Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a technical measure to help align the language in H.R. 2898 with the MOU, memorandum of understanding, that the Bureau of Reclamation has put forward so that we can expedite the studies for the Sites Reservoir project, one that we have needed for a long, long time and will be very helpful towards water solutions for California. I ask for the support of this very simple technical measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I have another amendment at the desk.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with my neighbor to the north, Mr. Walden, which will protect due process for water contractors of the Bureau of Reclamation-operated Klamath Project in California and Oregon. The amendment confers applicant status on these contractors, ensuring that they are included in Endangered Species Act consultations that could affect operations of the water projects they rely upon. Applicant status also ensures that information and alternative actions provided by the contractors must be considered when the Bureau considers ESA- related operational changes. While the Bureau has, in its own words, treated the contractors in a manner similar to applicants since the 1990s, and local Indian tribes have invited contractors to provide information, the Bureau has not granted them the protections and inputs the full applicant status would provide, which is why we need the bill. H.R. 2898 already provides applicant status for the federally operated Central Valley Project in California.

Mr. LaMALFA. Yes. This first amendment is on the Klamath Project. Are the amendments out of order? They are out of numerical order. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on the Sites Reservoir. This helps complete a surface water storage project feasibility study by aligning the bill's language with the MOU recently signed by the Bureau of Reclamation and project stakeholders. Sites Reservoir has been studied for decades, but stakeholders recently agreed to help fund the study's completion. Last year, California's voters authorized billions in funding for projects like Sites, but the State cannot determine which projects to invest in until the feasibility studies are complete. This is a key project to help the State prepare for future droughts, and the State Department of Water Resources found that it would generate an additional 900,000 acre-feet of water during drought years. That is enough for 7.2 million people per year. This noncontroversial amendment helps to allow Californians to invest in their own water infrastructure, which is a laudable goal that I think we should all support. I have been pleased to sponsor a bill with my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, aimed at advancing this project, and I hope I will have your support today on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis). Mr. Chairman, we have heard today and will hear quite a bit more claims from the opposition, and I think it is high time that we reintroduce facts into the debate on California water. My district is the source of much of California's water and home to its largest reservoirs, just two of which can hold 8 million acre-feet, enough for 32 million people for an entire year. This water is delivered throughout the length of the State, and no other district provides so much for so many. However, even my constituents are facing mandatory rationing and fallowed fields. I support this measure because it respects State water rights and aids all Californians without favoring any region of the State over another. Ask the Bay Area lawmakers, who have expressed so much concern over ``sparking a water war'' where their water comes from. You will find that their water comes from my district, my colleagues' districts in the Valley, as well as the Sierras. This bill advances planning of five surface water storage projects that would yield enough water for 9.6 million people, projects that two-thirds of Californians voted to fund with State money just last year. Yet, my disappointment here is that we have so many California legislators today and in the past that oppose anything we try to do to enhance the water supply and deliverability in the State of California. What is more, it isn't human water use that is negatively impacting listed species. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service and Delta Stewardship Council, 90 percent of endangered winter-run salmon are killed and eaten by invasive fish species before they even reach the delta. The opposition, despite all data to the contrary, denies that invasive species are a part of the problem. Years of lawsuits aimed at reducing water use haven't helped at all endangered salmon, but this bill takes real steps to aid that population. This bill takes action to reduce the populations of invasive species. While opponents may claim this bill impacts commercial salmon fishing, they won't say that the National Marine Fisheries Service found that commercial ocean fishing reduces the remaining endangered winter-run Chinook population by as much as 25 percent. So there it is right there. 92.5 percent of endangered winter-run Chinook are killed by invasive species and commercial fishing outside of whatever happens in the delta, 92.5 percent. When opponents claim that this bill alters the Endangered Species Act, ask them to show you the language where it does so. They can't show you that because it doesn't exist. Believe me, if I could, I would amend the Endangered Species Act to be more effective, actually, in helping species as well as human needs. In fact, this bill enhances implementation of the ESA by requiring improved population monitoring and invasive species management, components that should be universally supportable. Mr. Chairman, let's put a stop to the half-truths and misleading rhetoric, such as no hearings being held. We had two hearings as well as hearings in the Valley on this bill and its components. The opponents don't believe that we should take any action at all, that nothing is wrong, despite 36 percent mandatory water reductions to homes--such as in my district, like in Redding--thousands of lost jobs, and a half million fallowed acres. These drought deniers claim that 38 million people--soon to be 50 million in California--can prosper with water delivery infrastructure built for 20 million people years ago, despite irrefutable evidence that our State's economy has dried up. Mr. Chairman, it is time to take action and pass H.R. 2898.