Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate it. Thank you to my colleague from North Carolina. You are very gracious in yielding to me, and it has been a pleasure to work with you. Mr. Speaker, I thank those assembled here tonight. I just want to talk a little bit about some of the issues we have going on in the West, in northern California. First of all, the excitement we have of coming in--it is a new Congress, it is a new direction for our country, I think. We have a stronger majority in the House of Representatives, of the Republican House. As well, it is a different majority over in the Senate. A lot of people aren't too concerned with what party it is or what partisan issues are; they want to see results. That is what I am looking for as well. Many bills were sent out of the House last session and languished on a desk over on the Senate side, and I think we will now see action on those commonsense measures that are going to help jobs in America, help our economy rebound, and help people get out from under the grip of government power and government regulation that is just killing their hopes and killing their ideals. We are looking for that in this new session, and we expect we will be held accountable to make that happen. It is not going to be a miracle. We are not going to get all the results we hoped for, but at least there are going to be things on the Record now that have gone through this House and have gone to the Senate that will be showing the American people what our agenda is and what it has been about. Bringing it back home to California, I represent the First District in the northeast portion of the State. It is a beautiful district. I am very proud to have been elected for a second time to represent the First District. It is an area that has a lot of great resources that benefit our whole State, even our whole country. To be able to have my family here with me in Washington attending the festivities, the honor of being sworn in and getting started, getting a fast start, going to work here in this new 114th has just been a real delight. What we need to be happening in California is a better and wiser use of our resources. You may have seen, at the end of the last session, we were working towards better management of our water supply. Now, we have a deluge of rain once in a while, even when we are suffering drought for the last few years in California. The water seems to all come at once. If it isn't being saved in snowpack, it will come quickly via rain through our streams, and that is an opportunity for us that we should be retaining that behind the dam, so that we have as well the water that gets down the Feather River and the Sacramento River and can be transferred and put somewhere to be used later. We have the ability to have the water allocated as needed for fish, for habitat, but there is excess water that needs to be stored. I don't know why that isn't the automatic protocol, but Congress--a bill I cosponsored with many of my other colleagues put forward reminding the Bureau of Reclamation and others that they need to retain this extra water. It isn't needed for fish, and it isn't needed for the normal runs, so we will have more stored later. That is what we will continue to work for. But I still go back to the vision that people before us had that have given us Shasta Dam, Lake Oroville, and the whole State water project and the Central Valley project that we have in our State that we have benefited from for so many years, that everybody benefits from, whether you are an environmentalist, a farmer, a person who lives in a city, or if you just have a tap in the country. If you are not on a well, you are probably benefiting from these projects because we had the vision in the past to build them and we didn't have nearly the roadblocks. Now, of course, we have great environmental concerns and environmental awareness to do things better than we did in the 1850s or the 1880s or what have you. We know how to do these things. But it doesn't mean that, because of a handful of people who don't want to see things happen, we stop the progress for all the rest of us. So that is what we will be pushing for in this new Congress, to build more water storage. We can do that in northern California. Sites Reservoir, and there are other projects that can be enhanced to retain more water, and there are smarter ways to keep the water that we do have to make the water go further because it is necessary. The way California is suffering from droughts, agricultural land is going to be the first thing to go. Any time an emergency can be declared to switch whatever water does get to agriculture to meet other needs around the State, we have to take care of people first and we have to take care of cities, but when we see so much being run out through the Golden Gate that could be saved, or for questionable tactics on fish that really haven't been proven for that kind of habitat, then we are missing the mark. So we will be working very hard to add to our water storage and to be smarter with the water we have available to us because we can't count on a record rainfall this year. We are very thankful and we have been blessed with good rainfall in November and the early part of December, but it has tailed off lately. We will need record rainfall the rest of the season up through the spring to have the kind of water we need to get through a good crop year. In the meantime, we should be doing everything possible in government to enhance, to retain, to be smarter with the water we have. When we hear ideas of removing dams in the north part of the