Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague, Mr. Gohmert, once again for yielding to me on so many of these important topics that we have worked on together during my relatively short time here. This, of course, is very key to all of us in the West, and the reality of which needs to be pressed upon all the people of the country and all of our legislative colleagues across the country, especially on the East Coast that really can't quite fathom how far-reaching this is in Western States. So it is really a pleasure to be able to join with my other Western colleagues and Mr. Gohmert who have spoken here tonight. We need to raise the awareness of yet another new map being released by the Committee on Natural Resources. Now, the map I am illustrating here, this actually breaks it down into a smaller size. This is the First Congressional District of California, this being Oregon up top and Nevada on the side, where you have that top corner there, which is part of a State that is owned approximately 45 percent by the Federal Government--actually, not by the Federal Government. It belongs to the people. It is the public's land. Our neighboring State, Nevada, is approximately 84 percent Federal land. We know how poorly they are managed as we watch them go up in flames each summer. The visible result is that millions of acres in the West burn each year. The amount of timber and fuel reduction is done. You see most of that is done on private lands where they can actually go out and have the incentive to take care of their assets versus the other side, with U.S. Forest Service and BLM and others that don't seem to be able to get out of their own tracks on the issue. For example, last year, 576,000 acres of Federal land burned in California--this is the public's land--about 1.3 percent of all Federal land in the State. Even worse, fires which began on national forest lands burned hundreds of thousands of acres of private and State land as well where, as part of the strategy, the Federal Government was even resorting to a backfire-setting strategy on private lands, as they are doing right now to let it burn its way out. This happened partly up in my district in Siskiyou County right now, thousands of acres of private land backfired. We know that the Forest Service and National Park Service alone have a deferred maintenance backlog, by their own estimate, of over $16 billion--$16 billion that would have to come from the national Treasury. Yet both agencies are continually attempting to acquire even more land. The result, of course, is that these agencies' funds are stretched more and more thinly, making the backlog even worse. At the same time, they are also complaining that, with the increased amount of fire suppression, the costs have shifted for the Forest Service from one- third of the budget just a few years ago to, now, two-thirds of their entire budget for fire suppression, making it harder for the things they should be doing, with getting out harvest permits and doing their other green work during the nonfire season. That doesn't happen anymore. Another impact of Federal land acquisition is to deny the local governments the property tax revenue they would receive and generate and deny the rural communities the jobs and economic activity that responsible timber, ranching, farming, and mining operations would generate. Thanks to Federal land acquisition and this administration's refusal to properly manage national forests, rural communities are heavily reliant on the secure rural schools fund, a program the Federal Government funds to help local schools, police, and local infrastructure, to the tune of about $285 million last year. Counties are also heavily reliant on the PILT fund--payment in lieu of taxes--to the tune of about $450 million last year. In both cases, local governments have less funding than if they were simply allowed to have the functioning economies that Federal regulations have destroyed. Both of these funds are something we have to fight for each budget year to make sure they stay in place, because people seem to forget these are backfills for what has been taken away from rural communities and rural economies. These rural economies don't want handouts. They want to have the opportunity to be self-sufficient, while not having to come begging for PILT funds or the secure rural schools fund. This means jobs for these economies, for these local areas, versus high unemployment and the social ills that come from an economy that has now disappeared, the social ills that affect families and affect homes, that affect local government and what you have now with the issues of people who are now basically in depression. More domestic violence happens because they don't have a job anymore. However, the Federal footprint isn't limited solely to federally owned land. The map identifies not just land owned by the Federal Government, but also areas with restrictions on human activities due to Federal regulations. As you can see, between national forests and other Federal public lands and areas under critical habitat, wetland, or other restrictions, economic activity is restricted in the vast majority of my district. These colors in green and orange are pretty much dominated by Federal land ownership or, supposedly, stewardship. The areas in white are where the offers are still for people in private areas to carry out economic activity. You can see from the color of that map that there are not a whole lot of options left. Indeed, by the time they establish wildlife corridors and more and more of these things that are in the plans, you can see our options are going to be just about zero. This means that local voices, once again, are ignored. Communities have little recourse when Federal agencies arbitrarily decide to close roads, limit economic activities like hunting, fishing, hiking, what have you, and expand their reach through regulations and habitat designations. Rural Sierra Nevada communities have long been told by environmentalists that they must shift to a tourism economy now that Federal and State restrictions have nearly killed the timber and mining industries in those areas. But what happens when the same environmental agenda, extended in the form of critical habitat and other designations, even damages the fledgling tourist economy that they want to promote for these communities? The Fish and Wildlife Service recently bent to the demands of extremist groups and listed the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite toad under the Endangered Species Act, affecting much of this area on the east side in my district and extending down into Mr. McClintock's district south of mine