Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus). I appreciate his effort on that. It is hard to believe what I am here hearing in here today. When you look at the backlog, when you look at how veterans are being treated in this country, in northern California, it is amazing that we are on complete different wavelengths here. The lack of accountability and transparency within the VA is nothing short of shameful. Yet again and again I have heard from many veterans in the north State concerned about the timeliness and the frustrating claims process at VA facilities in California, namely, the Oakland office, which is one of the slowest regional offices in the Nation. Despite past promises from the VA to improve the backlog, service to our veterans has continued to deteriorate. This negligence and mismanagement is completely unacceptable. When veterans are being denied access to the care and services they rightly deserve and expect, reform is necessary, certainly not bonuses to senior executives. When a program funded by taxpayers is failing to provide the level of services expected, accountability, not compensation, should be demanded. Rewarding incompetency not only exacerbates the most pressing issues within the VA, but also serves as an insult to the men and women who have given so much for our country, as well as the very many good caseworkers on the VA staff who see no bonus but yet still try to do their jobs underneath that regime. This amendment is about fairness and doing what is right by fulfilling the promise to our veterans. It ensures our veterans receive the benefits and services they were promised and restores accountability within the VA to make certain taxpayer money is rightfully spent, fixing the backlog and incompetency that is harming our veterans' health and insulting them, as well as the American taxpayer. This amendment isn't about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This is about throwing the bonuses out with the bathwater. I applaud Congressman Rothfus for his leadership in standing up for our Nation's veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to follow a gentleman like Mr. Gohmert here. My subject matter for this minute is about the National Day of Prayer. I would like to add to his comments: we should also pray for Israel. Recognition of the 63rd Annual Observance of the National Day of Prayer will be this Thursday, May 1. Our Nation has a rich prayerful heritage, a heritage that began with many of our first settlers to the New World and strengthened through the first national call to prayer invoked by the Second Continental Congress in 1775. As reflected in the writings and speeches of our forefathers, prayer has had a profound influence not only on the lives of these great leaders, but also on the content of the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents. In his farewell address, President George Washington warned about the consequences that will descend on a Nation that excludes religion from the public arena. He declared the ``indispensable'' importance of religion, and proclaimed that: ``Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.'' Today, prayer remains very important in our daily lives, not only to our society, but to each of us individually as well. It calls to mind our actions and helps support us in our daily tasks. Today, I ask my colleagues to join with me to continue this tradition of prayer and ensure that God remains involved in the affairs of leaders of this great Nation.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Marjorie Bertha Keck, who passed away on April 6, 2014, at the age of 93. She was a beloved wife and mother to four children who was known in recent years for saying, ``Growing old isn't for wimps!'' She was all about family. Whether it was hosting boat rides on the bay or a day at the ballpark with the Oakland A's, Marjorie would always find a way for family and friends to relax together amongst their busy lives. As a devout follower of the Lord, her family and friends rejoice that she is reunited with her beloved husband Lee, and is in the arms of her Savior. She will be missed by all, but her spirit and love will always be with us.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers has proposed under waterways of the United States rules that the EPA claims jurisdiction not just over nearly every navigable waterway, but virtually every body of water in the Nation, no matter how large or how small. Using a creative interpretation of a 40-year-old law, the EPA argues that it holds jurisdiction over any activities that could conceivably impact not just navigable waters, but any waterway that eventually flows into a river, even a waterway or wetland, which is simply near a navigable waterway. Furthermore, the EPA doesn't stop at claiming control over water. It also claims control over any activity that could impact those waters in any way. This rule drastically limits private property rights by inserting the Federal Government into local land use decisions. The rule would also expand EPA's authority from rivers, bays, and wetlands into manmade waterways like storm drains, drain ditches, farm ponds--unconnected in any way to a waterway--and even puddles. That's right, puddles. EPA's first draft of that rule specifically exempted puddles. Tellingly, the final draft does not exempt them anymore. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is time to put an end to the government overreach and defund these efforts in the appropriations process and ensure that only America's elected representative make the laws that govern the Nation.