Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, disasters like the massive Rim fire that impacts my colleague's, Mr. McClintock's, district in Yosemite National Park, which many people believe is a national treasure, and I agree, not only threaten residents, homes, and other structures, they also destroy valuable public property: forests that provide jobs in rural communities, revenue for local governments, and recreation for Americans. Unfortunately, planning and procedural hurdles often prevent the Forest Service from salvaging usable timber and returning the land to a healthy condition. This amendment enables the Forest Service to rapidly undertake salvage, rehabilitation, and replanting by allowing those activities to be included in fire suppression operational and funding plans. When wildfires impact private timberland, owners know that salvage and restoration work must be conducted immediately. The window before decay and insects eliminates timber's value can be only weeks. Site rehabilitation must be done before the rainy season to prevent landslides and sediment from clogging waterways. However, the Forest Service's ability to conduct these operations on public lands is so restricted that timber which could generate jobs and revenue literally rots on the ground, even as adjacent private timberland is rapidly rehabilitated. After the 46,000 Bagley fire in my district last year, private landowners sprang into action and, it is my understanding, that salvage and rehab operations are already complete on nearly all these private lands. These areas have been replanted and rehabilitated and soon will once again be healthy, productive forests. The Forest Service lands, however, lie nearly untouched as the value of the burned timber disappears. In Trinity County, in northern California, 13 lightning-sparked fires burned over 250,000 acres during the memorable 2008 fire season and caused $150 million in suppression costs. However, the Forest Service conducted salvage and rehabilitation on just a few hundred acres, leaving an area one-third the size of Rhode Island blackened and scarred. This amendment speeds the salvage and rehabilitation process by allowing the Forest Service to plan this work in conjunction with suppression plans and removes procedural hurdles by defining these activities as part of suppression efforts. The amendment allows, but does not mandate, the use of suppression funds for these efforts. Again, it does not mandate, but allows, the use of suppression funds for these efforts. The CBO has stated this amendment has no impact on overall Federal spending. Finally, this language will offset firefighting costs by generating revenue for local communities and the Federal Government through salvage operations. Federal agencies spent over $1.9 billion on firefighting in 2012, and every dollar derived from salvaged timber is one less dollar diverted from other programs. As you may know, I have cosponsored an amendment with Representative McClintock streamlining judicial delays that slow salvage operations. This amendment complements that language by accelerating the salvage and rehabilitation planning progress but functions independently.

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

Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully request your support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 3102. This commonsense bill reforms the SNAP program and simply requires that able-bodied adults without dependents obtain employment, participate in job training activities, or perform voluntary community service activities in exchange for continued benefits. I've been hearing a lot of chatter these days about how there aren't any jobs out there to get people back to work. Perhaps if government weren't killing businesses through overregulation, increased taxes, and bureaucratic delays, it might be easier to get people back to work. The President did state 3 days ago that the economy was improving and jobs were being created, so it seems reasonable to get people into job training programs in order to get these job openings filled. Let's say the President is wrong about these. Even in the most economically challenged areas of this Nation, there are opportunities to better one's community through volunteerism. Who in this body can argue with work or volunteer requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents? When did asking able-bodied adults to look for work become an unrealistic or a demeaning request? This bill preserves the SNAP program for those who need the assistance while also helping them to find employment and live the American Dream. How does any of that sound unreasonable?

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of a great Californian, a man who was known all up and down the State as ``Go See Cal''--Cal Worthington. If you're a Californian, you have probably seen his ads starting back in the fifties of Cal and his dog Spot. He was also a great hero as a World War II airman and pilot. We know him in northern California for his ranch he has in the Orland area, the ``Big W Ranch.'' In most recent years--he never quit giving-- he helped out at the Glen Medical Center with an annual event we called ``Splendor in the Valley'' that he hosted at his ranch, which was a huge success for the hospital and just goes to show Cal's big heart. We miss him already in northern California, as does all the State, because he's just a one-of-a-kind man that you will never replace his character, his humor, and what he does to keep giving to the community. We lost Cal the other day at the age of 92, and we will always remember him. And Splendor in the Valley will go on with its 10th anniversary this year in his honor. I ask this place to adjourn in his memory today.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, every year, rural America, especially the western States and areas like mine in northern California, are in the news. It's not for something good, but for something like we see going on with so many of the wildfires around the country. There's no reason for this. That's why I support this bill here today that would actually make our forests perform for us, instead of being a detriment to us and our health in California and the western States. We can have either the type of air quality problems that are happening--like in the central valley of California, for example, one of my colleagues was talking about, although we've had challenges there in recent years, they've actually improved things. The air quality right now is much worse because of these fires than anything going on by people or after the improvements that have gone on with other air quality issues. In my own part of the State back in 2008, the whole summer and into the fall, brown, dirty--including the areas close to the fire--kids couldn't go outside because the quality was 10 times above health levels for them to be safe. We see our small communities that are devastated by an economy that has shifted away due to forest management and Forest Service policies that don't work for them. This legislation would allow our forests to perform for us and help these economies, help the health of the forest, the health of the people, and the health of the local economies to be strong once again, and, as was mentioned earlier, our rural schools. So let's do commonsense legislation instead of watching our forests burn. I urge you to support this.