Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Natural Resources considered a bill that restores the original intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund: support of State and local projects. The LWCF State program has supported many recreation facilities across the country, including in my district, such as a municipal pool in Susanville, boat launches on the Sacramento River, and city parks and playgrounds in Chico, California. However, for every worthwhile local investment of $20,000 or $30,000, this administration now disproportionately spends millions on land acquisition for the Forest Service, which already can't manage what it owns. Sixty-one percent so far of the program during its existence has gone for this sort of land acquisition. That is not local. The result is catastrophic fires across the West each year with nonmanaged forest lands. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Bishop's bill will rectify this problem and send more funding to the State and local projects that need it and help end the destructive cycle of the Federal Government purchasing and owning land it doesn't manage, only to have it burn. I urge all my colleagues to support this measure when it comes up.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, we know now that one of the terrorists who participated in the attack on Paris last Friday entered Europe by posing as a refugee. Unfortunately, we have no assurances that a similar tactic would not be successful here in the United States. The Director of the FBI has testified before Congress that there is simply no way to vet many of the Syrian refugees. We cannot allow ISIS or any terrorist group to exploit the refugee resettlement program to sneak terrorists into our country by having lax background standards. This is a real threat. ISIS has promised more attacks, and we must take that seriously. We need to, at the very least, pause and assess allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. until we have a better screening procedure in place and focus on those that are persecuted, or even threatened with genocide, simply because of their being a religious minority.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, as a Californian, I know full well that we are suffering from a record drought; but what we already know is that California officials pushing the State's high-speed rail proposal won't be deterred by skyrocketing costs, an absence of private investment, or the $55 million--and growing--funding gap. What we didn't know was the extent of secrecy and mismanagement taxpayers would face at the hands of State officials pushing this project. Just this month, we learned that in 2013 the agency's main contractor projected that the first phase's costs had risen 31 percent. This information was concealed by the High-Speed Rail Authority and only released 2 years later after pressure from Congress. While the lack of transparency is unacceptable, especially given that taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for this project, the fundamental issue here is that the entire project is a ruse--in literal terms, a train wreck--in that State officials knew this for some time and that those same officials hid this from the public. In 2008, voters were promised an 800-mile system that would link Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, cost about $34 billion, and would have less than one-third of the costs paid by the State through its taxpayers. The system was promised to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in under 2 hours and 40 minutes. Fast forward to 2011 when the price had shot up from $34 billion to $100 billion, the plan was reduced to only L.A. to San Francisco, and the State was quick to grab billions of--unknown at the time--Federal stimulus that came along later, funding that could have been used for critical needs like roads or water infrastructure that California needs so desperately, as well as now shifting cap-and-trade dollars recently created to try and prop up high-speed rail and its deficient budget dollars. As a State senator at the time, the first bill I introduced was one that would require them to come up with the ultimate full plan of the cost of doing high-speed rail. Having not succeeded in getting that through a majority that still liked it as it was, my next legislation was to say, now that we know this is over $100 billion, let's put this back on the ballot and in front of the voters, since the price has tripled and they were deceived at what it would cost at the time. That, too, met defeat, as those in the majority still wished to continue this boondoggle. Today, the Governor claims the price has fallen to $68 billion for what would be an illegal system, based on what the voters passed under Prop 1A. However, the estimate ignores the costs of tunneling through the Tehachapi Mountains, ignores cost spikes in the initial construction segment, and ignores the rising costs of lands acquisition due to people having to fight because they are having their homes, their farms, and their small businesses paved over by this project. The promises made in 2008 ranged from low ticket prices to questionable job figures, including the fact that they were claiming there would be a million new jobs from high-speed rail. When we pinned them down in committee a little bit later, they said, well, that would mean a million job-years. That number has since been pared down. All these have been proven false. In fact, these claims are so misleading that a State court has forbidden the legislature from writing ballot measure descriptions. Earlier this week, I sent out a survey to residents