a heck of a lot of sense and will help our voters like in California and others around the country to be able to enjoy that coordination.

Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Costa, for his bipartisan support and effort in ensuring we have a proactive way of doing things in California on water infrastructure. I appreciate that a lot. So for anybody to say that the amount of effort it takes to get past the bureaucratic process, to simply get the existing permits under existing laws, is not burdensome is naive. Indeed, whether we are talking highway projects, levee projects, bridge projects, and, more particularly, this bill, water storage projects, we need this coordination. So the coordination will mean more for the American people, more for the people of my own State, with less dollars, less delay, and they can start enjoying the fruits of this project, the fruit of their tax dollars. So my amendment simply adds to that, State-led efforts, whether it has been a bond passed by a State or other State funding in California and other States, that they, too, can enjoy that coordination that this bill would provide. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the passing and celebrate the life of a good friend to many, Mr. Stan McEtchin. Hailing from Vancouver, British Columbia, Stan passed away on June 9, after 92 years of enriching the lives of those around him. For the past few decades, the small town of Paradise, California, has known Stan as a pillar of the community, whose sculpted metal artwork decorated shops and houses all across Butte County. But before his creative artwork made him a local celebrity, Stan served his country in World War II. In 1943, he volunteered for the First Special Service Force in the Canadian Army, an elite American and Canadian commando unit that preceded the modern Special Operations Forces we have today. In 2014, the man beloved for his artwork and for his charity was awarded a Congressional Gold Medal right here in Washington, D.C., for his unit's heroism in battle. I consider myself fortunate to have known him just a little bit, and our country fortunate to have gained such a good man from our northern neighbors. God bless his family and his memory.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I also thank Mr. Webster for managing this legislation for us here on the floor today. I appreciate it. I rise today as a sponsor in strong support, of course, of H.R. 1873. It is indeed a commonsense vegetation management bill that reduces forest fire danger possibilities and electricity blackouts, while cutting through the bureaucratic red tape in the process. I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Schrader from Oregon for his strong support in making this a true bipartisan effort for something that really should have no partisan roots at all. As we have heard several of my colleagues speak earlier in testimony on the floor here today, there are gross inconsistencies and impediments in the way the Forest Service and BLM manage transmission lines, particularly in the West, where many of these lines run through difficult terrain and dense forest. One electric utility in my district, the City of Redding Electric Utility, uses helicopters to engage in vegetation management along the rights-of-way on Federal lands. Such remote and forested areas make it especially difficult to effectively manage an area so large and dense. Rapid agency response is needed to help electric utility requests to conduct routine and emergency vegetation maintenance along Federal rights-of-way. It is absolutely essential to avoid wildfires and blackouts. Another benefit this bill brings to utility companies is much-needed safeguards in instances where the Secretary fails to allow them to trim or remove a hazardous tree. There was an unfortunate incident in La Pine, Oregon, in which a rural electric utility company was unjustly billed for a $300,000 fire suppression bill when its request to remove a tree in imminent danger of falling on a transmission line was denied by the Forest Service. This bill would provide the electric utility companies the confidence and means to manage and maintain their own transmission lines from overgrown and unmanaged trees along rights-of-way, something the Federal Government should already be doing in the first place. You see from the example here that electricity frequently is generated in rural parts of our country, and long, long transmission lines are needed to get to the urban parts of the country. So we are all in this: blackouts for the urban areas and, indeed, black skies in our rural areas where the forests are from unneeded wildfires. The Forest Service's own document shows that, between 2012 and 2013, approximately 350 forest fires were caused by this interface of damaged trees, dying trees, falling trees falling into the different types of lines you would find in rural areas in order to move the power. These changes to status quo are long overdue. This bill is an answer to many of the problems electricity companies are having with the management of electricity rights-of-way on Federal lands. Too many dying and dead trees have fallen unnecessarily on power lines, sparking devastating forest fires that could have been prevented had they had that ability to remove the tree in question.

Mr. LaMALFA. By providing the utilities with the tools they need to ensure the reliability and the longevity of our national forests, we can bolster investment in energy infrastructure and enhance the lives of all Americans and do much better to preserve the habitat of these areas that we treasure. I urge swift passage of the bill today and favor in the Senate when it gets over there. Indeed, I thank my colleagues for helping this process along today.

Mr. LaMALFA

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

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, on this day, June 6, 1944, 73 years ago, the largest amphibious assault in history landed on the beaches of Normandy, known as Operation Overlord, which we know more commonly as D-Day. I rise today, 73 years later, to honor the thousands of Allied soldiers who lost their lives on the beaches of Omaha, Utah, Gold, Juno, and Sword, and those, as well, that lived to carry the battle, ultimately, to Berlin and win. General Eisenhower told his soldiers that ``the hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.'' Today we commemorate the operation which began the liberation of Europe from Nazi control and paved the way for the eventual Allied victory in Europe--and for all of us to remain vigilant to preserve that same precious and fragile freedom. As was said in the movie ``Saving Private Ryan,'' for all of us, ``Earn this.''