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to honor Evan Strong in celebration of his continued achievements in the 2014 Sochi Paralympic Winter Games. Bordering the Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City is home to 3,000 people, including Evan and his wife, Mariah. Today, I join the members of that community in recognizing his accomplishments, generosity, and strength. Evan Strong grew up with a strong passion for sports. Whether it was surfing the waves in Maui or skateboarding around the neighborhood, you could not find him without a board in his hand. Unfortunately, shortly before his 18th birthday, Evan, on his motorcycle, was struck head-on by a drunk driver. Three days later, his left leg was amputated. Today, 10 years after his accident, Evan remains the most dominant athlete on the adaptive snowboarding circuit. Evan's story of overcoming adversity is an inspiration to California and to athletes all across the country. By turning an obstacle into opportunity, he has earned every title in the sport of adaptive boardercross, including a Winter X Games gold medal, a world championship title, two overall titles, and 11 world cup titles. Perhaps most extraordinary, his historic performance in the 2014 Paralympic Winter Games led the United States to a sweep in the men's snowboard cross event and to earn himself the first gold medal in the games. I congratulate Evan on his remarkable achievements. You make California and our Nation extremely proud.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, California is suffering from its worst drought in at least 35 years, maybe as much as 400 years; though lately, the Good Lord has sought to bless us with about 5 inches of rain on my farm and my neighborhood, we can't let that be a cause for inaction. Indeed, the Good Lord helps those who help themselves. It is time to build. It has been time to build, for a long time, the type of water storage that moves California ahead and supplies farms, cities, and environmental needs. We have this opportunity in a project that has long awaited our authorization, the Sites Reservoir in the western part of Colusa and Glenn Counties, a district that I used to represent in the State legislature and which my colleague, John Garamendi, now represents in Congress. We will soon be introducing a piece of legislation to move forward on the Sites Reservoir with an authorization for the funds needed to complete the studies and get started. Some may say: Well, it will take 7 or 10 years to get this done. Had we started 7 or 10 years ago, we would be right near completion; so we need to start today, and the people will thank us 7 or 10 years from now when we get this done. This will be introduced, hopefully, soon.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Chair, I am glad to be able to speak today on H.R. 3189. This bill will have a great impact on many of the resource holders in my district here in the northeast part of California. Yes, we are going through a drought, but this isn't just an issue that might affect ski resorts or even ranchers. This is a property rights issue that we should be looking at all across the country. It is very dangerous when the U.S. Forest Service or BLM can just come in and arbitrarily decide, after long-held water rights--some of these ranches have been around 150 years or more--that they can change the game--change the rules. The ranches have been around longer than some of these bureaucracies; yet they want to come in and say: we are going to change the game because we have decided it should be different. Now, when you have this type of right under fire for something as beneficial--farming and ranching, grazing is actually beneficial to forest land, towards fire suppression--and yet, we have people who think that this is somehow a special right or something that is going to take additional water away from other people. These are already adjudicated water rights--pre-1914 water rights in California. They are not taking more than what already belongs to them, so it is really a misnomer to think that we are now somehow rejiggering this because it is going to take more from other people. For 150 years, they have been around; and now, in this day and age, because of the thoughts of a few bureaucrats who want to do this by extortion--which is what it is--you get a permit only if you give up something that has belonged to you for many, many years. It belongs to them because it is a long-held water right--a long-held property right, so I am glad to help sponsor and support this bill.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University Preparatory School from Redding for winning first place in the 2014 Regional Science Bowl competition. The National Science Bowl is an annual competition sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy that brings together some of the best and brightest students from across our country. Teams compete in a face-off competition featuring questions on a range of science disciplines including biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, energy, and math. The event, while very competitive, also promotes and encourages discovery, innovation, and teamwork and a commitment to bettering our Nation's future. We are very proud of all the north State teams that competed against dozens of California high schools for a chance to represent California at the National Science Bowl. Their interest and diligent studies in math and science are a testament to the outstanding work from our students, educators, and parents across our region. Best of luck to Joban, Christian, Leo, Logan, and Melia who will be traveling to Washington, DC, next month to compete against teams from across the country in the National Science Bowl. I know you will make us proud. Good luck.