there. During this process, my colleagues heard from many people in the several public meetings that Mr. McClintock and I had on this very subject a couple of years ago. We wanted the public to be able to be part of this process to ensure that the Service heard the concerns of our constituents directly. The Service's initial habitat maps were riddled with obvious errors, like the inclusion of parking lots and other areas which contained zero amphibian habitat; and over 20,000 public comments were submitted, which were overwhelmingly opposed to the designation of this so-called critical habitat. However, when the final designations were released just a few days ago, they differed little from the initial maps. Nearly 2 million acres of Sierra Nevada, all down the east side of California--about half within my district, the other half pretty much all within Mr. McClintock's district--were designated as critical habitat. Again, throughout this process, the Fish and Wildlife Service claimed there would be no negative impacts to Sierra communities. We learned that claim to be false almost immediately. For years, a race called the Lost Sierra Endurance Run, a 50- kilometer, has been held on existing trails and roads throughout the town of Graeagle in Plumas County, California. Run by a local small local nonprofit, the race generates thousands of dollars for trail maintenance and has a significant economic impact on a little town know as Graeagle, with local hotels, restaurants, and shops benefiting from the visitors the race draws to the area, as well as people being able to enjoy the outdoors and see what their public lands are all about. However, last year, before the critical habitat designation was even complete, the nonprofit was told they would need to pay to conduct a study on the impacts of the race on the yellow-legged frog--an impact study. Federal agencies were concerned that runners using existing trails might negatively impact the frogs. The study the Federal agencies demanded was costly enough to more than wipe out any proceeds from the race, and the organizers were forced to cancel it. Not only would runners not be visiting the area, but now, trail conditions will deteriorate without the funding the race generated. Yes, the funding that the race generated was there to help keep the habit and the trails maintained. This is the second year that the race has not occurred, and it is likely that it, with the visitors it brought to the area, is gone permanently. What is next? Limits on walking through the area within a critical habitat? Colleagues, it may sound absurd, but Federal agencies have already expressed concern that running within this designation could harm frogs. Imagine all the other activities--using off-road vehicles, hunting, fishing, camping, bird watching, hiking--that agencies likely view as dangerous to frogs. As we watch the West burn this time of year, we observe the failure of Federal ownership and nonmanagement of the public's lands. Compare private timberlands versus the public. Private is fire- resistant and healthy, by and large, where they are able to manage their own lands. You can fly over it and see the checkerboard pattern of public versus private. Before a fire, you see it being managed. After a fire, you see the private lands, where they go back out there and get the lands re-covered and replanted again. Public land sits there with a bunch of snags, dead timber, brush growing up, and becomes the next tinderbox in 5 or 7 years. Indeed, the damage from these massive fires we have these days, these catastrophic fires, isn't just to the trees. It is to the habitat, to the wildlife--the very habitat they are fighting against us on. When you have these devastating fires, the next winter, what do you get? Ash and silt all washing down into the creeks, streams, rivers, and lakes, making it bad for the fish. You don't have the habitat there for owls or anything else that used to be there when the forest was still standing. Somehow, there are a handful of extremists that think this is somehow good. Oh, we need these burned lands. California is full, at this point, with about 66 million dead trees, by the U.S. Forest Service's own estimates. This isn't just an isolated tree here and there. Now you can see entire groves that are just waiting for the next lightning strike or the next spark, and it is going to be big-time problems for those areas to try and put them out. The Forest Service even goes so far as to resist the opportunity for doing land swaps with land that has already been managed, thinned, properly left by private concerns. Where they can then move on to take some trails into public ownership, that would be beneficial for the public as well as private entities being able to manage the formerly public land. They resist these kind of swaps because they want to buy more, acquire more, with money we don't have. Each new national monument, wilderness, critical habitat designation, or study area limits the tools to promote healthy forests. With the desire and even mandate for new renewable electricity--especially the mandates in California--forest biomass is one of the greatest opportunity potentials we have. It is something we need to be doing yesterday, in order to generate the electricity and bring the jobs that would come from removing that extra material in a way that is good for the ecology, for the forest, and bring those jobs right in the district--not building solar cells in China or wind machines in Europe, but jobs right in our own backyard; thinning these forests, using the material and putting it into a power plant that can generate renewable electricity to meet the mandate of 50 percent California sees and that other States will probably start adopting. We can be putting these jobs back home, improving forest safety and fire safety, preserving the habitat, keeping the water quality up, and, yes, bringing the jobs home for those paper and wood products that we still all need. Instead, we watch them burn because they are unwilling to do what needs to be done. They are afraid to do what needs to be done. There is not enough money in the U.S. Treasury to go out and try to recover all that habitat, plant those forests back, which is what the private sector could be doing when it manages it and is allowed to make a little bit of living at a time. So we have got a lot of work to do in getting this message across on the way the West is dominated by poor management at the Federal level. I hope those people listening tonight will take this to heart and give us the backing we need to accomplish better policy goals and make it so that our Western lands, our Western economies, our Western habitats can actually be preserved with wise management, not this debacle we see happening every fire season. So, again, to my colleague, Mr. Gohmert, I thank him so much for having this time here tonight for us to be able to spotlight this once again for our American people and for our colleagues. I appreciate it.