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, it is a little harder to be neighborly when the facts get twisted around and the intent of the bill is misconstrued. Indeed, this has been a collaborative process with the Bureau, the tribes inviting information from those stakeholders that are the water contractors. This would simply confer a status upon them that would make them fully at the table as an applicant. It doesn't do anything to change the allocation or any other factor of those water contractors or give them any favorite status. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, this is the much anticipated amendment having to do with the Klamath project that I am offering with my neighbor, Mr. Walden, from the north side of the border. The amendment again confers applicant status on those contractors that are involved in the Klamath project, ensuring that they are included in the Endangered Species Act consultations that could affect operations of the water project they rely upon. Applicant status also ensures that information and alternative actions provided by the contractors must be considered when the Bureau considers ESA-related operational changes. While the Bureau has, in its words, treated the contractors ``in a manner similar to applicants'' since the 1990s and local tribes have invited contractors to provide information, the Bureau has not granted them the protections and input that the full applicant status would provide. H.R. 2898 already provides applicant status for the federally operated Central Valley Project in California, and this simply ensures that all Federal water contractors in the region receive equal legal protections. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, the ESA requires us to use the best available science and information and have all the stakeholders able to be at the table, such as having full applicant status, for the Klamath water users. Having them as an applicant just gets more information and more input from everybody that might be affected by possible ESA decisions. We would love to work in a collaborative, neighborly process around here. When the rhetoric flies so much that accuses us, accuses that water users up there a long time, that have had a promise made to them by the Federal Government of being something other than what they are, it does make it difficult. And it is the kind of thing that the American people, as they view the operations on TV, really get tired of. So I would be one that would love to cooperate and get a result. But on this amendment here, we need this help for those contractors to have a fair seat at the table. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday my colleague from Alabama, Congresswoman Martha Roby, spoke eloquently on the floor following the extremely disturbing and unsettling video that surfaced, showing Planned Parenthood's top doctor caught on camera explaining how abortion industry professionals illegally sell the body parts of aborted babies. I rise today to thank her for her conviction and join her in raising awareness of this horrific development. Planned Parenthood still is the largest abortion provider in the Nation and still somehow receives Federal dollars. The video literally states in graphic, horrendous detail the procedure in how she can crush the baby's body without damaging the organs tissue brokers are seeking at the rate of $30 to $100 for fetal body parts, allowing this organization to profit off taking the life of an unborn child. These revelations are not only inhumane and barbaric, they raise many questions of legality and integrity. Federal law explicitly prohibits the harvesting, sale, and use of tissue and body parts of aborted children for payment. I urge my colleagues not only to watch this video, but to also take a serious look at the practices of this organization. I will join efforts to demand a congressional investigation into the practices of Planned Parenthood and organizations like that.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 2898, is the product of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations and will protect State water rights, store more water during winter storms, address invasive fish that my colleague Mr. Denham was talking about that have decimated endangered species, and advance new water infrastructure to prepare for future droughts. One project alone--Sites Reservoir, in my region--would reduce the State's need for rationing by 60 percent with that project. My northern California district is a source of a vast amount of the State's usable water supply and its largest reservoirs; yet even my constituents are facing water rationing. Fields across my district are fallow because Federal agencies haven't adapted to drought conditions. While some in the minority party would prefer to simply hand out borrowed money, doing so only ensures that this crisis will be repeated again and again. Our conditions in our lakes are already desperate. Folsom Lake, for example, will soon be a dead pool, and that is an important water source for Sacramento, due to the attempts to try to keep water under salmon down there. This bill increases access to water for all Californians, without benefiting one region at the expense of another. Mr. Speaker, California and the Nation cannot wait any longer. We need H.R. 2898 to move forward in the bipartisan effort we have had so far. The answer to this crisis isn't billions again and more borrowed dollars or more environmental restrictions. It is action to move on California's drought and add to California's water supply. I urge your support for H.R. 2898. Let's get California back moving again.