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the veterans' bills passed by the House of Representatives this week. Amongst the legislation are bills to provide veterans with a cost-of-living adjustment for disability compensation, create a pilot program to explore magnetic resonant therapy as treatment for veterans with mental health conditions, and streamline the disability claims process at the VA, amongst other legislation. I would like to specifically highlight the VA Scheduling Accountability Act. A 2014 investigation found that no less than 40 veterans died while on unauthorized waiting lists, waiting to receive care that they never got. This is completely unacceptable. This legislation puts into place measures to ensure every facility is in compliance with VA scheduling policies and will withhold any awards or bonuses from any centers who fail to certify their compliance. Together with our new VA Secretary David Shulkin, whom we met with this week, I am confident that we will continue to create meaningful reforms for the VA. As we head into the Memorial Day weekend, this is just one way we can honor veterans and those who have fallen for us.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, which eliminates the need to apply for additional permits for using pesticides already approved for widespread use under current law. The permitting process places an unnecessary compliance burden on farmers who simply want to protect their crops using already available pesticides that have been determined to have minimal or no environmental impact in their original testing process. But of greater concern is the impact on disease control. This bureaucratic red tape can have the severe unintended consequence of raising the difficulty for local mosquito control districts, and others, and increase the likelihood that mosquito-transmitted diseases can spread. The Zika virus, which reached epidemic levels last year, remains a serious threat in the United States, with 119 cases still in place and over 400 cases in U.S. territories. We are not out of the woods yet. This duplicative process hamstrings health officials and agencies who are responsible for suppressing these viruses and maintaining public safety. This legislation provides critical protections of our Nation's food supply, as well as increasing our ability to combat public health crises, such as the Zika virus. H.R. 953 passed the House last year with bipartisan support, and I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to do so once again.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Democratic majority passed the Dodd-Frank Act, a 2,300-page rewrite of America's financial laws. This sweeping law imposed significant costs on the economy, financial institutions, investors, small businesses, and American consumers. Dodd-Frank was supposed to help lift up our economy; instead, what we got was the slowest, weakest recovery in 70 years. It was supposed to end taxpayer-funded bailouts; instead, it enshrined, permanently, Wall Street bailouts into law. It was supposed to make the financial system safer; instead, big banks got even bigger, and we have one less community bank or credit union every day. It was supposed to protect consumers; instead, higher bank fees, more expensive mortgages, fewer choices, and the most unaccountable government agency in the history of the Republic, the CFPB. The Financial CHOICE Act moving through committee and to this floor soon will give consumers the protections they need and the opportunity for investment that has been so bottled up for many, many months--even years--in this country. The Financial CHOICE Act will be very helpful toward restarting our economy and bringing back, once again, consumer choice. Let's move this bill through.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, as we know, this week is National Police Week. With many officers coming from all over the country to Washington, D.C., it is an opportunity for all of us to show our support for our local law enforcement at home by thanking them for all they do to keep us safe in our communities. I recognize all the men and women in uniform in my own district in northern California and across the country who sacrifice to protect and serve our communities each day. We can't allow these sacrifices to go quietly unnoticed either. Last year, 135 officers never made it home to their families or their loved ones. In California, 11 officers lost their lives in 2016, one of which was from my district in northern California. Sheriff Deputy Jack Hopkins of Modoc County Sheriff's Department was murdered while responding to a disturbance call at a rural property a few miles south of Alturas, California. His watch ended on Wednesday, October 19, 2016. Jack's killer is rightfully facing the death penalty in California; and this week, the House of Representatives is voting on the Thin Blue Line Act, which adds the murder of a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or first responder, as an aggravated factor for a jury to consider in deciding whether to impose the death penalty in Federal capital cases. The murder of a Federal law enforcement officer is already an aggravated factor under current law. Now we are taking action to ensure that those who harm local and State law enforcement officers are brought to justice as well. We have to send this clear message: We cannot tolerate this under any circumstances.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this week in the Natural Resources Committee, we conducted an important hearing and review on the Antiquities Act. This is the process for which these days the President unilaterally can declare national monuments, thereby placing acres that are deemed to be preserved into a monument, which then cannot be touched by human hands as it is interpreted and enforced these days. Under President Obama, twice as many acres were placed into that type of monument status as all other Presidents combined over the history of the country. Now, what this means is that you can't have access for forestry, fire protection, and other things you need to do for human activity. Even access for hunting and fishing is oftentimes limited. What we need is to have a process where Congress can have approval of the Antiquities Act if one of these proposals comes into place. We need to have that so that the people will have access to their lands so they can be managed if need be. The size of the monument, yes, we have areas we need to declare and protect. But the size of the monument is very important as well because it doesn't need to be always hundreds of thousands, even millions, of acres. Indeed, under the act, the idea is that it would be under the smallest possible size to preserve the object.