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to be able to present this amendment here. I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing this. We have a situation here where section 404(f)(1) of the Clean Water Act exempts certain activities from the permitting requirements under section 404, including normal farming, forestry, and ranching activities, and construction and maintenance of farm and forest roads, irrigation ditches, and farm ponds. In 1977, Congress made a deliberate policy choice to amend the Clean Water Act to provide carefully tailored exemptions for these ordinary activities of farmers, ranchers, and foresters from the costly and burdensome requirements to obtain Clean Water Act permits. Despite this clear expression of congressional intent, however, the Corps of Engineers and the EPA in recent years have been trying to circumvent the 404(f)(1) permitting exemptions by attempting to interpret a limited ``recapture'' provision in section 404(f)(2) in such an expansive way as to virtually swallow up the exemptions in 404(f)(1). As a result, we have a situation where Congress clearly provided a regulatory exemption from permitting in one paragraph of the Clean Water Act, only to have the Corps and EPA now take it away through a creative interpretation of the next paragraph. The Corps and EPA cannot take away administratively what Congress gave legislatively. These administrative efforts to undermine congressional intent have resulted in excessive and overzealous efforts to expand regulatory powers into farming and ranching activities exempted from regulation. In one instance, a family farm attempted to convert pastureland irrigated by ditch to a piped irrigation system to improve their water efficiency--a laudable goal from any perspective. This is an activity clearly exempted from regulation by section 404(f)(1), yet the Corps' argument that potential runoff from this work, which would run into a man-made drainage ditch and eventually into a terminal man-made pond with no outlet, would impact somehow the navigable waterway, the Sacramento River, which is over 6 miles away, which really bears no relation to reality, this regulation. This claim by the Corps turned a 1-day, $2,500 project into, now, a multiyear legal battle resulting in over $100,000 in legal costs to the family farm, all with no improvement or protection of the environment. This amendment is intended to make it clear that the Corps is not to use any funds to regulate activities that are already excluded from regulation under section 404(f)(1)(A) and (C) of the Clean Water Act, and that the ``recapture'' provision in section 404(f)(2) is not to be used to undermine those section 404(f)(1) permitting exemptions. The amendment allows the permitting exemptions to stand on their own merits, without the Corps and EPA negating their use through clever legal interpretations. In no way does this amendment attack or limit regulation of wetlands or our Nation's waterways. As a rancher myself, with wetlands, ducks, other wildlife on my land, I know full well the importance and value of reasonable protections for our natural resources. Today, farms in California and elsewhere are being targeted for simply changing crops or irrigation methods. They are doing their best to follow every law, the spirit of the law, but are being targeted for something Congress explicitly exempted. This amendment simply limits funds to ensure that agencies of government only spend money to follow the laws as Congress wrote them. I urge all Members to please support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LaMALFA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1947. Is this farm bill perfect? No. Would I like for it to have done more? Yes. Is this still a bill that modernizes and moves farm bill reform forward? Yes. We've made many landmark improvements and modernized many programs within this bill. The farm bill provides logical reforms that would streamline our Federal Government and cut spending and protect our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. We indeed are reducing spending in the farm bill by $40 billion, including $6 million in sequestration. We're streamlining the conservation programs to the tune of $13.2 billion by repealing direct payments, also. We are also saving money in the food stamp area by $20.5 billion. The farm bill offers the first reforms and savings to the SNAP law since the Clinton-era welfare reforms in 1996, modernizing SNAP programs while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. In the House Agriculture Committee, I'm proud to say we added further reforms to SNAP by preventing the USDA and States from engaging in SNAP recruitment activities and prohibiting the USDA from advertising SNAP on TV, radio, and billboards. This is a farm bill we need to pass to move in the right direction. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Greetings to my friend Jim Withrow, whom I would like to recognize today, and I would just remind everybody of how important it is that we participate in this Memorial Day weekend in order to remember those who have fallen and honor those they've left behind. It's a lot of times thought of as a weekend to go out and have barbecues or watch car races on TV or sports like that, but it's really rewarding for the heart for us to go participate on Monday in one of our communities. For those watching, just take that time in the morning to go out and honor those veterans. It will make you feel better as an American. Then our obligation as citizens is to fulfill our role as voters, as people who hold our government officials accountable, because when you hear veterans say that they don't recognize the America they once fought for 50, 60 years ago, it really hurts. So let's uphold the honor of our Nation that they fought for and be participants in our government in the process and hold all of that accountable and honor them in that ultimate way. We give thanks for their service, and God bless them. Please participate on Memorial Day this weekend.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1412, as amended.