in my weekly e- newsletter to constituents in California's First District, my own district, asking them to share their thoughts on high-speed rail as it is now. I listed a number of suggested actions we could take on high- speed rail, from leaving it as is to defunding it, and asked which best represents our constituents' position on the project now. Of the nearly 1,600 answers we received, their views are pretty clear. Nearly half of them said they thought funding for high-speed rail should be redirected to invest in water storage and water infrastructure to help our State right now in this drought. About 20 percent thought the State should subpoena the cost documents and require High-Speed Rail Authority officials to testify why the figures were concealed. Approximately 18 percent thought California's high-speed rail should undergo Federal investigation in response to these allegations, given that the project involves the use of Federal funds. A scant 7 percent thought we should keep going forward with high-speed rail and believed the current price tag is a worthwhile investment of public funds. Lastly, 4 percent supported investing in high-speed rail, provided the project stayed within the old constraints, the old prices--the ones they saw on the ballot. So, at best, you see 11 percent that might support high-speed rail and 4 percent that might under the old price, which is nowhere near what was projected. People don't like this project, don't trust those advocating for it, and they deserve better than to see their own tax dollars used to lie to them. No new Federal dollars will come from here to help this project be propped up anymore. It is time we start prioritizing funding for projects that actually address real problems facing California, such as the current drought. It is time to apply common sense to this situation. We have a State whose economy depends on a sound water supply, yet in the midst of a historic drought, we are still chasing this high-speed rail boondoggle. Rather than throwing billions of dollars away, let's get to what people demand and will help our economy and the people of California.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the fine gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill today. While this administration has been eager to recognize tribes, too often it fails to also recognize their sovereign rights, imposing onerous Federal requirements on tribes' management of their own lands and livelihoods, which is very important in my own First District of California, home of many recognized tribes. This measure rectifies a clear overreach yet again of this administration by rolling back National Labor Relations Board regulations that impose Federal labor laws on tribal businesses located on their own tribal land never intended under the NLRA. Mr. Speaker, sovereign status doesn't mean that tribes may manage their own affairs only now and then, or only when the administration chooses. It means tribes have a right to self-government in every aspect of their affairs. It is time that this House reaffirm its constitutional role, defined in article I, section 8, and lead the Federal Government in its relations with Indian tribes, not this overreaching board.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, as we saw on Friday, as most Americans were perhaps heading home for the weekend, at least 129 innocent civilians were killed by terrorists in Paris. One of the attacks took place at a Paris concert hall, where a band from Palm Desert, California, was scheduled to play. Nohemi Gonzalez, an American and 23-year-old junior at California State University, Long Beach, was doing a semester abroad and was killed while having dinner with her classmates. Madam Speaker, our thoughts, our prayers, our hearts go out to the families of the victims and the people of France. We stand with the French people, just as they stood with us after 9/11 and so many other times in our past, going back to our founding as a nation. This attack was a deliberate attempt to use violence and the destruction of innocent lives as a means of spreading a hateful ideology against the world. ISIS must be defeated and destroyed, not contained. Madam Speaker, we hear rhetoric coming from this administration that global warming is the greatest threat. Indeed. Tell that to the families, the victims of what happened in Paris.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, California and the West continue to be ravaged by wildfires each summer and fall, which is especially devastating to our forests in a time of record drought. Much is done on suppressing fires as they happen, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of sometimes unplanned emergency funds, as well as hundreds of millions in loss of the people's assets: the forestland and trees are in that inventory and, with it, the habitat, all of value not frequently accounted for on public lands. What I am immediately frustrated by is the lack of mobilization after a fire for the important salvage work needed on public land and how important it is that it be timely. Large trees after a fire, many of them can be salvaged within a year, and their value, sold to help recover costs for needed reforestation. This is important for many reasons, such as: habitat; the renewal of the forest; and the critical prevention of massive erosion into our streams, rivers, lakes, and other waterways after a fire, which replantings help mitigate. Indeed, with the EPA's waters of the United States emphasis, they should be looking at their own timely treatment of their own jurisdictional public lands first. We need timely issuance now of the permitting that the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are holding in their hands for even modest work still pending on 2014 fires. I urge these permitting entities to expedite the paperwork now to salvage what we can of 2014 timber burn that has little time left to salvage at a value that will help taxpayers, instead of cost them.