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate my good friend from Texas. Thank you for yielding time tonight. I wanted to speak a little bit about some issues affecting California and the wise use of U.S. taxpayer dollars. California's high-speed rail, on its surface, may have sounded promising to voters when they acted on it in the 2008 election--until you take a closer look at it. Once the planning on the project began, the public found it would take billions of dollars to build and operate beyond what they were promised when it was on the ballot. What had been a $33 billion ballot pricetag was exposed at a November 2011 public hearing as a nearly $100 billion project. After some scrambling to make plan changes, which likely render it illegal from the enabling legislation voters passed as Prop 1A, we now see the current $69 billion plan, which uses low-speed modes in the urban areas of San Francisco and LA, again, found illegal under Proposition 1A. The tripled, then discounted, doubled pricetag is far from what 52 percent of California voters said ``yes'' to. High-speed rail's ballot measure was delayed by the State legislature two election cycles before finally placing the High Speed Rail Initiative on the 2008 ballot, where Californians approved what they thought would be a reasonably managed project to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles with a 220-mile per hour train. Because of Proposition 1A, the State could fund a portion of the construction with $9.95 billion in bond funds, with the assumption that the rest of the money would come from private investors. At the time, the 2009 stimulus act was unknown. The high-speed rail project that we have today has been plagued with poorly drafted funding plans, with little or no accountability to anyone for the absurd amounts of money spent so far. No accountability means millions of dollars spent on consultants, environmental impact reports, even lobbying here in Washington, D.C., and on numerous lawsuits from Californians who stand to lose their homes, farms, and businesses because they are in the path the high-speed rail would travel. Recently, a Superior Court judge ruled that the High Speed Rail Authority needed to redraft a 2011 funding plan for the project. The judge halted all bond sales because the Authority hadn't attained the necessary environmental clearances for the areas of the State where construction is planned to begin, nor shown there was even a plan of financing to complete even the first phase of the project. Meanwhile, the State schemes to inappropriately use truck weight fees or to use cap-and-trade funds in order to prop up the high-speed rail's bottom line. If a Superior Court judge says that Californians can't spend any more money on the planning and construction of high-speed rail, why should America taxpayers via the Federal Government? Nearly $3.3 billion in grant money has been awarded to the High Speed Rail Authority by the Federal Government via the aforementioned stimulus package that was approved in 2009 by a different Congress. This is to spend on construction. However, the Federal grant award is based on California's ability to match the Federal dollars with State funds from the bond. So it is my hope the Federal Government will put all the money earmarked for the high-speed rail on hold. Mr. Speaker, given the judge's recent ruling, I don't believe it is in the best interest of California's taxpayers or America's taxpayers to continue throwing money down this high-speed rathole. These Federal dollars should be used for pretty much anything else, such as building more freeway lanes, expanding airports, or, especially in this time of severe drought in California and the West, redirecting these scarce dollars to alleviate drought now and in the future with new water storage and infrastructure, which all Californians will benefit from. Instead, even after the judge's ruling, the High Speed Rail Authority said that they would continue to press forward the funding efforts to seize land from farms and businesses and hurriedly perform the necessary and very expensive environmental reviews. They now plan to front-load the project with funding from the U.S. taxpayer via the Federal funds we saw in the stimulus package because the State funding has been put on hold by the judge unless we in D.C. say ``no.'' California has $8.6 billion in bond dollars left to spend on building the high-speed rail, as nearly $1 billion has already been spent without yet turning a shovel. Assuming they still receive the $3.3 in stimulus funding and the total cost to build is the lowball number of $69 billion, this mean the High Speed Rail Authority has less than one- sixth of the funding necessary secured at this time. To me, the math doesn't add up. Perhaps in Fantasyland, where the monorail rail runs, it does. Would you continue to invest in something that has a majority of the already-secured funding put on hold because your illegal business plan has holes big enough to drive a train through? I think not. The Authority also hasn't shown any restraint in using taxpayer dollars. To date, they have spent upwards of $600 million on engineering and environmental consultants without ever breaking ground. The Madera-to-Fresno segment alone is going to cost $987 million--an unbelievable amount of taxpayer dollars for a segment that can't even operate trains as a standalone project. So many affected residents of the Central Valley, and all over the State, are happy the funding