State, part of my district, that produce hydroelectric power because of dubious studies that might benefit fish, we are hurting our region of the State. We are hurting our grid by taking enough renewable electricity off the grid that would somehow need to be replaced with other green power to manage 70,000 homes in the State because of dubious lack of science. We need to battle through this and have smarter use of our resources. Another thing that we are very rich in in our part of the State is timber. Each summer we see the crisis of nonmanagement of our timber and what that looks like. It is in the air. It is in our brown skies. We get to breathe that. The people within those communities are wondering why their mills are shut down and why their storefronts are boarded up and why they don't have jobs and why they have things like domestic violence increasing because people don't have work in those communities sometimes because their industry has been taken away from them. I sit on the Natural Resources Committee to get after both of these and other issues--our water, our timber use, and other resources--that are so necessary to the rural part of the State, the rural West that has been languishing for many years, ever since the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973, for good reason at the time, to save the bald eagle. We have bald eagles in our rice fields where I live at home. But we have gone so far beyond that rural America is suffering from this type of regulation that it isn't even proven to help recover a single species. Indeed, somewhere around 1 percent, at best, of species have been recovered after 40-plus years of the Endangered Species Act. That is pretty deplorable for what the cost has been to the people, to the jobs, and for the communities and their values. But I am still optimistic that America is turning the corner and seeing things a little bit differently and that the job needs to come back home. And the jobs at home need to be revived once again. As a grower of grain myself, we look at our alternatives. Do we want to be in a situation where in the past we were dependent on oil from people who don't like us much? Do we want to be in a position to have our grain crops, the breadbasket of our Nation, do we want to become more dependent on that from people who maybe aren't always a reliable ally overseas? Wheat from Russia and rice from China, do we want to rely on that, or do we want to do the best we can? My fellow farmers across the country and in my area, they are good stewards of the land. Many have been there for many, many generations. Some of the ranchers I know, their families have been farming and ranching for 160 years in northern California, my own family 80-plus years. We know how to take care of the land. We know what needs to be done. It is sustainable, to use that buzz word that goes around a lot these days. If it wasn't sustainable, the land wouldn't still produce. So this is the type of thing we are fighting for. If we don't have a breadbasket in this country, what will America rely on to keep us fed? With the unrest we have in the world, ultimately, if we can't fuel our own Armies if it becomes necessary, what kind of position will we be in to defend ourselves or our allies, like in Europe, like in Israel, like in Japan, or others we have great relations and great trade with? We are in great peril right now if we keep our head in the sand on these issues. We need to look at the resources we have. As I look at the young people in the audience tonight, one of the first things that I am reminded of is that we are running an $18 trillion national debt. We have lived for the future in the present on someone else's money. And so every dollar we have, every dollar that comes in, we have to be good stewards of, much better than in the past. So every dollar has to go for the type of infrastructure that will improve our transportation system, our water system, our flood control system, and keep our communities safe, and not on frivolous things. I am reminded in California, instead of this water infrastructure that we so desperately need, we have had several years of drought to remind us, they are still pursuing a high-speed rail system in California. As a former State legislator, we were right in the middle of that as it was coming to a head. What will the rail cost? Voters were told then $33 billion to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles at 220 miles per hour. It isn't even close to being that project anymore, and the price has tripled, at least. It has gone from $33 billion to at least $98 billion by the admission of the rail authority in a hearing we had in the State legislature back then. They are still chasing this dream. Now they have tried to downsize it to be a $68 billion project. To this day, right now, they have still only identified $13 billion-- $10 billion from the State bond and $3 billion from the Federal Government via the Stimulus Act of 2009. So $13 billion of a needed and downsized $68 billion project. They are $55 billion short, and they still think today they are going to go find that money. From the private sector, they are staying away in droves. There is no way that it is going to be built anywhere near on time, anywhere near on any kind of budget, or that the riders they would have will ever be able to afford to ride it. Why don't we take a fraction of that money, of the $13 billion or the $68 billion, or whatever number it is, and put it towards the water storage we need? We could build two really nice dams with $68 billion, especially with private sector money