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, last week I had the honor of meeting with Garett Long and Jessica Chiartas, two very bright graduate students from UC Davis in northern California who were invited to D.C. to present their work on soil science. Their research in the area of soils and biogeochemistry focuses on understanding the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of our soils, as well as the processes of mass and energy flows that control our agricultural and natural ecosystem functions. Now, the average layman might not find that too exciting, but it is exciting for agriculture to advance these technologies and get more and better production and quality of crops out of our lands. In particular, one area of research highlighted was their work in the wine growing region and the data and research collected on how soil impacts our vineyards and the wine that is enjoyed by people all across the world. That is something people can relate to with California wine. I have no doubt that their work will improve our agricultural industry for the better. I thank them for stopping by and sharing more about the work they are doing as well as their colleagues at UC Davis, and also congratulate the pair on their recent recognition.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleague from California to support this effort to rein in cost overruns on large, complex projects that end up costing taxpayers far more than original estimates. Too often, extremely large projects suffer from extreme cost overruns that not only fail to provide good value to taxpayers, but damage other infrastructure by absorbing funds that could support other transportation projects. In California, for example, the State's high-speed rail proposal is estimated to cost over twice what voters were promised, and no honest observer actually believes that estimate is even high enough at twice. The project's growing costs threaten funding for every other aspect of California's transportation system, including key infrastructure that people are demanding like roads and highways, or in this time of record drought in California, with unlimited funds, maybe even for water storage projects in that area. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment were in place today, Congress would have the benefit of an independent peer review analysis when determining whether to provide funding, and the project would have prepared a detailed risk management plan to control costs--very similar to when I was a State senator in California, S. 22, to do this very same thing similarly on high-speed rail at the time. Policymakers need accurate and partial information to make decisions, and this amendment will ensure that information is available. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, after a wave of strong bipartisan opposition, after being stayed by two Federal courts, the administration is still pushing its flawed waters of the United States regulatory expansion. However, this week, the Senate will finally consider rejecting this regulatory overreach. While the administration describes their plan as a minor clarification, it is, in fact, the most sweeping expansion of Federal regulatory authority in our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, this map of my home State of California demonstrates exactly how far the EPA's proposal would reach. Fully 95 percent of California, depicted in black, would fall under EPA's jurisdiction, though you will notice that the city of San Francisco, in white, does not. That is because San Francisco, the source of so much of this excessive regulatory mindset, long ago paved over every waterway in the city, and who knows what is in the runoff rainwater flowing off the streets of that city. It isn't just farms that would be hurt by the EPA's plan. Virtually every business and homeowner in the State would be faced with regulation at the whim of Federal bureaucrats under a rule written to ensure that the EPA has any jurisdiction anytime it wants. Do we really believe the Federal Government should play a role in local land use decisions, even down to whether individual homes could be expanded? This is exactly the power the EPA claims that it needs. Dry streambeds, manmade ditches, even temporary puddles which exist only during rainstorms are all locations over which the EPA wishes to claim jurisdiction. Even Imperial County, a desert with virtually no natural waterways, would fall under the EPA's control with this plan. Perhaps the most concerning isn't just that the EPA is seeking to expand its authority. That is the nature of any bureaucracy, and it is to be expected from this administration. Most concerning is that we can't even trust the EPA with authority to regulate navigable waterways it already has or to respect exemptions included in the Clean Water Act. In my northern California district, residents have experienced regulatory actions so ludicrous that we can't make them up. In Tehama County, a farmer was fined for planting wheat in a manner that the government claimed damaged so-called navigable waters, which begs the question anyway: What is or what should be determined to be a navigable waterway? Is it a puddle or is it something you can actually run a boat up and down? Never mind that the farm I mentioned has been recognized as a