has been put on hold. Their farms, residences, and businesses are threatened to be seized, shut down, and destroyed for a project that will not ever happen. I hope California wakes up and realizes that this project is just a pipe dream that has hit none of its goals for cost or ridership. The legislature has had many opportunities to stop this high-speed rail boondoggle, and they will have another chance again next year. State Senator Andy Vidak has revived my ``Revote the Rail'' measure that I tried to get legislated back in 2010 and 2011, and will try to get the high-speed rail issue on the November 2014 ballot. As the LA Times poll says, 55 percent of Californians would like to vote again on the high-speed rail issue, and 59 percent say they would vote down high-speed rail. I support Senator Vidak's proposal, as I did before. It needs to move forward to give people choice, now that they have seen the real numbers. Here in D.C., we need to stop Federal dollars for the rail and instead direct those funds towards real needs such as tried and true water storage projects, infrastructure that will turn the water, and the jobs, back on in the Valley, and keep California, the Nation's fruit and vegetable capital that it is, producing, in some cases, over 90 percent of U.S. fresh fruit and nut crops that U.S. consumers need and desire. Once again, let's not put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for a high-speed rail boondoggle that benefits only those that make money off of it. Californians don't want, don't need, and can't afford it. (1830 )

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University Preparatory School from Redding for winning first place in the 2014 Regional Science Bowl competition. The National Science Bowl is an annual competition sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy that brings together some of the best and brightest students from across our country. Teams compete in a face-off competition featuring questions on a range of science disciplines including biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, energy, and math. The event, while very competitive, also promotes and encourages discovery, innovation, and teamwork and a commitment to bettering our Nation's future. We are very proud of all the north State teams that competed against dozens of California high schools for a chance to represent California at the National Science Bowl. Their interest and diligent studies in math and science are a testament to the outstanding work from our students, educators, and parents across our region. Best of luck to Bond, Tyler, Nathan, Kay, and Colleen, who will be traveling to Washington, D.C., next month to compete against teams from across the country in the National Science Bowl. I know you will make us proud. Good luck.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and ask this House to adjourn in the memory of a dear friend from Richvale, California, Clyde Howell, who passed away on January 29. He was a longtime community leader. Early in his life, he served in our United States Air Force in World War II. Clyde was born in Chesterfield, Idaho, later moving to Kingsburg in Central Valley, California. What Clyde would want to be known most for, though, is not just saving our country in World War II, but also saving souls. He dedicated most of his life in his church and in his community to helping people know about God. That is what Clyde would want us to know. Clyde was dearly loved by the community. He had a way to reach everybody, including youth. Even though he was a guy in his eighties, he had a way of talking to the young folks with that wry, crooked smile and the twinkle in his eye and a little tap on the shoulder. He had a way of connecting with people that was unique and certainly enjoyed and loved by his community. He is survived by many, many family members, and we will all miss him in the community.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, sadly, I rise today in remembrance of my dear friend and a great patriot, Mr. Charles Swim of Paradise, California. Charlie was quite a character. He was very involved politically, and if he picked you as the person he thought was going to win, that virtually guaranteed your election. But more importantly, what we know him for in northern California is his service to his Nation and his community. He was born on April 14, 1927, in Detroit, Michigan, although he claimed Kentucky. His true age at the time he enlisted in the Army was 15. They finally caught up to him when he was 17. He then soon enlisted in the Navy, where he served 6 years during World War II. After that, he rejoined the Army. He also served as a California State parole agent for 27 years, where he successfully fought for the Second Amendment rights of parole agents. Many credit Charlie's efforts to saving their lives. After retirement, Charlie's extensive knowledge and experience in his field continued to affect those in California's First District, leading him to become appointed the first official historian for the Butte County Sheriff's Office. He is survived by his wife of 40 years, 8 children, 11 grandchildren, 15 great-grandchildren, 3 great-great-grandchildren, 1 niece, and 3 nephews. Charlie's valiance and warm heart touched and changed many lives. We are very grateful to him. He was deeply loved by his family, friends, and the community, and he will be incredibly missed by all.