that wants to come in and be a partner on this. Let's get it done, because this is the infrastructure that will help our State and help the people and help bring jobs back to rural California and rural America. I am looking for help from my other colleagues from other States, especially other Western States that have water infrastructure needs they are looking at themselves. Let's work together on this. That is what made us great back in the day. We have had these huge projects that have made so much hydroelectric power. We like green power. We like renewable power. When it rains behind a dam, you have renewable power and it is reliable. And it is low cost, much more so than windmills and solar panels that require government assistance to put them in and keep them going. Let's do the right thing here and allow these things to happen, all that private sector to happen. I am optimistic in this Congress that we can make that case and put it in front of the American people. I ask the President to join with us and help on that, whether it is that or the further development of energy that we need in this country to stay ahead of the curve. We are seeing prices coming down, amazingly. Hydraulic fracturing has played a big part in us seeing the price of fuel in some areas--not in California, but other States going below $2 a gallon. In California, we are still taxing ourselves and thinking up cap-and-trade measures to drive the cost up so we will be our own island of high costs. But the other 49 States, God bless you, you have it pretty good. The vision that we have had to do these things is what we need desperately going forward in 2015 because when we are productive, like what we can produce in northern California with agriculture, with timber, with our mine resources, all of the other things that come from the land, that sets the table for everything else across our district and across our State and across the whole country. That puts us back to work again. We have trillions of dollars offshore that would love to be repatriated back to this country if we had any kind of constant as to what the tax burden would be for those dollars, for those businesses and investment that needs to be here, any kind of consistency for what our regulatory burden would be so they could predict. If they are to put 30-year loans and 30-year infrastructure in place, will they be able to do business 5 years from now? We would be bringing American jobs back if we could repatriate that money back here. So let's get it done. We don't come here in Congress--at least I haven't--because it is nice to wear a suit and tie. We come here to get results. To be results oriented, we need to use real facts, real figures, real budgets, real numbers to get to the core of what we are supposed to be doing as to what the Founders had set for our government. The government is doing a lot more things it has no business doing and it can't do well. Let's make sure that we are doing and we have the economy, we have the engineering to generate so we have a functioning school system, it has the funding it needs at fair and proper levels; for our law enforcement, so they are not left wanting for the equipment and backup they need; and for the folks deployed overseas defending our borders as well as helping our allies. We shouldn't leave them wanting while they are deployed; and certainly with the mess that the VA system is, when they come back home, the promises made to them are broken and the shame that we should all feel when our veterans, so many are left homeless or simply begging to have their claims processed. I am confident in this new Congress that the House and the Senate can work together and put these ideas forward. We can put them out in front of the American people, have the accountability, have the oversight that our job demands. We will get there. So whether it is now or 2 years from now, I challenge the President to look at these things from a commonsense way of thinking. Think about America first. That is what we will be doing in this House and over in the Senate. So from northern California to the rest of the country, help us all to be productive and to live the lives we choose to give our kids a chance to live at home, to find jobs and opportunities in their own communities--farming, ranching, mining, whatever it is, or related industries in those small towns that so many are boarded up now. Let them have that chance to live at home, not have to go someplace else, go to a big city somewhere, a different State, or even overseas to try to find good employment so they would have the dream they see fit and the one that their parents would like to pass along to them. My colleague from North Carolina, I appreciate the time tonight and the opportunity to talk about my district and the things we need to do there, as well as what we need to do for our country. I bid you a good evening, and thank you.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in sadness to acknowledge the loss of a dear friend from Ord Bend, California, Robert Koehnen. Bob is a guy who loved life and loved sharing it with his family and his friends. He could be happiest out in one of his orchards or at his apiary forming new queen bees in their little queen cages, or on the back of a Harley-Davidson or under the hood of a Dodge or Ford hot rod. He loved sharing that with everybody. He was a humble man, but he was a real innovator, with harvesting equipment, orchard practices, and beekeeping practices that really put him at the cutting edge, even the humble man he was. You could see how humble he was in some of the things he said. One of the funny ones was that he didn't want to have a big birthday or big event on a weekend because, as he would say it, ``I don't want to screw up a guy's weekend.'' Indeed, in that humility, his family held his memorial service yesterday, on Wednesday at noon, maybe so it wouldn't screw up a guy's weekend. Bob was a great man, a pillar of the community, a pillar in agriculture. He will be severely missed by his wife, Yvonne; his sons, Kalin and Kamron; brother, Bill; sister, Cleone; and a whole bunch of family and a whole bunch of friends who call him family, call him a dear friend. God bless him.