wheat allotment by the USDA for decades or that the farmer had simply been continuing to farm the land exactly as it has been farmed for generations. Instead, government bureaucrats wanted this activity stopped, and they used their power to prevent this farming activity. In another instance, the government used the Clean Water Act to attack a family farm for shifting to a more efficient irrigation system--yes, for shifting to more efficient irrigation system. One might think that is a laudable goal, especially during a drought period in California in the West, but the government claimed this activity would negatively impact the Sacramento River, which is a full 7 miles away from this farm and unconnected to that farm by any waterway. Of course, in both of these instances, the government sanctioned farmers for activities that are clearly exempt under the Clean Water Act as specified by Congress, who makes the laws. Even in the EPA's only early draft, they exempted mud puddles, but they just couldn't quite leave them out. They had to include them as well in their regulation. The ongoing efforts of the administration to ignore exemptions for normal farming activities like planting crops and maintaining irrigation systems are in clear violation of the Clean Water Act, as written by Congress. In fact, language I sponsored to defund this sort of regulation of exempt activities was passed by both Houses last year and signed into law in December, yet the EPA persists in its illegal activities. Mr. Speaker, when Congress can't trust Federal agencies to judiciously use authority they already hold, when we can't trust agencies to follow clear congressional direction, how can we possibly consider granting or allowing them even more power? It is time the Senate joined the House in rolling back this proposal and remind this administration that Congress writes the law, not bureaucrats.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, last evening, I voted against reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, a Federal entity that financially backs purchases of American goods and services by providing taxpayer-backed loans and loan guarantees to foreign companies and governments. While the Ex-Im Bank can help American industry break into foreign markets, too often it underwrites purchases by companies that directly compete with domestic companies, placing them at a significant disadvantage. For example, when foreign airlines purchase aircraft at lower costs with Ex-Im Bank backing, they are able to charge lower fares and outcompete our domestic airlines. The Federal Government should ensure that competition occurs on a level playing field, without tilting it toward one side or another. Furthermore, Ex-Im Bank supporters used a discharge petition to bring this bill to the floor, a parliamentary tactic which limits the use of amendments and creates an end run around the normal committee process that should apply to every measure considered by Congress. It is the American public that shoulders the risk of these loans, and, at the very minimum, they deserve an honest debate on this floor on the best way to move forward in promoting our exports abroad.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, for too long we have neglected mental health in our Nation, leaving many to suffer with little hope. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in our rural communities. According to reports, more than 60 percent of rural Americans are living in areas that are experiencing shortages in mental health professionals. More than 90 percent of practicing psychologists and psychiatrists in this country work exclusively in metropolitan areas. More than 65 percent of rural Americans rely solely on their primary care providers for mental health care. In most rural communities, the primary mental health crisis responder is a law enforcement officer, despite not being a medical specialist. All across rural America patients continue to face longer wait times, difficulty accessing care, and long-distance travel just to access subpar care by professionals, through no fault of their own, not even adequately trained to diagnose and treat mental health issues. In Shasta County, in my district, there is evidently only one psychiatrist in the area, while there is an estimated 4,000 patients with mental health needs. In addition, the lack of mental healthcare facilities, such as the shortage of inpatient beds and space, leaves patients stuck with longer wait times in the emergency room before they can even see a health professional with no other options. While the President's healthcare law attempted to make strides in this area by including behavioral health coverage, this system is fundamentally and fatally flawed. While continuing to throw Federal funding at it may serve as a temporary Band-Aid for the symptoms of this crisis, it does nothing to address the root of the problem. One-size-fits-all, top-down systems do not work, especially in rural America. If we continue to stand by the status quo, our rural patients will continue to suffer and, in many unfortunate cases, end up suicidal, homeless, or in prison, placing an even greater financial burden on our communities. For this reason, I am proud to support H.R. 2646, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2015. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for introducing this sorely needed bill. It is said the first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging there is one, and that is exactly what this bill does. We spend approximately $130 billion on mental health every year, yet our country still faces a shortage of nearly 100,000 psychiatric beds. Three of the largest mental health hospitals are, in fact, criminal incarceration facilities. For every 2,000 children with a mental health disorder, only one child psychiatrist is available. Outdated HIPAA privacy laws continue to prevent families and doctors from getting their loved ones and patients the care they need. Our mental health system is broken, but it certainly does not have to be. H.R. 2646 is a great step in rebuilding the system to one that works to empower patients and families with the access to care and services they need. It brings accountability to the system to ensure every Federal dollar is going to evidence-based standards, improves quality, and expands access to behavioral health in our community health clinics while advancing telepsychiatry in areas with limited access to mental health professionals, and, importantly, ends the outdated prohibition on physicians volunteering at clinics and federally qualified health centers. In addition, it provides more beds for those in need of immediate care or those experiencing a crisis and improves alternatives to institutionalization so patients can access the treatment they need, while it helps us decrease the incarceration rates, homelessness, and recurring ER visits. These are just a few of the sorely needed reforms included in H.R. 2646. I want to stand today to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), for his leadership in introducing this bill and urge my colleagues to lend their support of this responsible measure to help fix this broken system.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, last week, President Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets funding levels for our military operations. The bipartisan NDAA contains a number of positive components. The bill funds our troops' pay increases, health care and retirement benefits. It funds the ongoing effort to defeat ISIS and our effort to Afghanistan. This measure blocks the President's plan to close Guantanamo Bay, which would move the terrorists here to U.S. prisons if it was shut down. And it continues funding for the A-10, a very important close air support aircraft so effective that it is leading the fight against ISIS. This isn't one of the controversial issues we debate here. It is about the basic responsibility of funding our military while our Armed Forces are engaged overseas. With ISIS, Syria, Iran, South China Sea, Ukraine, Afghanistan, and also our allies like Israel watching and wondering what we are doing here, we need to do a lot better than that. We need to override the President's veto.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, after 2 years, the full impact of ObamaCare on rural areas is clear: higher costs, fewer hospitals, fewer insurance options, and fewer doctors. Insurance premiums in rural northern California average 25 percent more than in southern California, and the region will be hit with premium increases of an additional 29 percent this year. About 50 rural hospitals across America have closed, and over 280 more are now on the brink of closure. Finally, in much of my district, costly ObamaCare mandates have left my constituents with just one option for insurance, a plan that many doctors in the region won't even accept. Mr. Speaker, the debate is over. ObamaCare is destroying the ability of rural Americans to receive and afford health care. Along with the EPA, unmanaged or closed-off Federal lands, it looks like the President has a war on rural America. It is high time that we end this failed law and focus on meeting the needs of those with preexisting conditions and those without health care, not simply increasing cost to those who already have insurance. The budget reconciliation that just passed today will need only 51 Senate votes. It will help rural America on the ACA by opening up more options to people for their health care. It will repeal the ACA taxes and individual employer mandates, which, again, will help give more options to rural America, and it will defund Planned Parenthood, which many people are demanding. Indeed, this is a big step for good and responsible healthcare choices.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, today, here on Capitol Hill, I visited with various National Guard units from different States to learn more about the innovative ways they are keeping us safe in cyberspace. I appreciate their efforts and their service. The House has passed several measures to protect our cybersecurity this year, and the Senate is now working to do the same. There is a clear, bipartisan consensus that more needs to be done to protect us from data breaches, malicious hackers, and those who would inflict harm on the American people in using our cyber networks. Several high-profile data breaches include a hack of the Office of Personnel Management, which accessed highly sensitive information that puts our national security at risk as well as that of many people's private lives. We must act now to protect our cybersecurity before an even more catastrophic attack occurs. More integration and cooperation is needed among Federal, State, and local levels to be on the same page for the cybersecurity Americans expect of us in government and are promised. I feel we are falling woefully short should another attack occur. We must be prepared better than we are.