Mr. LaMALFA

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. 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. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of the negotiations, President Obama and Secretary Kerry placed far too much faith in the Iranian regime. Trusting Iran to adhere to the terms of this agreement is a fool's errand. This deal allows Iran to continue research on advanced nuclear technologies. Over the course of the deal, the temporary restrictions on Iran's nuclear weapons program will wind down. President Obama admitted himself that toward the end of the agreement Iran's nuclear breakout time could shrink almost down to zero. Meanwhile, Iran will receive sanction relief, a boon of $100 billion in frozen assets, at the same time while chanting ``death to America'' and ``death to Israel.'' The agreement lifts an arms embargo of conventional weapons in 5 years, and they will even achieve the ability to have intercontinental ballistic missiles in 8 years, meaning Iran will have even more money and more weapons to continue to destabilize Iraq, Syria, and its neighbors in the Mideast and, with the advent of ICBMs, even the United States of America. Congress now has 60 days to review this plan and see if there is something good in it or not, but we need to be very cautious. Just to take any deal is not a good deal. So it is time that we be tough with Iran.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, last week, the President announced his plans to designate, once again, over 300,000 acres, this time of mountains, meadows, and other areas that stretch over 100 miles in northern California, including parts of Yolo, Solano, Napa, Lake, Mendocino, Glenn, and Colusa Counties, as a monument. This designation now marks the 19th time this President has created or expanded, since taking office, resulting in over 260 million acres of designated lands and waters in monuments or wilderness areas. This move actually exemplifies the President's complete disregard for the legislative process and his lack of hesitance on using every single political tool to carry out even more of his executive power grabs. Indeed, the one in Snow Mountain was a bipartisan effort underway, with legislators working on how that might become a designated area. Instead, that has now been usurped by one more round of executive power, kind of like we have seen recently with the Supreme Court exercising its power usurping the legislative process where we, the legislators, are subject directly to we, the people. Using the Antiquities Act as justification to designate over a third of a million acres in my State overnight is not only a serious abuse of power, it is a serious misrepresentation of the intent of the law itself. This law, the purpose of this law, which was enacted after archeologists years ago noticed small artifacts disappearing or ending up in private collections across different countries, was meant as an emergency option to curb looting in small archeological sites in the Southwest. The short and what would seem like simple text of the law actually directs the President to limit any designation to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the resource or the objects to be protected. Now, when you see 330,000 acres designated here or 700,000 designated in Nevada or, a few years ago, when President Clinton declared 1 million acres in Utah, are we really protecting a particular area or zone or is this a widespread power grab? Indeed, what are we protecting it from? Well, you will hear from the left, from oil and gas development, from timber, from mining, or from all sorts of things that would be devastating to the environment. Have you noticed how hard it is to get a permit to do any one of those things, by the time you get through the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the whole litany of others that are in the way of doing things that could be done with good environmental stewardship at the same time as developing the resources that people in this country still need? They still need fuel; they still need oil; they still need gas; they still need paper products. Heaven knows, we use enough paper products in this building. But we need development in this country. We do it more responsibly than anywhere else in the world. Yet these wilderness area designations, these monuments, they don't seek to really protect anything. They just make it off limits to all Americans, even if you just want to go in for hiking or hunting or a little off-roading and, indeed, those that would develop the resources. This is so absurd, it even has made it difficult for fire suppression in our forested areas, for our various fire agencies to go do the job they need to do, to have the roads in the areas that are needed so they can attack the fires. And even more so, as we have seen what happened with the loss of life with illegal immigrants in this country, like Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, illegal immigration, the effort to stop that at the border was made even more difficult, I believe, down in New Mexico when the President designated a bunch of the area along New Mexico as a monument, making it where the Border Patrol can't even patrol the areas because it is now an environmentally protected zone. That is ridiculous, and I think Americans, when they hear about this, say, ``What is going on?'' So this is, again, a power grab that is completely inappropriate. It bypasses the legislative process where the legislators are directly accountable to the people. It is about time that we change the Antiquities Act, or at least if we had somebody in the White House that knew the balance between designating just a small area that actually helps protect a resource and archaeological site versus hundreds of thousands or millions of acres that makes it just off limits to the type of use the public needs and actually makes the assets a safer and healthier one, for example, with our forests, where we can do the work that needs to be done to keep them healthy. Local residents have very little input, if any, on a designation happening in their backyard. Is this a transparent process? No. It is power in Washington, once again, ruling over the people, ruling over the stakeholders in those communities that know best how to manage the resource, what that resource needs, and what that could mean to the local economy, whether it is hunting or fishing or hiking, off-roading, even a little gold mining. We can do these things. We know how to do them environmentally responsibly, and yet we get run over time and time and time again by left-leaning folks using the Antiquities Act as something for their environmental dreams. Mr. Speaker, I am highly frustrated by this, and I hope the American public will get behind an effort to help us change the Antiquities Act and make it something that actually works for the American public and protects what needs protecting, not everything else.