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) leading on this very important topic here tonight, especially given that this is, indeed, International Marriage Week culminating on February 14, Valentine's Day. I am also very pleased that my valentine is actually in town with me here for a few days, and it really, really picks you up because coming from California to the east coast does have its challenges in doing this job and doing it well. That is really what the institution of marriage is. Your mate is your rock and your support when you are in a role like this, or whatever it is. It doesn't have to be this. It can be any job, or what she is doing at home, when your spouse is at home taking care of family, kids, and all that, you being a rock for them, too. It is that partnership which is what marriage is. It was perfectly designed by God. It is the part where mankind gets involved where things can get a little messy. And so through prayer, through sticking to it, the institution of marriage is one that is a rock. It is kind of like--what is it?--a Nebraska defense years ago; you bend but you don't break. That is what that bond of marriage is supposed to be. It is supposed to keep together. Yes, you have some tough days and you have some tough times, whether they are financial or there are things in your life, a stressful job or somebody makes mistakes in their marriage. That bond is what keeps you together. It is sad that in this day and age the sacred institution of marriage has been cheapened so much by you see what is going on in Hollywood, what you see with easy, no-fault divorce, that it makes it where people believe that maybe there is just an easy way out of this. That is certainly not to say that people shouldn't have an out for a bad, bad marriage, an abusive marriage, but it also needs to be not taken lightly before you enter into it. So a successful blueprint, you will hear time and time again--there are statistics on it--is that if you, in your life, finish school, finish school, whether it is high school, trade school, college, grad school, whatever it is, grow up. Be a little bit mature before you enter this institution, then seek the bonds of marriage, then have kids. If you do it in that order, the percentages, the odds of being successful for you, your spouse, your life, and your kids--you create kids. You bring kids into the world. You have a responsibility, a big one, to help set them on a positive course. I have heard stats before that kids coming from a marriage, a family with a father and a mother in the same home, have like a 70 percent better chance of being successful, of getting through their life, with getting through school, moving on, being supported to where it goes. So the institution has so much good going for it. Indeed, it is one created by God and recognized by the Founders and is a cornerstone of this Nation's forming. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it says right above you on the podium there, ``In God we trust.'' This is important trust we have in upholding marriage. My colleague mentioned that being from California we do some strange things out there sometimes. But, you know, amazingly, in California, two different propositions in the State of California passed, prop. 22 and then proposition 8, by the people of California, affirming that marriage is, indeed, one man and one woman. If you open the floodgates to other ideas, other concepts, you don't know where it ends. Multiple marriages? Same-sex marriage? There are so many things that are not what the institution is supposed to be about, indeed, an institution created by God, and it is supposed to be held up and respected by men and women. Indeed, it is an important responsibility. It is a decision you make not lightly because it is a lifetime decision--at least, it is supposed to be. For me and my wife, we just celebrated 25 years this year. We are proud of that statistic, but even more so grateful for the institution and what it means for our kids and the stability this institution brings for them and for a nation, one nation under God.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot about, this particular amendment is going to start another study. We heard earlier about more task forces. This is why we have had 40 years' worth of delay--or longer--on building new projects in California. We hear about what the projected flows are going to be. Here is what the actual flows are, coming back to this chart once again. You see over here, on the left, 76 percent of the water that flows into the delta goes straight out to the ocean--three-quarters. A mere 6 percent stays in the delta for its use. Eighteen percent is split between Central Valley and southern California needs. So we are wasting a lot of water, a lot of opportunity that could be taken advantage of and still capturing water for environmental need as well as ag need and urban need. This chart shows, this illustration, that we talk about water that needs to be delivered south of the delta, indeed, even to the central coast, which is running very quickly out of water as well. The central coast benefits from the pumps. The pumps, when you talk about fish take, are approximately 2 percent. Maybe we can do better, but they are doing a pretty good job. As was talked about earlier, predator fish in the delta are taking anywhere from 65 to 90 percent of the fish kill of the salmon and other protected fish that we are basing all of this fuss on. So we need to get very real about what the problem is and that the solutions aren't coming today from these amendments. But, indeed, Mr. Valadao's bill is a step in that direction, as well as establishing long-term, the type of storage, the type of reoperation that is in favor of the people that are productive in California being the breadbasket of the Nation and of the world.

Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be able to rise in support of Mr. Valadao's bill, a bipartisan measure it appears, and I am glad for that. We are able to work together as neighbors, northern California and central California, to overcome the overreaching environmental restrictions that this bill seeks to do. It has diverted so much water away from San Joaquin Valley families for their farms, away from agriculture, away from productive use, in favor of a 3-inch fish. Title IV of this measure ensures that northern California's cities and farmers maintain their first right to water from the area of origin, the river in its area, which runs through their communities. I am open to working with anyone at any time who has a realistic plan to address our historic droughts. The minority has offered amendments that would do nothing to address this crisis. Indeed, their proposals would only put more roadblocks and more red tape between Californians and the water they need. We see plenty of potential for projects that could happen, such as Sites Reservoir in my neighborhood in northern California; possibly the raising of Shasta Dam and other projects would be very viable. Indeed, if you look at the graph here, there is much potential that could be realized when 76 percent of the water that comes into the delta flows straight out the Pacific. Only 24 percent actually either stays in the delta or goes south of the massive amount of water that comes into the delta initially. The potential there for storing more water to have more available for everybody, whether it is farms, cities or environmental use, can be realized by building projects and by removing the roadblocks that are unnecessarily put there by bureaucracy or politics. We need to have a much better atmosphere of cooperating in this time of drought and putting our efforts forward to truly help Californians. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill today to take that step. Moses parted the Red Sea. I think we need to have somebody that can part the red tape that has held California up for so many years for building the water supply it needs.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was unexpectedly detained and just missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 30 I was not able to vote because I was home recovering from knee surgery and pneumonia. Had I been present, I would have voter ``no.'' Personal Explanation

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, my colleague from New Jersey, for leading this discussion here tonight. Indeed, it is a very somber tone that we would be here on a very, indeed, sad subject matter as the 41st anniversary of ROE v. WADE is brought forward here in our history. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the sanctity of human life. I know we have, as a society, an obligation to protect life in all its forms, especially the unborn. We are confronted today by a culture that takes human life for granted and the sanctity of it. Indeed, we heard a little bit earlier that since the 41-year history of ROE v. WADE--a decision made by a court, legislated by a court--that 56 million unborn have had their lives taken, which I think is really an unconscionable injustice for our Nation. I am a pro-life advocate. Regardless of the political or status quo, I am proud to join my colleagues in protecting the rights of the unborn and preserving the right, the sanctity of human life. I am a Christian, father of four, I have daughters, I have sisters, I have nieces; a lot of women in my life, our family's life. Of course, nothing replaces the great joy you would have in holding one of your own newborn or those of relatives or friends, and what that means; the miracle that God has given us watching them grow, watching them go on to become successful. How would you want to take that away? I don't understand it. I know, obviously, it is a controversial subject, but where we fall short as a country sometimes--a lot of times, many times--is that women are in a position to have to make a difficult decision sometimes that they may believe the only position they have is the termination of a pregnancy. At the very least, we ought to be able to stand here and make sure they have all the information on all the implications, all the options, instead of sometimes a rush to make what can be a very tragic and long-lasting decision. The fight goes on. It won't end any time soon. But in the long-term picture, standing up for the rights of the unborn, as well as the sanctity of all human life, I think is something that is essential if we are to have a belief system in something bigger than ourselves. I hope we as a Nation can do better. I appreciate that there are folks willing to stand up for it. I appreciate the doctors that spoke here tonight that are there providing for women's health and the health of the unborn and those already born, that they have that perspective they brought to us as well.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Congressman Denham. Indeed, the more time that goes by on this issue, the more problems and flaws are exposed in this. This is a measure that passed in 2008, was put in front of the voters, known as ``Prop 1(a)'' at the time that passed by a 52-48 margin. I think the voters were sold something completely different than what we are actually seeing as Californians in the project. Congressman Denham mentioned that the price has ballooned from approximately what people saw on the ballot, $33 billion for that initial San Francisco to L.A. segment; and just 1 year later, it was revised up after the voters had voted on it to $42 billion. And then we saw that the Sacramento segments, the San Diego segments were dropped off as even options. Interestingly, we have all been in the State legislature--Congressman Denham and myself and another gentleman who will be speaking here in a moment--and we saw these numbers go past us at a time. And at a hearing that was held in the California State Senate in November of 2011, it was finally exposed that their numbers were way off, and they admitted that the project that voters expected would be right near $100 billion to do the San Francisco to Los Angeles segment if it was going to be truly a high-speed rail from port to port. And also during that time, in order to build up and say what an economic boom it would be, they were advertising that 1 million jobs would be created by this. We pinned them down in that Senate hearing that it wasn't really 1 million jobs. It was a term called 1 million job years, which really translates out to perhaps 20,000 jobs of building the entire system. So we have seen a lot of very creative--I would say phony--numbers on costs, on benefits, and even some of the very highly optimistic ridership numbers as well. So, Congressman Denham, what does that mean in your district here as far as what you really think the jobs would translate out to? And then what are some of the impacts on the property involved, as well?