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I represent a very rural district in northern California which has been greatly impacted by the drought. The town of Redding, for example, has had its water supplies cut to 50 percent this year. Farmers along the Tehama-Colusa Canal received no water at all from the Central Valley Project, leaving thousands of acres of productive farmland fallow. After the third year of historic drought--the worst drought in 1,200 years, historic in California--it is imperative that we act immediately to prepare for another dry year. H.R. 5781 by David Valadao takes immediate action to store more water and start on this remedy. This legislation is just 18 months in duration, giving us time to continue working with the Senate on a longer-term solution. H.R. 5781 has two simple components: creating flexibility so we can store more water in preparation for the coming year; and preserving the most fundamental water right of all, the idea that those who live where water originates should have access to it. We also protect northern California to ensure that those who live where our water originates do not have to have their water cut off while other areas of the State receive deliveries. Under this measure, northern California will be guaranteed access to the water that rains on their communities. Mr. Speaker and Members, we have worked in good faith to negotiate a bipartisan bill to address California's drought. Nothing in this measure is controversial. It leaves the Endangered Species Act intact, it respects water rights, and it helps every region of California. Twenty million Californians will benefit in some fashion or another. After several years of drought, it is imperative we get on the ball and prepare California for the coming year. We are prepared to continue negotiating, but there is no water to waste, and there is no time to waste. California needs us to act today by passing this measure while we continue to work through the process.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with me in this committee on this important topic. Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer in northern California, and when I hear talk of the water wars being reignited, it has been a one-sided war, with the amount of farmers and people that work in the Valley. They haven't had the bullets to be in a water war because we have been losing for a long time. Hundreds of thousands of acre-feet that have been diverted already in the past adds up to millions over the years for other uses, besides what has been going in the North Valley, South Valley, and Central Valley. I heard this comment a while ago. Powerful, small people were how legislators looked at us in the valley--powerful, small people. Do these folks standing in the unemployment line look powerful to you? Do the farmers who have been fighting against this for years and years look powerful when we keep losing these battles one after another? To build more storage, we would have water for everybody in California. This measure here today would help everybody in California that is part of State water projects or the Central Valley Project. Twenty million people in California would see additional benefit by taking-- and here's the concept here, folks--excess water during high flows that now would be just flowing out to the Pacific. We are not taking water during the middle of the season any more than what would already be in the established regime. This is the excess water you would see during flood periods or the high flows that do happen when we have rainfall and water thundering down the Sacramento River, the Feather River, and San Joaquin River during those high flows. We are taking that excess water and reprogramming it, so it can benefit more people. It doesn't take anything from the fish regime or any of that type of concern. We hear the stuff coming from the other side of the aisle that has continued, whether it has been for 40 years or just recently, to distort what we are trying to do here to make more water for California, which is in its third year of a huge drought--as Mr. McCarthy said, what looks like a 1,200-year record for droughts--and about stopping this temporary measure that would help to cause a little bit of excess water be retained to help the people like this to have jobs. We hear we need jobs in California. We are talking about immigration bills. Let's help people have jobs to live the dream. What about the people that are already here? What about the people standing in that line that have conditions that look like this, with the crops in our State being left fallow, these trees and these vines being stumped or completely pushed out because we can't have a vision, all because we have the typical rhetoric, which I have been listening to as a farmer when I was outside of this place and now today on this floor--and probably many more times--that says we can't build any storage because of this? It is a new regime which respects the already-established protocols. This doesn't take away the power from the State water board or the other boards in place. If you would actually read the bill, you would see in it those provisions are kept in place by the Governor and by the water boards. All the entities that have authority over it can step in and say, ``We think this is going to affect the fish, the water regime, or any of the others.'' I urge that we support this measure today, and I ask that we listen to what is in the bill and not listen to the rhetoric and the lies.