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Police Chief Jack Storne, of Gridley, California, who passed away on August 27. Serving others is part of what was hardwired into Jack's existence. From being in the Marine Corps from 1963 to 1965, many, many years in law enforcement, and in his church, and also in dedication to his recently passed wife of 47 years, Wilma, his commitment to protecting and caring and serving for others, for his community, sets a gold star standard for public service. In his 37 years in the police force, Jack worked his way up from reserve officer in Modesto, California, to a patrolman, to the beloved police chief of Gridley and Biggs, where he was widely respected for his community-focused approach in protecting residents and enforcing law. He implemented many important new ideas and programs in his department, such as the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, the Gang- Resistance Education and Training platform, Police Explorers program, the D.A.R.E. Officer program, the K-9 program, and the unit's first- ever detective position. Following his retirement, Chief Storne continued to dedicate his time as a chaplain to the Gridley Police Department, as well as a minister at the Live Oak Church of the Brethren, where he was recently ordained. Chief Jack Storne wasn't so much interested in being known as a great man, but as a good man; and there is a distinction there. Indeed, I think he would be most proud to have said about him: well done, good and faithful servant. Our thoughts go out to his family, his children and his grandchildren. May they take comfort in knowing the profound impact their father and grandfather had on an entire community, and the legacy he left.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for so graciously allowing me the time here today. Indeed, it is a timely moment, and I want to share it with the American people. Indeed, it has been a difficult week for California and for the leadership of women who we have seen come forward in our State over recent years, especially in the political arena. My colleague Representative Mimi Walters from southern California earlier this week paid tribute to Marian Bergeson, a great political leader in our State in her time who we lost several days ago. Well, now we have lost another gem, and that is Sharon Oden Runner. I learned of her passing this morning. She underwent, some years ago, a very, very daring and amazing lung transplant to overcome the condition she had. She fought hard all these years and did quite well with that until recent times. So this tribute today to her is for her, her family, and that memory. Sharon and I came up together in the California State Legislature. Back in 2002, we both won terms in the State Assembly. She was just a good pal right out of the chute there. As new freshman members, we were getting to know our way around Sacramento and the State legislative process. Several of the freshman bonded. There was a pack of us guys and Sharon, you know, because there are a lot more guys in politics, it seems. So Sharon, being just a few years older than the rest of us guys, she kind of seemed like the one that was keeping us a little more in line as we would go about doing our business in the State legislature, cutting up a little bit here and there once in a while amidst the seriousness or at the events you do around town at night meeting other people and such. So I soon dubbed her ``Ma Runner,'' lovingly and affectionately, and she took that okay. And she was the one who would say, You boys, now, you stay in line here, okay? But we all had a lot of fun together and worked hard together and fought the battles together in the California legislative process. It was really fun to see her ascend. When our current majority leader here, Kevin McCarthy, became our assembly leader there, Sharon ascended right there beside him as the assistant leader for the Republicans as well. And she really did well in that role and was effective and just really good to get along with and made sure that all the members had what they needed in order to do well. Sharon's spirit was one of always being so positive, reaching out to everybody. She worked to get more women elected to the legislature as well. And she was one with very strong moral convictions as well, to make sure that her faith in God was something that she brought forward with her policy and was something that wasn't very far away in how she conducted herself and for her family and for those that she came into contact with. So we had that opportunity to serve 6 years together in the State Assembly. And then, with term limits being what they are, we soon met up again in that legislative role over on the California State Senate side. Now, at that point, Sharon was again struggling with her lung battles there and got that amazing lung transplant, that life that was given to her by a donor that she carried forward for these years until finally the issues became too complex. And, again, we lost her this morning. So our hearts do go out to George, Micah, Bekah, all of her friends, all of her extended family. Those who had a chance to know her and were touched and graced by her, we are better for it. We know that we will always cherish the memories. George and Sharon had a unique time together as the first husband- wife team in the California State Legislature. He was in the Senate for a while, and she was in the Assembly. A lot of history was made by them through measures they were able to put on the ballot, the things they always fought for morally and policy-wise. They will always be remembered as working together. Now, as George soldiers on, our hearts are with you. We wish you God's strength and peace and only the sweetest memories to your whole family. We remember Sharon today. God bless her, and God bless her memory.