Mr. LaMALFA. So, indeed, the investors that were supposed to come in, private investment for what had been billed to voters as a $33 billion project, up to $45 billion if you built the San Diego and Sacramento link, they have not materialized. When you see that the price for a time went up to $98.5 billion--hence California's Senate bill 985--it scared everybody away from this. You see, in a Baltimore to Washington proposal to do a maglev project here locally that has outside investors that want to come in on that, nobody is touching California's high-speed rail. So in the absence of this outside investment, California has moved in many different ways to try and find other pots of money. The Governor plans on diverting truck weight fees that are collected from commercial truckers away from repairing California's aging roads. Just try and drive in the right-hand lane of any freeway--I get to enjoy Interstate 5 a lot--and see what the condition of that road is. Some areas have been repaired. Caltrans had a pretty good year last year. Other areas it is still pretty rough. Interstate 80, near Sacramento, they are doing repairs now; but the potholes on that were pretty bad. Yet we are seeing the effort by the State to shift funding away from repairing roads that everybody uses versus a project that maybe few can afford to actually use. My colleagues from the Valley here would probably tell you that there is not going to be a whole lot of people that jump on high-speed rail to ride from Bakersfield to Fresno because it doesn't make any sense for them. The promise of a low-cost ticket being 85 percent initially of an airline ticket from L.A. to San Francisco or vice versa, how can that be met without having the tickets subsidized at these costs? $85 we were told, $90. It was revised later maybe $120 when we had a hearing about it. Try $300 if it is not going to be underwritten by the taxpayers for ridership on this. How many people are going to spend $300 on that trip? Other than those that might do it for the novelty of the train ride from north to south or south to north. We saw pie-in-the-sky numbers on what the amount of ridership would be, numbers that at one time were greater than the entirety of Amtrak across the 48 continental States. They have had to revise them down to some other vague number. So there is not a lot of trust in anything being put forward by the California High-Speed Rail Authority on costs, on ridership, on impact, promises made or not made to those that are impacted in the line of many different proposals of where the route is. Yet they are still trying to move forward and start condemning people's property, at who- knows-what price of reimbursement, in order to spend as quickly as they can this $3 billion-plus of Federal stimulus money put in place almost 5 years ago. It is really looking more like a fraudulent enterprise from what the voters saw in 2008 to now. Indeed, polling out there shows that now that people have heard about this the last couple of years and what it really means and the other choices they have to make on schools, on water, on their actual highways, that they have a whole lot of different opinion on it. A lot of editorial pages around the State are saying at the very least if you are not going to stop it, you should put it back on the ballot. I attempted that in 2012. The mood wasn't there in the State legislature to do that. My former colleague there that I served with, Assemblyman Jeff Gorell from the Santa Barbara area, he is putting forward legislation to put it back on the ballot and re-vote the rail. So I hope that catches fire and that the legislature will look at this project and decide maybe that would be worth a vote of the people of California to decide if this is still a priority at these prices. So Assemblyman Gorell has got a pretty big task to put that in front of the legislature and achieve the votes. But interestingly--still talking State politics here--but in the State Senate, to put forward the first segment of funding in late 2012, it received the bare majority of votes to fund that. In our California State Senate, there are 40 Members. They have got a vote of 21-19. All the Republicans voted ``no'' and four of the Democrats, who up to that point had been pretty favorable on high-speed rail. It barely got out of the State Senate floor. I think that is saying a lot, that the opinions have changed, certainly amongst the voters. Now we just have to put the State legislature in a figurative headlock and get them to think about it and do that. So I hope Assemblyman Gorell is successful in this measure because it would be proper to put this back in front of the voters and ask them again: would you rather have this or water projects, highway projects, school projects, any number of things that could be done to help move California forward instead of this boondoggle that has no way of paying for itself or sustaining itself? We see, again, with the court handing down a ruling, that the plan is diverted so far from what was initially voted on and approved by the voters that it is now illegal. Why should State government be doing things that are illegal? Because they are right now in such a hurry to get the money spent, the Federal money. If the Federal money was to stop, the State money also has to. They both have to have a match with each other; but if there is not the match happening, then there are giant legal problems. Congressman Denham mentioned a while ago: What is the payback procedure if Federal money is misspent, improperly spent? Because California had the capacity to do that if it doesn't meet its timelines, it doesn't meet the goals, it doesn't meet the tenets laid out in proposition 1(a). It would be in a true high-speed rail system all the way from San Francisco to Los Angeles, which so far that plan is not. You have to ride three different train