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2898, the Western Water and American Food Security Act. This is by Representative Valadao from California. I appreciate his hard work and bipartisan efforts on this. California's drought is having devastating effects on agriculture and our food supply nationwide. Last year, drought-related water cutbacks caused an estimated 400,000 acres to be fallowed, costing thousands of jobs and leaving consumers less food choices in the United States. While the solution is certainly not going to be all encompassed in one bill, this will be a great start towards getting California back where we need to be for drought relief. We cannot stand by and watch one more family suffer, small businesses and our economy leaving the State, when we should have those jobs right in the valley. It ends the finger-pointing and blame game, and provides desperately needed short-term relief while advancing commonsense policies to fix the situation in the long term. It would update Federal laws and streamline water permitting so we could build Sites Reservoir in northern California. Indeed, it also ensures sound and real-time science and water delivery methods so we don't have a situation where we are leasing 15,000 acre-feet twice to benefit less than 30 steelhead fish. Let's get on with getting California's water supply back on track so that this important legislation is not stalled by the usual suspects on the environmental left. Indeed, the proof will be in the pudding.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, this last Wednesday, we took time out here in the Capitol to honor and remember our Vietnam veterans. This week was the 50th anniversary for the first deployment of our troops in Vietnam. A lot of times, it is a war that wasn't understood by the American people or appreciated. What is wrong about that is that our troops were not always appreciated for what they did for us. They did it without complaint, they did it with sacrifice, and they did it with honor. So for us here in the Capitol to finally come around to that ideal and honor them was a very good thing. For our Vietnam troops, we do appreciate you. We will do all we can to help you as you work through VA, as you work through Agent Orange. We know many of you are suffering these things, and you are not getting enough help from our Federal Government or that recognition. So in recognition of what happened here this week on the 50th anniversary of the first deployment, we say to our Vietnam veterans: Welcome home, and God bless you.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Iowa. Thank you for a little bit of time on this. It is indeed something I know a lot of people are grieving over with the Supreme Court decision, first on the morality issue. Those of us that believe in the Bible, that believe in God, feel that the Bible is pretty clear on this subject of homosexuality and the application of marriage. But even more so, beyond that, it is a choice. People can choose to follow that path of biblical values or they can choose not. They will make that decision, and they will be held accountable for that decision one way or the other. So what I am looking at is that the court, in this ruling, has usurped the process of the American people in the legislative process and replaced it with the opinions of five court members. Where that ruling was on Friday, the following Monday, the court upheld that the people would draw their own lines in Arizona and, by extension, California. So the people's voice is heard on district lines as seen by the court, but the people's voice is ignored when California passed two different initiatives to uphold marriage. So there is not even consistency on the court on what the Constitution is supposed to mean on the people's voice, and that is very troublesome. It indicates to me that we are not far from a constitutional crisis with the way this court usurps the people's voice and the legislative process. So I appreciate the time from the gentleman here tonight. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, just last week an American woman was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant while walking through a tourist- friendly area of San Francisco with her father. She was killed for no reason by an illegal immigrant convicted of seven felonies who had been previously deported five times and was released by the San Francisco Police Department again over the objections of Federal immigration authorities. This is sadly not the first time this has happened. Several years ago a father and his two sons were killed by an illegal immigrant felon who, again, San Francisco refused to detain for Federal immigration authorities. The evidence is clear. Sanctuary city laws make our cities less safe and endanger Americans. Despite liberal claims to the contrary, this refusal to enforce immigration laws means that dangerous criminals with no regard for our laws are walking our streets. In California alone, over 10,000 immigration detainer requests were declined; 10,000 known criminals were released in violation of Federal law. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the House to act to ensure that the Federal Government does not aid cities who refuse to enforce our Nation's laws. That would be comprehensive immigration reform we can all understand.