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act, as created, was intended to protect our national waterways from industrial pollution. For the past 40 years, the State and Federal partnership under that law has helped improve our lakes and rivers. However, in recent years, under this administration, we have seen the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA continuously overstep their authority to an unprecedented degree, despite clear opposition and legal barriers. In fact, in 2012, the Supreme Court condemned EPA's practice of using the law to persecute farmers and ranchers with absolutely no proof or due process offered to these landowners. Again, early this year, the Supreme Court shut down EPA's ongoing attempts to exempt their actions limiting property rights from traditional challenges, one of our Nation's most fundamental rights. This is not a fight over clean water; it is a fight about Federal control. The creators of this law never intended for bureaucrats to have control of nearly every ditch, puddle, or pond they can get their hands on, while trying to regulate everyday activities like plowing, explicitly exempted under the law. Yet we continue to see this administration use their own very imaginative interpretations to harass property owners. It is certainly unfortunate we have to pass additional legislation to require bureaucrats to stay within the law, but that is what we will do. I have an amendment in the appropriation bill just passed that will help do that and rein it in.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this Thursday marks the 1-year anniversary of the Iran nuclear deal. Despite assurances from the Obama administration, it is clear we need to do more to curb Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism, human rights abuses, and their ability to destabilize the region. This week, the House of Representatives will vote on commonsense measures to address these concerns. Heavy water plays an important role in developing nuclear weapons. Yet the Iran nuclear deal allows Iran to possess heavy water up to a certain amount and then sell any additional heavy water on the international market. As a result, the United States, in April, purchased 32 metric tons of heavy water from Iran, which means we are currently subsidizing and rewarding Iran's production of a key building block for a nuclear weapons program. This just doesn't make sense and is certainly outside of the idea of the deal that was made over a year ago; that, combined with testing of missiles, new contracts for Iran, and the $150 billion that was released to them. H.R. 5119, introduced by my colleague, Representative Pompeo, would further prohibit that. H.R. 5631 would hold Iran accountable for its State sponsorship of terrorism and other threatening activities. We need to move these measures and hold them accountable.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep sadness at the horrific spectacle that took place in Dallas, where members of the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas Rapid Transit System were singled out for terrorist activity during what had been a civil protest, ironically, about officers themselves. They stood in the gap-- even keeping order as their fellow officers were falling--as they were being protested in the march over recent tragic events that had happened elsewhere in our Nation. As the sniper shots rang out, and as they saw their brothers falling, these Dallas officers still responded to their internal call to duty to protect not themselves, but the innocent demonstrators that were also in that line of fire. Mr. Speaker, time and again, America's police show their commitment to all lives, and we know they will continue to do so. Like any government agency, they need accountability when they do wrong also; but we find that the vast and great number of contacts with police and all lives of Americans are for the positive and well-being of their security. We find in John 15:13: Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. The now five officers whose lives have been taken in the line of duty have shown that greater love. Our country uplifts to God these five lives lost, those injured or still in medical peril, their families and loved ones who suffer beside them, for comfort and healing. We are more indebted to them all than we can ever express.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, ``Do Democrats really realize how difficult it has been on working-class Americans to finance ObamaCare?'' This question was asked at a townhall with a Democratic nominee by an Ohio woman who saw her premium more than double, from $490 a month to $1,081 a month. The answer she received? Just keep shopping on the exchange until she finds a better deal. For the millions of Americans who continue to see their costs skyrocket, this is not an acceptable answer. From losing coverage, soaring premiums, and excess regulations, this system is simply unsustainable. Rather than propping up a failing system with temporary, costly fixes, let's replace it with the patient-centered policies that actually work. That is what Republicans are proposing to do. One with more choices, not mandates, one that increases flexibility in coverage, spurs competition so rates will go down and not up, and puts doctors and patients, not D.C. bureaucrats, back in charge of healthcare decisions. These are just some of the commonsense ideas Republicans are advancing, and they really do represent a better way for people's choices. ObamaCare has not, is not, and will not work. Let's start giving people more choices and the answers they deserve.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, it has been over 2 years since my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Tim Murphy, first introduced this comprehensive mental health bill. And every day since then, the country watched as Representative Murphy, a clinical psychologist, continued his uphill battle to overhauling our frequently and significantly broken mental health system. Slowly but surely, strides were made. Not only did his message resonate here in Congress, but it brought a lot of hope to many suffering around the country with this illness. It is no surprise to anyone here today that we have a mental health crisis in this country. Yet, the chaotic system that exists today, while may be well-intended, is the exact reason why so many individuals are left to fend for themselves, many times finding themselves in prison, homeless, or hospitalized. The system is broken, but this bill gives us the option to change that. By replacing the duplicative and ineffective programs with evidence-based care, reforming outdated privacy laws, enhancing coordination with oversight from actual experts in psychology, and increasing access to psychiatric resources, we can provide hope to those suffering that help is on the way for them. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely important bill, H.R. 2646, and thank Congressman Murphy for his diligence and for sticking to it.