types to accomplish that under this current plan. Now we know the folks in the Bay Area and parts of Los Angeles are interested in seeing some of their tracks electrified as beneficiaries of some of the money that will be coming from this. I get that, I understand that. That probably would be a benefit for them, some upgrades in their local infrastructure. I don't know why you could not support that separately from this. If it helps to get Caltrain in the Bay Area electrified, then that should be a separate question, a separate set of funding, because right now this is illegal. The people in the Bay Area do not want to be part of an illegal project, likely, and maybe perhaps lose that funding they are depending on to electrify and upgrade their system. I don't think so. That is a lot of money when it gets around to doing that above what is going on in the valley, with the condemnation of the land, and building in an area where they said would have the least amount of resistance for the project, let alone the Bay Area and perhaps parts of north L.A. County. So it is very problematic. It is really time, as I proposed back in my senate days, to slow down the project and really get some real numbers. That was my first bill in the State Senate, SB 22. It was a no spending, no doing anything, until we have fully vetted and thought out a plan. Honestly, this reminds me of ObamaCare. I have been calling this around my neighbors ObamaCare, Jr., because it is so poorly thought out; and the plan for funding it looks largely the same, pie in the sky. Investors won't touch it. Federal Government, are they going to come in and bridge the gap of the other $55 billion that is missing, if we believe a $68 billion plan, or on up to the approximately 100, let alone the inflation things that might drive a real project all the way to $150 billion? All for what? What could really be seen as an outdated technology and something that a lot of people can't afford to assess, nor even make sense for them to use in short segments within the valley. Yes, it may make sense possibly if you had a fast train that could go all the way from San Francisco to L.A. and complete that. One of the things brought up is that in order for the project to be technically legal, they would only have to send one train per day in each direction at full, nonstop length. They would have other trains perhaps that are making all these stops, stopping at every little burg along the way. That is not high-speed rail. That is glorified Amtrak, glorified local commuters. That is not the intent of voters or anybody on this measure, or for that funding which is scarce money these days in California. The huge problems we have in trying to get a budget done and move eventually towards the balance in our Federal budget, it isn't a priority that we should be doing. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to note that again Congressman Denham will be having a hearing tomorrow in his Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on rail that will be at 10 a.m. in Washington time, developing more on this situation. So I would invite you to participate, or watch that, and expose what really needs to happen with Federal funding as well as maybe perhaps the people in California have an opportunity to weigh in on Assemblyman Gorell's proposal to have this back on the ballot and maybe perhaps shift our scarce funds to other things. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time here tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Well, indeed, it does appear that they are hell-bent on spending that approximately $3.5 billion that has Federal deadlines on it in order to get the project started; and then at that point, well, we are invested in the project, we can't stop now, even though the judge ruled it is illegal to spend the State dollars because it is not fulfilling the plan. So, indeed, big impact on the Valley and on taxpayers. Mr. Valadao, I really appreciate your time and your leadership on this here tonight. Let's keep putting the message out that there are better ways. Most anything might be better than investing in this at this point. So I thank you for your help here tonight.

Mr. LaMALFA. What doesn't get talked about much are different impacts like the high-speed rail. In order to sustain a high-speed, you have got to build a very long elliptical form in order to make turns with a train going 220 miles per hour. It is kind of like the angled towers running at angled lines on my property that we farm. It doesn't fit in real well with a grid that is set up on straight lines and squares like that. So when an elliptical-shaped rail comes through your community through agricultural zones, as well as high-speed rail having to cut off all the crossings, can you build enough overpasses to not stop the flow of traffic, whether that is cars or trucks or even a farmer on a tractor who now may have to drive his tractor instead of just across 6 miles down the road and back up to get around. I mean, there are a lot of impacts that are really not meeting the eye here when you line them out.

Mr. LaMALFA. I think everybody in California in the midst of this drought probably find agreement with that. Our own Governor was underlying that in a speech the other day, and yet still so wedded to this high-speed rail project, which the funding for is highly questionable. Indeed, a judge handed down a decision the other day ordering California not to spend any of the State bond money because it wouldn't be legal to do so under the lack of a plan they have. We both served in the State legislature. And is California's financial situation such that it can get out there on its own somehow with new funding? If the Federal money falls short or no private investment comes out, where will it come from?

Mr. LaMALFA

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