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the House this week will vote on H.R. 10, the SOAR Reauthorization Act, known as the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. This will authorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program for an additional 5 years. At the core of this scholarship program is a simple premise that every American child deserves the opportunity to receive a great education. No child should be forced to attend low-performing public schools when alternatives for parents and their children are available right around the corner. Education is essential to climbing the ladder of success in this Nation, and this bill takes a positive step forward in giving parents the ability to provide more opportunities and choices to pave the way to a better future for their children. I urge my colleagues to support this responsible measure, and I thank Speaker Boehner for bringing this legislation to our floor.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Treasury Department confirmed what we already knew: we have cut the Federal deficit to the lowest level since this President took office. At $439 billion, the deficit is about 10 percent lower than in 2014 and is less than one third of what it was in 2009. Yet, earlier this week, the administration was quick to boast about announcing the deficit being down that low when we asked in the past, ``What is the plan, Mr. President, for balancing the budget ever?'' Not telling me how to do it, but when. We haven't gotten any answer. This has been the result of discipline started by House Republicans with the Budget Control Act and other measures to keep spending in line so that we will have a chance some day to have a truly balanced budget. If we had the economy responding and things to help spur the economy, we could reach that goal even faster, perhaps even by 2019. With the right discipline, we could balance the budget. Then no longer will we have to have a debate about whether we should be extending the debt limit, which I think is appalling for all of us here, especially for the next generation who are going to have to pay the price on that. So this is indeed good news. We want to get that budget deficit number to zero as soon as we can and maintain the business of this country.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 702. This measure will amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 to repeal the President's authority to restrict the export of coal, petroleum products, natural gas, or other petrochemical feedstocks. The bill specifically prohibits any Federal official from imposing or enforcing any restriction on the export of crude oil. Why is this important? Because at a time when America's energy innovation is at an all-time high, we can be a helpful strategic partner to our partners overseas that need energy and don't have to turn to unreliable partners like Russia, like the Middle East, and others to have their energy needs met. America can be helpful in that regard and, therefore, have stronger allies that don't have to be beholden to those other sources. It will bring jobs back home to the United States in our ever-developing energy sources. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House today to support H.R. 702, to strengthen U.S. options, U.S. jobs, and strengthen our allies in our ability to be able to serve them with our energy development that we have had in this country and, therefore, have a stronger bond with them.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, California's water-year starts each year on October 1. The 2016 California water-year started last Thursday, and we come into that year with the six main reservoirs of the Central Valley Project at only 24 percent of their total capacity, or a combined 200,000 acre-feet below where they started the water-year in 2015, just 1 year ago. That represents enough water supply, 200,000 acre-feet, to supply the city of Sacramento for 2 years. Half of the reservoirs don't even have 20 percent of their capacity. The San Luis Reservoir has less than 10 percent of its Federal water capacity. El Nino, though welcomed if it happens, will not stop the drought in California because the State has not invested nearly enough in additional water storage for our State and its people. Congress and the California State government need to act now to open new water resources so we don't fallow more farms and thirst more cities, or we will risk doing irreparable harm to California's $1 trillion economy. Mr. Speaker, we need to take action now.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate William and Mary Ghidotti High School in Grass Valley for being one of the 335 schools to be recognized as a National Blue Ribbon School this year. First established by President Reagan in 1982, the Blue Ribbon Schools program recognizes excellence in K-12 public and private schools who demonstrate a commitment to closing achievement gaps among student subgroups. This award is certainly fitting for Ghidotti. As a small school in Nevada County in northern California, with an emphasis on personalized learning, students are challenged daily to excel in leadership, technology, and critical thinking, helping them prepare to be college and career ready. To the students, teachers, and administrators: Congratulations on this distinct honor and thank you for your work in setting the standard of excellence in education for our students in northern California.