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4768, which the House will consider later this week. This bill will prevent Federal agencies from using creative interpretations of law to expand their own authority. In an ideal world, agencies would implement the law as Congress writes it. You wouldn't have judicial deference to agency interpretations of the law. Unfortunately, we do not live in that ideal world. And rather than respect congressional intent, Federal agencies, especially under the Obama administration, have time and time again interpreted the laws in ways never intended in order to increase their own power. The waters of the United States proposal and the Clean Power Plan, both rejected with bipartisan opposition, are just two recent examples of agency overreach. Mr. Speaker, it is high time that Congress remind these agencies that the people's elected Representatives, not bureaucracies, write our Nation's laws, not unaccountable bureaucrats or courts willing to go along with it.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor a great friend in northern California, Marie Whitacre. She certainly was not a giant in stature, if you knew her, but she was a giant in the real estate industry in northern California. She passed away on June 9. Marie moved to northern California in 1978, leaving southern California to become the executive officer of the Shasta Association of REALTORS. She continued to serve our area in that role for the majority of her 52-year career. Not only was Marie one of the first women executives in the area, but she also brought tremendous success to her association, making it one of California's top real estate advocacy groups before she decided to step down from the position in 2007. I knew Marie personally as a friend, as a lady with a kind, nice touch but also the ability to get things done during my time serving in office as well as working with her and her association. Indeed, it was a pleasure, and we will miss her. Marie is survived by her brother, Mike; sister, Sally; husband, Harlan; and son, Tom. Indeed, she made a big impression on her clientele in the north State. We will miss her. God bless her and her family.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) for holding this Special Order hour tonight so we may have the opportunity to recognize our friends at the Farm Credit System. I am glad to join my colleagues in doing so as the Farm Credit System has been a great service to agriculture and rural communities for these 100 years. Originally enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Wilson 100 years ago, the Farm Credit System has played a very valuable and vital role in sustaining agriculture in our Nation. While many things have changed in the last 100 years, one thing has not: the need to feed and clothe our Nation. The Farm Credit System exists to help farmers and ranchers meet this challenge while it also adapts to meet the ever-changing agricultural needs. For example, right now, the median age for farmers, as was mentioned by Mr. David Scott of Georgia, is around 60 years old, with farmers who are 75 years old and up outnumbering those who are in their twenties and thirties. We have to do more to give those young people hope and the opportunity to be viable and have stability in the occupations they would choose. With the population expected to increase by over 2 billion by 2050 and as prices for farmland and equipment significantly increase, the concerns of having enough farmers to feed the world are very real. Farm Credit initiatives have helped younger farmers not only access the financial tools that are necessary to get started, but also the education and advice they need to grow their business for years to come. More generally, Farm Credit is vital to managing the everyday risks and the uncontrollable variables farmers face, such as the weather, natural disasters, or market distortions. Just this spring, in my part of California, high winds and heavy rains--even hail--have helped to shrink California's prune crop to half or less of its normal size, with some growers losing their entire crops for the year and with some not being able to even recover their costs for harvesting--therefore, not harvesting at all. This is on top of devastating profit losses and cutbacks that are due to the ongoing drought in the State of California. While insurance, certainly, comes nowhere close to making up for these losses or even breaking even, it helps farmers survive another year--to get by--so they can continue growing the food, hopefully, in that good following year as they faithfully go out to their fields, to their orchards, to their vineyards to produce what Americans want and need. This helps keep our communities and local economies strong. I am proud to stand with my colleagues and join in recognizing the critical role the Farm Credit System has played for over 100 years and to support our farmers and ranchers throughout rural communities across the country. Let's do everything we can to hold onto this vital piece of rural America, and let's keep food on the tables for all Americans and for those around the world who depend on it as well.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, last Friday a Federal court in California made an almost unbelievable ruling that the Army Corps of Engineers could regulate the plowing of fields despite clear exemptions for normal farming activities in the Clean Water Act. Ruling against a family farm in my district, the court somehow found that the Corps was justified in attacking the farm for, believe it or not, planting wheat on land that had been used to grow wheat for decades. Wow. The nerve of this family, to grow crops on land historically used to grow crops. Rarely have we seen an administration distort the legislative intent of Congress as it has in this instance. The Army Corps and EPA are ignoring language that exempts ``normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting . . . '' and so on--exactly the activity that occurred in this instance. In other words, Congress clearly and unambiguously exempted day-to-day activities, and yet the administration continues working to try to regulate them. Mr. Speaker, we have enacted language I have sponsored to defund this type of lawless regulation, and yet the administration continues. We must rein in this executive overreach and develop reforms that end this abuse once and for all.