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in memory and honor of Placer County Sheriff's Detective Michael Davis, Jr., a peace officer, brother, husband, father, son, and hero. A resident of Roseville and a graduate of my alma mater, Butte College, Michael dedicated his life to public safety. Having first come to the Placer County Sheriff's Office as a reserve deputy in 1996, Michael was hired as a police officer with the Auburn Police Department, and in 1999, he began working for the department in many capacities, including as an impact weapons instructor, an emergency driving instructor, an adviser to the youth Explorer Program, and as a homicide detective for the past 10 years. Recently, on October 24 of this year, during a horrific crime spree, Michael Davis, Jr., was one of two northern California sheriff's deputies, including Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver, who lost their lives in the line of duty. As a detective, he may not have normally been on this type of call, but he answered the call during this crime spree when a twice-deported criminal was running and gunning all up through two different counties. Michael died while protecting his community, and, indeed, he helped stop this crime spree. It is a tragic loss felt deeply by many in the community, including by myself, with the sadness that it brings for all. He was protecting the people of Placer County in that line of duty. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in recognition and honor of Detective Michael Davis for all of his service to our community, and I stand beside his family, including his wife, Jessica, and their four children in their time of sorrow and profound personal loss. God give them strength, healing, and peace.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 523, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the American people sent a strong message to Washington, one that was apparently not received by the President. His latest threat to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants would not only serve as a massive abuse of power, but also make clear the unprecedented disconnect between this administration and our citizens. The American people deserve a government that can demonstrate both the ability and the commitment to enforcing our Nation's laws, not a President who continually sidesteps Congress and the American people to advance an agenda which appeals exclusively to one side of the aisle. I urge the President to end the political ploys to go around the laws we have on the books and start working together toward an immigration system that is in the best interest of the U.S.--not one that endangers our citizens, even takes some of their lives and some of the lives of our law enforcement officers, but truly one that secures our borders, respects the rule of law, stops violent criminals at the border, and prevents future illegal immigration. I call on the President to work with Congress.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you. I appreciate my colleague from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) for your efforts on this. When you become a Member of the House of Representatives and you start receiving those calls from veterans in your district on the difficulty they have with what they thought they were promised by their government when they enlisted, when they went into the military, it really, really hits home. It really affects your heart to see these veterans who have struggled to at least be heard for their claims, for their health care, by the VA, by the treatment centers. We have to do better than that. To see the suicide rate among veterans the way it is, to know that they felt like the government has turned their backs on them, is appalling. We have to give them the hope. My office, I know my colleagues that have spoken here tonight, have turned towards helping as much as they can. So my message, just a brief message, for our veterans out there: Do not give up. Know that we are trying to reform the VA system, trying to reform through the measures that have been brought up the way the VA treats and gets the help for veterans who have served us. They made a promise to us. We need to keep the promise to them. For them to go feeling hopeless and that nobody cares about them, that they can't get treatment, is one of the biggest shames we could have as a country. We have asked them to do a lot. We will continue to do so in the future. We need to be prepared to take care of them properly, if they need it, when they come home. I appreciate, again, you having this time here tonight, Ms. Sinema, here in the House to put a spotlight on this as you have. What I have tried to do in my office and the hard work by my own staff is to have our veterans be treated respectfully but also feel hopeful that someone hears their message, hears their plea, and then will address their needs timely and respectfully. They should not be homeless, they should not feel to the point of hopelessness that suicide is an alternative for them. Thank you, Ms. Sinema.