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, passage of this measure will restore responsible management to our forests after decades of Federal neglect. My district includes seven national forests which have suffered from increasingly devastating forest fires caused by overgrown, mismanaged forests and has been economically hobbled by restrictions on forest management. Last year, in just one of my counties, just three forest fires burned 200,000 acres. Our rural communities, public lands, and environment are being destroyed by this neglect. This measure will return active management to our forests by increasing flexibility; cutting red tape; and, most importantly, acting to manage forests before fires occur, not afterwards. Streamlining the review process means that forest management can occur when it is actually needed to address dangerous conditions, not after years of legal roadblocks. Allowing categorical exclusions for postfire salvage and rehabilitation hastens forest recovery and prevents fuel buildup that can contribute to the next future fire. Expanding local involvement in forest management will improve the data available for planning and respect local priorities. In light of Forest Service surveys finding that over 12 million Sierra Nevada trees have died in the last year, we cannot afford to wait another year. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we act today before our forests have passed beyond any point where they can be restored to good forest health.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate the comments by my colleague from Minnesota here, but it has been very unequal already, with many, many cases being paid out at $600, $700 per hour. So this amendment seeks to actually put that cap on there. There will still be the ability for a court, in extraordinary circumstances, to make the decision of whether it should be higher. But I am glad I am not in the position, like my colleague from Minnesota, of defending $600 or $700 an hour for attorney fees for more frivolous environmental lawsuits that make it difficult to farm, ranch, mine, and do timber operations which are desperately needed, especially with the conditions we have in California, with our forests as well as the drought situation and trying to get work done to address that. So when the people watch what goes on here, they need to be cognizant that there are those in the government that would rather pay to $600 to $700 per hour for more frivolous environmental lawsuits while they suffer from drought or burning forests. With that, I think that this amendment is very much in order because we see that these limits aren't being followed at all under the $125 limit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to express my support for the good work Chairman Calvert and the subcommittee have done on this bill. This amendment, which I offered with my colleagues Representatives Bill Huizenga and Bill Flores, aligns attorney fee award limits for Endangered Species Act lawsuits with award limits for other lawsuits against the Federal Government established by the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Equal Access to Justice Act generally limits the hourly rate for awards of fees to prevailing attorneys to a reasonable $125 per hour. However, no such fee cap exists under the Endangered Species Act. As a result, ESA litigants are being awarded sums, in many cases, in excess of $600 per hour. The Equal Access to Justice Act was not intended as an extraordinary access to taxpayer dollars for environmental attorneys. Indeed, we heard one of my colleagues a minute ago talk about sue and settle. According to the GAO, the Department of the Interior paid out over $27 million in attorney fees between 2001 and 2010; $21 million of those payments were for Endangered Species Act lawsuits. Many of them settled with no court order, finding the litigants to have prevailed on the merits of the case--no finding. Mr. Chairman, it is time we close this loophole that enables excessive payouts to groups that have made a business of suing the Federal Government. There is simply no reason that one sort of lawsuit, a type commonly undertaken by entities solely engaged in continuous litigation against the government, should be paid more than any other. Representative Huizenga sponsored a measure addressing this issue last session, which was passed by the Committee on Natural Resources. I urge your support, which would be very much appreciated, including by people like my daughter whose birthday it is tonight, so they would have a chance to be in business and not have these extraordinarily high fees. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, today, the California Republican Delegation again took action to address our state's water supply crisis, introducing balanced legislation improving water access for Californians around the state by using improved science to time water deliveries, preserve water rights and move forward on new surface storage facilities. The bill protects the most fundamental water rights of all, area of origin rights, ensuring that Northern Californians who live where our state's water supply originates have access to it. It uses modern science to improve the timing of water deliveries, allowing the storage of more water during winter storms which makes it available for dry periods like now. It addresses invasive species that are negatively impacting salmon populations, and allows local water districts to undertake their own habitat improvement projects. Finally, California's voters have spoken clearly in support of investment in new surface storage projects, and this measure fulfills that promise by advancing projects that would generate over one million acre-feet of water, enough for eight million Californians. We'll continue to refine this proposal as it moves through the process, but I am proud to cosponsor a bill that addresses both short- and long-term needs of all Californians and support continued economic growth.