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is simply failing rural America. A recent report showed that rural residents are left with even higher skyrocketing costs and even more barriers to care. A knee replacement in northern California, for example, is $43,000, but the price tag for that same service for a knee replacement in Los Angeles is $27,000. In addition, residents in northern California face a 7 percent increase, or a total of $384 a month or $4,600 a year, under Covered California. Our health industry needs competition, the key to driving costs down and increasing options for quality care. Unfortunately, the ACA has only discouraged competition, especially in rural areas where more and more physicians and providers are closing up shop, citing difficulties to operate under arbitrary regulations coming out of D.C. Mr. Speaker, rather than hindering small business with red tape, let's work to advance policies that encourage competition and location of doctors and nurses coming to rural America; and reward that innovation so we can tackle the issues plaguing rural health care, such as the staggering doctor and nurse shortage and increasing premiums and barriers to timely care.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, for many in California, including my own family and my neighbors, it is an exciting time this year. This is harvest time. Busy, but again, a very enjoyable time we all look forward to as farmers and ranchers. You see more combines, shakers, and sweepers running from sunrise to sunset working to fill the next truckload with this season's crops. And you see the men and women responsible for producing nearly half of all U.S.-grown vegetables, nuts, and fruits. But this year's harvest in the north State paints a much different picture, one with fallowing fields, wells that are going dry, and less and less truckloads of crops leaving those farms. As a farmer myself, we know it is the last truckload that leaves the field that is the one you make your living on. From the grapes in world-renowned wines to almonds and pistachios, exports are down and production is lower, causing a troubling ripple effect in the region and across our Nation's economy in the form of lost jobs and revenue and less choices for high-quality crops grown by Americans for our American consumers. The numbers for this year are without a doubt very troubling. On-farm gate prices are down, and farm yields per acre are down. According to a recent UC Davis study, just California alone is set to lose about $2.7 billion due to the drought. Farm employment is down by over 10,000 jobs this year, as well as the 21,000 or so indirect jobs that will also be lost by those involved in the production and processing of farm crops. Labor income is estimated to fall by at least $716 million, being replaced by an already troubled and strapped unemployment. Direct crop revenue losses are going to be up to $900 million, straight out of grower's pockets. In addition, the rice harvest is expected to cover only 375,000 acres, down from a peak number of 560,000 acres. The almond supply is expected to decrease by 4 percent, potentially losing market share to foreign interests. California dairy production is down by at least 3 percent, costing an estimated $250 million, a number that has shown significant increases in other States as well this year. Alfalfa hay shipments are significantly lower than last year, and the livestock industry faces losses of an estimated $100 million in order to replace it. Mr. Speaker, these are real numbers that are only set to get worse. We cannot simply stand by and watch as farmers, ranchers, small town economies, and ag employees face more water rationing and fallowed fields. California and the West cannot afford another year of inaction from Congress. I rise today to urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in both House and Senate to come to the table and advance commonsense drought solutions, such as new water storage and infrastructure, to provide relief now and in the future such as Sites Reservoir up in northern California and desalination projects for our cities. Let's get them permitted, let's get them approved and in the pipeline. We can't wait any longer. We need these reforms, indeed, now and for the future. Our State is growing, the population is growing, and we grow the finest and best crops and export them not only to the rest of the country, but to much of the world. Mr. Speaker, not doing anything now or this year is a dereliction of our responsibility and betrays Americans who expect us to provide the products they consume and enjoy these fine ag products that, indeed, give America the reputation as being the breadbasket of the world.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, it is no secret that Iran has been one of the leading sponsors of terrorism in the world for decades and that I am strongly opposed to the Iran nuclear deal. Hundreds of Americans have been killed by terrorist attacks that were sponsored or financed by Iran. U.S. courts have ruled against Iran in more than 80 cases, holding Iran responsible for nearly $45 billion in damages. The first thing, before any agreement would ever happen, is that we should make sure that Iran--out of that $150 billion of possible sanctions relief, we should demand that American families who lost a loved one at the hands of Iranian terrorism receive the damages they are owed. We cannot fail these American families. Yet Obama's administration is prepared to unfreeze up to $150 billion of these assets that will help finance Iran's continued terror attacks. I am proud to cosponsor the legislation by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan), H.R. 3457, the Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act, which keeps Iran's sanctions in place until Iran has at least paid the damages that it owes American families. Madam Speaker, this is the very least we can do on a bad deal.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 508 and 509 I was detained and missed the votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on both. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gallego