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, 227 years ago, our Founding Fathers signed the U.S. Constitution establishing a nation united around the principle that our rights as citizens come not from the government but from our Creator. Today we recommit ourselves by choice to upholding and defending these fundamental principles recognized in this document, including liberty, freedom, and rule of law of our great Republic. Indeed, our first act as newly elected Members of this House is to swear an oath to uphold and protect this document. These principles have guided our Nation well over the last 227 years, both in times of prosperity as well as discord. Now, perhaps more than ever, it is our duty and it is the duty of every American to ensure these liberties and freedoms can be passed on to our children and our grandchildren. I am honored to stand here today and commemorate the works of these 39 brave and wise original signatories to our Constitution.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, last night, in the town of Weed, California, which is in my own First Congressional District, over 100 of my constituents' homes were destroyed or damaged by fire, along with an elementary school and a timber mill, one of the area's largest employers. Thousands of my constituents are under evacuation orders, and the fire is not yet contained. Aside from this tragedy, hundreds of thousands of acres of northern California forests have burned so far this year. In fact, the combined impact of the fires is already larger than last year's Rim Fire near Yosemite. Unfortunately, while the Rim Fire received nonstop coverage, most of America is probably unaware of this year's calamities. The unfortunate truth is that rural California and much of the West experience massive wildfires like these every year. Over the past decade, wildfires have only grown in size and severity. Madam Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. We know why our forests are burning. It is because of decades of mismanagement caused by Federal bureaucracies and excessive regulations and red tape. They have an attitude at the Forest Service in many cases of just let it burn. We suffer from road closures, inaccessibility to our forests, poor management, and, certainly, the ability to stop fires once they are started because of these policies. The simple fact is our forests are not just mismanaged or even poorly managed. They are entirely unmanaged. As a result, they are overgrown, unhealthy, and ready to burst into flames at any time. I am supporting several measures to address the crisis in our forests, and last night's events create even more urgency for Congress and this administration to act. Chairman Hastings' bill, H.R. 1526, which was passed in this House and I am a cosponsor of, would restore common sense to forest management, requiring the Forest Service to actively manage public forests to reduce fuel loads and improve forest health. It is high time that the Senate act on this measure or, at the very least, produce its own forestry measure in the Senate so we can negotiate a final product. This would be part of the now 384 House bills that are languishing over in the Senate that need action. Chairman Simpson's bill, H.R. 3992, another measure I am supporting and cosponsoring, will end the diversion of forest management funding to firefighting by treating fires like other disasters, allowing flexible wildfire disaster funding. The Forest Service's increasing use of forest management funds for wildfire suppression means that we are no longer in the business of managing forests and, instead, just putting them out--or trying to-- when they burn. This measure deserves a hearing in committee and action on the floor before this session ends. Madam Speaker, without action on these bills, our forests will continue to burn. Our constituents will continue to see their homes and livelihoods destroyed, and rural communities across the West will continue to suffer. In the House this year, we hear about this being a do-nothing Congress and how it has been the least productive. The House of Representatives has been doing its job. When we have 384-plus bills sitting over in the Senate languishing, waiting for action, then it is a misnomer that action is not going on in this House; indeed, it is a do-nothing Senate. The people of the West in the line of these fires are suffering and demand action of their government. When they are not getting it, they are the victims. Madam Speaker, before the end of this year, we need to take serious action on the management of our forests by allowing timber to be cut and processed in order to achieve forest health. We have an overload. We have an inventory in our forests. There is much more that can be sustainable, on the number of trees per acre, on what is safe and healthy for the trees as they compete for limited water supply underground, therefore, stressing the trees, causing them to be susceptible and more in danger of insects that weaken and kill the trees; it is, thereby, a self-perpetuating prophesy of forests that are weak and then burn. Madam Speaker, my constituents in Siskiyou County and last night in Weed, California, have suffered from this mismanagement--the nonmanagement--the incompetence and even what some people feel is criminal treatment they are getting from their Federal Government because of inactivity. Madam Speaker, it is high time we pass these measures and do what we need to do to make our forests healthy and safe, as well as help the economy for those people. Certainly, in Congress and our government, we use a lot of wood and paper products. Why should they not come from California or from our Western States?