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Black and Mr. Boustany on these two concurrent resolutions that are being offered today. I appreciate the time. I recall in this debate here that there was a whole movie back in the 1960s called ``If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium.'' Well, if it is tax-raising time, this must be Washington, D.C., because there are more schemes all the time to come hit not just big, evil corporations and big energy producers; this always ends up hitting the bottom line of American working families and the economy. The President's plan to raise a tax on each and every barrel of oil produced by $10 translates out to 25 cents at the pump. We heard earlier some of my colleagues talk about what the carbon tax would mean to working families--much more than they can afford in this bad economy and a time where the jobless rate is higher than is even measurable by this administration. This continues the antidomestically produced energy narrative of this administration. It only hurts U.S. energy jobs and takes productive U.S. fields, such as what we have in California, out of production that are on the margins of being profitable. Instead of having domestically produced energy, we are going to shift more of that burden to other sources: foreign energy or the need for exploring more here or offshore. Why don't we allow the profitable energy and oilfields we have in California and this country to continue to be productive and not hamper them with another additional tax that will take them out of production and rely more on foreign oil? Now, how popular is this amongst regular people? In my own district, we conducted a survey recently where people actually took time to send postcards back into my office that came in at approximately a 90 percent rate in opposition to this $10-per-barrel oil tax, which they understand means 25 cents, again, per gallon at the gas pump. This really, really hurts all Americans. It hurts working families, people on the lower end of the income scale, but even more so, districts like mine that are very rural and all the other rural districts around this country where people have to travel farther to get to their work, to take their kids to school or to healthcare appointments, their ball games, maybe even save up occasionally in this economy for a travel vacation they might like to take and visit the beauty of America. So the rural economy is even more devastated by this--the rural economy that also would be productive with energy--with these schemes that are being pondered. Additionally, there are other ideas, like a tax on every mile driven, which is being contemplated at some level here federally as well as in my own State. Tax people for every mile they drive, tax them at the gas pump, tax them for carbon. Again, this hits real people in America, not just some idea of a big, evil corporation. The answer in Washington always seems to be more government and taxation that hurts working families. Perhaps first, these dollars should be channeled into projects that people can use. Not more environmental projects, but more highways, more bridges, more water storage. Not boondoggles like we have in California, such as the high- speed rail money pit, or the cost of frivolous environmental measures that drive up the costs of construction projects and sometimes even completely eliminate them. We talk about a green economy a lot, especially on that side of the floor over there. Why don't we focus on a green economy that is not based on importing solar panels from China or wind machines from Europe? How about we get out and do the forestry that is needed to be done to thin the forests? We are talking about the air we breathe. Each summer, for months, the air is brown in northern California--lots of California--and lots of the Western States from forests that are burning because they are not managed, because they are not thinned. Instead, they are overgrown. That would be a green economy. We could turn this into biomass if you want to have real energy that works for the equation of renewable energy. Channel that effort into that instead of chasing these wind machines and solar panels. Mr. Speaker, this is why I support H. Con. Res. 112 and H. Con. Res. 89, to send a message that this is more job-killing taxes and schemes that will fix our economy.

Mr. LaMALFA. It is the freedom to explore for and produce low-cost domestic energy that will help Americans and our economy to recover once again.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, years of drought have left a terrible toll on the forests of the Sierra Nevada in California. The Forest Service estimates that there are at least 40 million trees that have died in California alone. The scope of this challenge is almost unbelievable, and the danger it presents is nearly unavoidable. However, there are steps that we can take to address it. While it is refreshing that the Forest Service is finally using the categorical exclusions that have been authorized under the recent farm bill to speed forest management projects, it won't be enough to prevent forest fires of devastating sizes and scopes. The Forest Service should rapidly increase the numbers of public-private partnerships it engages in and allow the private sector to remove the dead trees that are just waiting for a spark. The Senate should act immediately to pass H.R. 2647 and allow forest fires to be funded like earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters so as to end the diversion of forest management funding that limits preemptive fuel reduction work. We also need to incentivize technologies like the usage of biomass, which can make productive use of damaged trees and brush, et cetera, and can generate long-term renewable power--base-load, reliable power. Congress should act to extend the same tax incentives that wind and solar power receive to biomass plants, which don't just create power but do so more reliably and which have the additional benefit of consuming wood and slash that would otherwise burn in our forests, causing pollution. This would also bring jobs back, which are much needed in the rural part of America.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, despite our first wet winter in California in years, misguided Federal agencies threaten to cut off the water supplies of millions of Californians. On one hand, the National Marine Fisheries Service demands that Shasta Dam releases be drastically cut, allegedly to protect winter run salmon later on in the season. On the other hand, the Fish and Wildlife Service plans to spend as much as $150 million in buying water to drastically increase Shasta releases to the delta, allegedly to protect delta smelt--dumping water in the middle of this year. That is right, Mr. Speaker. Federal agencies are simultaneously demanding that more water be released from reservoirs, not for human use, and that more water be kept in the reservoirs but not for human use. Neither demand is backed by science but, rather, by whim or by hunch. The only common theme of these contradictory Federal policies is that both plans give Californians the short end of the stick. Mr. Speaker, it is time this lunacy ends and Federal agencies start making decisions based on facts, not on the contradictory whims of unelected bureaucrats, and to protect water users, especially in the North State.