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak in favor of my amendment to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. This is an example of the process working. A lot of folks have expressed concerns about the measure here, not only on the cyber intelligence side but as well the privacy and personal security side. I think this amendment and many others that we have seen today, and will see, are addressing that issue so we get the right balance between cybersecurity and individual liberties and freedoms, Fourth Amendment concerns. The threat we face today in the cyber realm is nothing short of a serious threat to our national security. Nation-states like China and Russia are targeting the American government and the American private sector alike for cyber espionage, and potentially for cyber attack. Chinese espionage targeting the American private sector to steal core research and development information--at the very heart of American innovations and jobs--represents an unprecedented threat to our very way of life. While strongly supporting this legislation, I am pleased to have worked with Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger to further clarify that nothing in the legislation should be construed to be a surveillance program directed at American citizens. The amendment is very concise yet extremely important. Titled the ``Limitation on Surveillance,'' it simply reads as follows: Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the Department of Defense or the National Security Agency or any other element of the intelligence community to target a United States person for surveillance. As we act to protect the United States from cyber attack by foreign countries and terrorist groups, we must ensure that our constitutional rights and privacy are maintained. The term ``United States person'' includes U.S. citizens and legal residents or legal visitors to the country, limiting the surveillance powers of this bill to foreign nationals and those entering the Nation illegally. This amendment helps to strike the balance this measure strives for, granting our government the means to defend the Nation while, importantly, preventing any inappropriate use of these powers. Again, I am pleased to support legislation that creates no new regulatory regime and does not create additional Federal bureaucracy or require significant additional spending. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, once in awhile a bill comes through that even makes great sense in Washington, D.C., and this is a really commonsense measure. I live on a farm in northern California where I'm surrounded by canals and ditches and water moving all about in my daily life in producing rice, and so there's all these opportunities we would have on installations like that. But we're talking today about Bureau installations to put renewable power in place that, according to this chart here, would affect many, many States with many installations and provide many American jobs. The opportunities of this bill, just putting the bureaucracy and the red tape aside, for a commonsense measure to take advantage of an opportunity to do something that, on the heels of March Madness here, really, installations would be no harm, no foul. These facilities already exist. It would be easy to put in place. If we could put aside the red tape of NEPA requirements, it would be unnecessary. As I drive up and down my canals and my ditches, again, no harm, no foul here. We're looking at an easy installation that would be a very valuable thing for, where I come from in California, a renewable energy portfolio, which is 33 percent kicking in. It's pretty hard to find renewable energy, especially when most of those sources are required to be solar or wind. Hydropower is a very important component in my part of the State here. We have so much water that we can take advantage of to produce, why aren't we doing it in the commonsense areas? H.R. 678--and I commend the chairman and Mr. Tipton for bringing this bill forward. This is, again, something that's going to be very positive for rural America, for our renewable energy portfolio, which is affecting, I think, a lot of the country these days, because renewable energy in most cases is very expensive. So the same people that are saying we can't do this without NEPA, the same people that are saying we can't have fracturing, which is bringing very cost-effective electricity to many, many Americans now, the same people that want to remove hydroelectric dams in my part of the district in northern California are now wanting to oppose a commonsense measure like this. Sometimes I just don't get it, but this one here is really an opportunity to move forward with opportunity for our rural States, for rural areas to produce these projects with American know-how and more American jobs. We hear a lot about that here today. Let's put Americans to work with commonsense, reachable measures that are environmentally sound and certainly good for our economy.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. We passed the CR today. We've seen the sequester go through this week, unfortunately. So here we are. We ask the President to not scare the country and put everybody on notice that he's going to make it as painless as possible, to do the positive things that are going to make this thing work. We have to rein in spending in the United States. It's going to be for our children and our future. So instead of threatening things such as guided tours that don't cost anything becoming part of the past, why don't we move forward with things that we can agree on and that are going to be helpful for balancing our budget and taking the small step towards a future. Yes, it's going to be painful. But it doesn't have to be as painful as when we hear directives to Federal agencies to make it as painful as possible. It's a very disingenuous process. So let's stay here and get this thing done right and find real things that we can make in reductions to help our country and not threaten it.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. For almost 4 years, the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget--the most basic responsibility of governing. This shameful record must end this year. We must set up a broader debate about spending that forces the Senate to finally join the House in confronting the government's spending problem. The House and Senate must each pass a budget. If they fail, Member pay should be withheld. The principle is as simple as the bill: no budget, no pay. I'm a California legislator, having served in our State legislature for 8 years. The people of California finally got tired of late, ineffective budgets and passed legislation on their own via the initiative process to force the State legislature to get the job done. The first time that happened, right after that election, the budget got done on time. Amazing. Therefore, I hope the American people will join the effort the U.S. House Republicans are taking up and force the United States Senate to get the job done to get a budget, as is their responsibility.