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate the chairman yielding me time here today on this very important measure. We have seen the EPA now trying to claim jurisdiction over virtually every body of water in the United States, puddle or not, navigable or not, manmade or natural, year-round or just even seasonal. In order to protect these waters, the EPA claims it needs to control vast amounts of land surrounding these waters. Now, the residents of my district in northern California are already familiar with this type of regulatory act. In California, the EPA is already ignoring clear exemptions for farming activities that have been going on for years and years and are even in the law as exempt; this, in order to pursue massive fines against family farmers simply for changing crops or maintaining their already manmade irrigation systems, thus, in the process paralyzing farmers who are waiting months and months or even years for EPA or their cohorts in the Army Corps to decide these legal activities can continue to go on, otherwise they will be subject to huge fines. This is form of tyranny that is a gigantic overreach and needs to be stopped. That is why I support H.R. 5078 as a way to limit EPA back to the proper role of actually watching out for clean waters, not regulating to the last drop every water drop in the United States.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, this bill brings a portion of the Endangered Species Act back in to the 21st century and much-needed transparency. Under this bill, the public will have access to data used to determine which species are listed as endangered. Backroom decisions made by regulators at the behest of nongovernment organizations with secret data is the sort of policymaking you might find in the Soviet Union or communist China, not in the United States. Astoundingly, you will hear arguments that this data should remain secret. This is the data used to decide whether Americans can build a home on their own property, farm their own land, or simply going hiking in their national forest. The bill includes also much county data used in ESA decisions, which is key. It is important that all economic information is available so locals get a fair shake. Had this bill been in place, my district would have had more input in an ESA listing that will hurt the economy across the Sierra Nevadas. This measure also tracks and caps attorney fees paid in ESA lawsuits. Of the 75 Federal agencies surveyed, just 10 even tracked their payouts to lawsuit factories like the NRDC and the Center for Biological Diversity. Mr. Chairman, I happen to think Americans deserve to know how their government makes their decisions. Let's pass H.R. 4315 to bring transparency and fairness back to the ESA process.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, 5 million Americans have given up on their search for a job. For 59 months straight, invisible unemployment has remained above 10 percent. The number of long-term unemployed Americans is double the prerecession figure. Mr. Speaker, among the 294 bills the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to act on are over 40 House-passed bipartisan pro-jobs bills that would help put Americans back to work. We have passed legislation to help the long-term unemployed get training for new jobs, a measure to restore hourly wages cut by the 30-hour workweek mandate, and regulatory reform bills to cut the red tape holding back key energy and construction projects that will help create jobs and boost our economy. These measures are commonsense solutions that our country needs right now, policies that reward hard work and provide opportunities for Americans to be self-sufficient. Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs bills? We hear that over here on the other side of the aisle. You can find them over in Harry Reid's dusty desk drawer waiting for action in the Senate. However, the Senate has refused to vote on them, has refused to take action to help our economy, and has refused to consider any approach but bigger government. It is time for the Senate to get to work and take action on the jobs bills Americans need.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the continued attacks by Hamas on our Middle East ally Israel causes innocent Israelis to live under the daily threat of rocket attacks from Hamas at any given moment. Our closest ally in the region must defend itself against vicious attacks aimed at its civilians. Each rocket attack that Hamas launches to kill civilians in Israel is an act of war. The United States must not underestimate how serious these attacks are and how crucial it is that we continue to support Israel. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the Obama administration intends to continue funding the Palestinian Authority. Their decision to form a new government with Hamas is appalling, and we must respond appropriately. How can we possibly continue funding a foreign government that has embraced a terrorist group currently attacking one of our closest allies and that has refused to acknowledge its right to even exist? Our message to the world must be clear: America will always stand with Israel, and America will always punish acts of terror.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about America's southern border and of the infiltration happening by foreign noncitizens into our country. It is clear to most Americans that the massive influx of new illegal immigrants is due to the proposed Senate amnesty bill and the President's unilateral decree that U.S. Customs will not deport these minors who cross illegally into America. Today's immigration problems lay at the feet of the President's and the Senate's, who proposed yet another round of amnesty in America in response to continued illegal border crossings. Honestly, what does this administration think will happen when it offers another 12 million illegal immigrants amnesty and does nothing to secure the border? Does it think there will not be more to come? Mr. Speaker, what the American people want to see is a strong fence and a truly secure border, where we as Americans determine who is let into this country. This is not rocket science. The American people want a government that works--one that builds the border fence, one with a gate that we control.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I would like a ruling in opposition to that, because I think what we are talking about here does not change law. It changes nothing other than maintaining the direction we have. It is not requiring any action by the Bureau or Department of the Interior or any other government agency, nor prejudicing anything by the court, simply keeping what we have in place with the contracts and the stability that is needed. So I think the point of order is invalid with what the intention of this amendment is.