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, we recognize Memorial Day, this last Monday of May. We remember those who have given their lives in service to our Nation's Armed Forces. Recognition of this sacrifice began following the bloodiest conflict in our Nation's history, the Civil War, and today remains as significant as ever. From the Revolutionary War to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, from Vietnam to today's struggle against the tyranny of ISIS, Americans have dedicated their lives to protecting freedom at home and abroad. As we contemplate this weekend as a holiday, we also need to remember what this really looks like for those that we are truly remembering. This morning a group of us were able to visit Arlington Cemetery and take that in and remember that sacrifice as we laid a wreath. It was a unique opportunity to visit with spouses of those who have fallen and see what it really feels like. They were grateful not just for our visit, but also that people across America take time to pause and remember and be grateful for their service and say thank you to those Gold Star families whom we will never be able to repay. Madam Speaker, we ask for God's blessings on those families.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his help and for all his good work and for his vast knowledge of trees and forestry. I appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, today the House has an opportunity to advance real reforms and modernize the outdated policies that are preventing responsible management of California's water resources. Title I of division C of this measure includes language developed through exhaustive bipartisan, bicameral negotiations passed repeatedly by the House with bipartisan support. While the House has taken action on this issue, including this language today ensures that California's Senators can no longer ignore the crisis facing our State. This Chamber has heard quite a bit about California's water woes over the last few years, including some claims that don't meet the threshold of fact, and it is time we set the record straight. Some falsely claim this bill prioritizes one area over another. As the sole Representative of the source of the vast majority of California's usable water, I can state this measure includes the strongest possible protections for northern California area of origin and senior water rights. It safeguards the most fundamental water right of all: that those who live where water originates have access to it. That is why northern California water districts and farmers in my area strongly support this bill. The measure accelerates surface water storage infrastructure projects that over two-thirds of Californians voted to fund, updating the system last expanded four decades ago. One of these projects, Sites Reservoir, would have saved 1 million acre-feet of water this winter alone, enough to supply 8 million Californians for a year. We simply can't expect 40 million people to survive on infrastructure designed for half that, yet that is exactly what members of the minority party argue for. We have heard wild claims about how this measure could harm endangered species, but in reality it lives within the ESA and the biological opinions. Rather than alter the ESA--and believe me, I would like to--this measure improves population monitoring techniques and technology. Wildlife agencies currently base orders to cut off water on hunches, not data. This bill would provide actual facts to end the arbitrary decisions we have seen in recent years. Finally, this bill sensibly allows more water to be stored and used during winter storms when river flows are highest and there is no impact to fish populations. Even as delta outflows surpassed 100,000 acre-feet per second this year, as we see in this graphic here, during 2016, the water saved was even less by a percent than during low-flow years.

Mr. LaMALFA. As a result, the lost opportunity of filling one of our largest reservoirs. San Luis Reservoir is barely half full. This bill ensures that, when we have more water, it is saved for later use, which helps all Californians. Why wouldn't we want to do this? Mr. Speaker, we can't wait any longer. It is time that we end the rhetoric, end the obstruction, and address the crisis that threatens our State's strong economic livelihood. If Marin County and San Francisco can get all the water they need, how is it fair that districts in the Central Valley get only 5 percent of their allocation when water is aplenty?

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, with the House amendments to S. 2012, California is moving in the direction of doing responsible management of California's water resources. Since this House has taken action, it is now up to California's Senators to no longer ignore the crisis facing our State. We have heard a lot about California's water woes. Some falsely claim this bill prioritizes one area over another. But, also, it includes instead the strongest possible protections for northern California's area of origin and senior water rights. It safeguards the most fundamental water right of all. Those who live where water originates will have access to it. Northern California water districts and farmers are strongly in support of this bill. This measure accelerates surface water storage infrastructure projects, such as Sites Reservoir, which this year would have saved 1 million acre-feet of water had it been in place already. We can't expect 40 million people to survive on infrastructure designed generations ago. We have heard wild claims about how this measure could cause harm to the Endangered Species Act. But, in reality, it lives within the Endangered Species Act and biological opinions. Wildlife agencies currently base orders to cut off water to people on hunches, not data. This bill would provide actual facts to end the arbitrary decisions we have seen in recent years. Finally, it allows more water to be stored and used during winter storms, when river flows are highest and there is no impact to fish populations. The delta outflows surpassed record numbers this year. As a result, very little water actually got saved and much was wasted, which could be in the San Luis Reservoir. We have to change these policies and save the people's water for California with smarter management.

Mr. LaMALFA

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

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important bills signed into law during the last couple of years was a measure to reform the Department of Veterans Affairs to give our veterans choices. This law was adopted in response to a national scandal over outrageous wait times at the VA, secret wait lists, and 40 veterans who died while waiting to receive care. In Oakland, the VA regional office discovered over 13,000 initial benefit claims that dated back to the 1990s tucked away in a file cabinet. The widespread dysfunction and mismanagement of the VA is unacceptable. Our veterans deserve better. Like many of my colleagues, I was shocked by the recent comments made by VA Secretary Bob McDonald, who made references to Disneyland in an interview about how long veterans must wait in line to see a doctor. Veterans attempting to schedule medical appointments are not there for entertainment. Indeed, they are on a roller coaster as to whether they are even going to have an appointment when they show up a few days later. They are in need of basic healthcare services that they have risked their lives for. In my district, I have heard from many veterans who have had their appointments canceled and have experienced significant obstacles in accessing their healthcare benefits. It is clear that there are veterans all across the country who are not satisfied with the VA, and the only way to get the VA working for veterans is with accountability and strong congressional oversight. Indeed, the glowing reports we get from VA officials are a fantasyland of the nontruth.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the California High-Speed Rail Authority admitted that it needs an additional 4 years to build its first segment of track. Despite claiming that the project was shovel ready back in 2010 in order to receive Federal funds, the Rail Authority has only recently started minor construction. Now the Obama administration has extended the lifeline 4 more years to use up the so-called stimulus dollars. The project's costs are now more than double what the Rail Authority had claimed in the beginning. It has a funding gap of over $55 billion, has changed its route repeatedly and still hasn't settled on a route, has failed to attract a single private investment, and fails to comply with State and Federal law on the prescription of its construction. Mr. Speaker, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has broken every promise it has made to the people of California. It is time to pull the plug on a project that will not only never be completed, but is diverting billions of dollars from other infrastructure needs that people actually want, such as for our highways and needed water storage for California.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the Ninth Circuit Court is on a roll this week. First, they upheld gun rights in northern California. Now they have tossed out yet another frivolous lawsuit on salvage operations for forestry after a fire. Operations in western Siskiyou County on what is known as the west side fire--a fire that occurred in the summer and fall of 2014--are now finally proceeding where the value of that wood can be still, perhaps, hopefully, salvaged almost a year and a half later. Though it is only a scant 4 percent that they are going after in this harvest project here, you would think with the number of frivolous lawsuits and wailing over the project that we were causing an environmental disaster; yet the disaster has already occurred with the devastating fire. I am glad to see that the court ruled that some of the salvage operation can occur, because now the forest can actually recover. It can have an economic base to do so instead of merely coming out of the U.S. Treasury, and the people in the area can be employed in doing it in this forest fire recovery. It will be a positive for the habitat, a positive for the spotted owl. This is what we need to do in the long term. Salvage is an important part of forestry after a fire and not reinventing the wheel every single time we need to do the salvage and have lawsuits over it.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I am very grateful to Chairman Thornberry for allowing me to present this amendment. Today, I rise in support of my amendment to the NDAA in support of the U-2, known as the Dragon Lady, one of the must successful spy planes ever built. Its unique capabilities have served our Nation's high-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance mission for decades. What many don't know is that the U-2 is not a cold war relic. It is still current. The most recent ones were made in the 1980s. U-2s are currently flying more hours today than at any point since the end of the cold war and have been deployed in our ongoing efforts to defeat ISIS. Flying at an altitude of 70,000 feet, the U-2 is able to reach heights other spy planes cannot. Because the U-2 can reach such extraordinary heights, it is able to use high-tech sensors to increase its ability to collect intelligence. Other unique features of the U-2 include cloud-piercing radar and interchangeable nose cones. The U-2 can also take incredible high- resolution photographs on a 10,500-foot reel wet film. My amendment to the NDAA will prevent the Air Force from retiring the U-2. It is absolutely essential to our ability to meet our high- altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance needs. In addition to aiding in the fight against ISIS, General Philip Breedlove, NATO's supreme allied commander and the head of U.S. forces in Europe, called for the use of U-2s in countering the strategic threat posed by Vladimir Putin.