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I do.

Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate my colleague additionally adding to that. I think in response to the amendment not being needed or setting a bad precedent, the stability that is so desperately needed for water delivery to the whole project is why we are doing this. It will have effect for 1 year or until the case is settled. These are ongoing contracts. We are not changing anything. It is not moving in any new direction here. But the instability that can be caused by an impending ruling or maybe a change of mind by the Bureau of Reclamation would cause much chaos, as my friend had suggested. This isn't an unreasonable amendment to add to maintain the stability we need for an additional year. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chairman, we have heard quite a bit about the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' overreach regarding waters of the United States. In a preview of just how little regard these entities have for Congress and the law, they have already drastically overstepped the limits Congress has placed on their power. Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act explicitly exempts certain activities from regulation, including normal agricultural activities like plowing fields, planting and harvesting crops, and maintaining irrigation and drainage ditches. Congress made these exemptions clear when the act was passed. Unfortunately, the EPA and Army Corps are, as usual, using creative interpretations of the law in an effort to regulate activities that are clearly exempt from their control. We have seen Federal agencies go after farmers simply for changing crops or improving their irrigation systems, with absolutely no authority to do so. The exemption on ag activities, in section 404(f)(1) of the Clean Water Act, reads as follows: Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products or upland soil and water conservation practices is not prohibited or otherwise subject to regulation. Madam Chair, this is as clear as it can be. These activities are exempt from regulation. However, according to the corps permitting guidance to farmers and ranchers, to qualify, these exempt activities: must be a part of an established ongoing farming, silviculture, or ranching operation. An operation is no longer established when the area on which it was conducted has been converted to another use or has lain idle. Again, the Army Corps' own words: If the current use of a property is for growing corn, the exemption does not apply if future activities would involve conversion to an orchard or vineyards. Nowhere in the law does a requirement that farm work be ``ongoing'' or ``established'' exist. Nowhere in the law is a prohibition on changing crops mentioned. Madam Chair, my amendment simply directs the corps to follow the law as Congress has written it, to stop attempting to expand its reach based on fictional authority. This House unanimously passed similar language to rein in the corps last year. Let us remind these agencies that we write the law, not unknown Federal bureaucrats, and that the law applies not just to average Americans, but to the Federal Government as well. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, what time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate the comments and thoughts from my colleague from Virginia there. That said, on this amendment, not the catchall on the whole bill here, we are sticking to the exemptions that have been provided for in the law by Congress for farming activities, and we do have the need for this amendment because the enforcement by the Army Corps is happening out in the field in my own district, even on these issues. We have a screen shot right here from the Army Corps' Web site that lists some of the things I mentioned earlier, as I said, that these activities must be part of an ongoing operation or that there cannot be a crop change without requirements put forth by the Army Corps, giving you permission or denying that permission. So it is, indeed, necessary because there is overzealous regulation and enforcement of something that doesn't exist in the law as passed duly by the Congress representing the people of the United States. As I mentioned a bit earlier, once again, this House did unanimously pass similar language on this issue last year, so I would ask to have that support of the U.S. House once again to simply allow farmers to do what they would be doing ongoing and planning to do and have done for many generations all over this country except for a reinterpretation by, in a lot of cases, out-of-control bureaucrats that have a different agenda. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.