Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt".

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

Last night, the Committee on Rules met and produced a rule providing for consideration of five pieces of legislation.

H.J. Res. 60 and H.J. Res. 78 are both considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Additionally, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 are all considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule tolls the date counts regarding resolution of inquiry until September 30, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this, I will start by saying on the Committee on Rules we tend to get to know each other pretty well in significant late-night engagement in debate. The ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, has had an unfortunate loss that words cannot possibly convey as a dad what he and his wife are going through with the loss of his daughter, Molly.

I say from this side of the aisle, I know speaking for the entire Committee on Rules irrespective of party affiliation, how much Jim, his wife, and his son are in our prayers after losing their daughter and sister, Molly, to cancer.

As a cancer survivor, I have seen firsthand the horrors of the disease. I told my Committee on Rules colleagues last night in committee, in my time in treatment at MD Anderson, going through chemo seemed trivial to me compared to watching the parents at MD Anderson who were watching their children go through treatment.

Molly went to Heaven last week while visiting a friend in Italy, and I think I speak for everybody in this body when we offer our deepest condolences to Jim and to his entire family and to our colleagues who were so close with and knew Molly, who, by the way, from memory I believe worked for Jamie Raskin as an intern, and had her own engagements in public service.

When I heard of her passing, I did a little googling about her life, her love for sports and Boston sports, her love of her dad, and how proud she was of her dad.

While, just on occasion, Jim and I might have disagreed here on the House floor--it has been known to happen--we are all united in offering our condolences and prayers for Jim's family, and God bless Molly and his entire family.

Mr. Speaker, on the legislation that is before us, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, no doubt, about to launch into how we have had an ineffective first 100 days and Congress is not doing anything.

Let me put in perspective for the American people what we are focusing on.

We are focusing on undoing the damage of the last 4 years of the Biden administration. The President is doing that on a daily basis in the White House today, and then we in Congress are using the powers that we have before us in an obvious narrow majority and in a narrow majority in the Senate, where you have to get things through the Senate with 60 votes. We

are using the tools in front of us to try to limit and minimize the damage caused by the previous administration and, frankly, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today.

Notably, we are talking about in this situation what we have done so far. We have passed legislation to secure our elections through H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, to guarantee that only American citizens vote in American elections; to hold rogue judges accountable for issuing nationwide injunctions and trying to change the process.

Mr. Speaker, that is not partisan. Justice Elena Kagan talked about the need for injunction relief. The Democratic Solicitor General under the previous administration talked about the need for injunction reform. We offered legislation that would change and reform injunctions. We passed that before Easter so that a single judge won't be legislating and making national policy by granting temporary restraining orders and injunctions.

We made changes on border policy with the Laken Riley Act, which is extremely important; and legislation to combat the flow of fentanyl.

Importantly, what we have been trying to do is undo the damage on the border.

Mr. Speaker, keep in mind what has happened now under the first 100 days. In just 100 days, southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent year over year.

Mr. Speaker, consider that for a second. They decreased by 94 percent. What changed? Have we passed a massive law? Have we enacted the law that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last year was necessary, this bipartisan bill which, by the way, would have codified all the bad policies under the Biden administration?

No. The only thing that changed was a White House willing to enforce the law. That is literally it, and now there is a 94 percent reduction in apprehensions at the border.

Keep in mind that we are now at apprehension levels of somewhere around 100 to 200 a day, 3,000 to 6,000 a month. We had 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 apprehensions per day under the Biden administration.

The President has restored common sense by ending DEI in the military and working to keep men from competing in women's sports, affirming that there are two genders. These are common sense. I wouldn't think we would have to spend time on the floor of the House of Representatives doing those things or having the President do it by executive order, but here we are.

The President has unlocked America's energy potential, or at least taken a giant step to doing so, by reopening 625 million acres for drilling, withdrawing from the disastrous Paris climate agreement, and approving new LNG projects.

Mr. Speaker, here before us today, we have what we call CRAs, under the Congressional Review Act. The purpose of these is to undo burdensome Biden regulations. This is our ability and our prerogative to hold the Biden administration accountable, and that doesn't stop just because the Democrats lost an election and we have a Republican in the White House. We have a duty to undo some of that damage.

Under these bills, we would repeal California's advanced clean trucks waiver, which currently would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks. It would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks.

These bills would repeal the California advanced clean cars waiver allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; put an end to California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty, on-road engines; nullify a rule by the National Park Service that would infringe on the employment of a recreational area, contravening the agency's own mandate when it was created; and, finally, one that would end an Endangered Species Act designation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would threaten water resources and other conservation efforts.

Mr. Speaker, these things matter to the average American. My colleagues are going to say that this is small ball, and it doesn't matter.

Every one of these regulations add up to interference with the enjoyment of life by the American people, drive up the price of the goods and services for the average hardworking American family, make vehicles more expensive, make our lives more costly. Then people wonder why they are suffering from inflation and suffering from the inability to afford to live in the modern world.

This Congress is taking steps to undo that damage, working with the White House to restore the ability of the average American family to live and afford the basic necessities of life, including vehicles and the right to be able to choose the vehicle of their choice in an open market.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to say that we are infringing on California. Let's remember that California gets treated specially and uniquely and that that then has a domino effect through the rest of the country. That is unique to California based on past precedent involving Los Angeles smog and other things where that is causing a direct impact on other States across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I miss getting that admonition. It was a pretty regular occurrence in my various floor speeches.

With respect to the resolutions of inquiry, let me put out there that it is my strong preference, as I have said multiple times on the floor of the House, that we come up with a system that allows the body to work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive branch, no matter who is in power.

I introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act to try to restrict Presidential power under the Trump administration the first time and had trouble getting it moved during the Biden administration. I am not really even pointing fingers. I am acknowledging the politics. I had some Democratic colleagues and friends of mine that would say: I like that idea, but I don't know if right now is the time. Okay, but let's have the conversation.

Let's take ROIs, what we call resolutions of inquiry, a tool in which we can specifically go ask for specific information. We have engaged in that effort. I certainly have. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, ROIs, these resolutions of inquiry, were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. That is, of course, the ``you did it, so we will do it'' argument--not particularly satisfying if you want to have an open body.

I think the question would be: What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have? What should the rule be? If we want resolutions of inquiry to just be allowed in perpetuity, then maybe we need to come up with a way to try to guarantee that and do that, but that is not what happens. We have turned them off. Both sides have turned them off.

I would also add, for example, for the filibuster rule in the Senate, are we going to abide by the 60-vote threshold in the Senate as a Congress? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the filibuster rule for judges and succeeded, and now, we have a 51- vote threshold for judges.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the rule for legislation, and but for Kyrsten Sinema and but for Joe Manchin, they would have done so. Then, the Senate would have been operating by a 51-vote threshold for legislation.

Maybe that is good or bad, but maybe we should decide the rules we want to operate under and then apply them to both sides. Right now, we are operating under a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

I think that is something maybe we ought to put to a vote right here in this body, in the House, and say: Do we believe that the United States Senate should operate under a 60-vote threshold? Because if you go watch the Twitter feed of Kyrsten Sinema, she is pretty explicit about what she is watching and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate who now suddenly have newfound love and respect for the 60-vote threshold.

My point being, if we are going to change the body institutionally, then let's have a real conversation about changing the body institutionally.

Closed rules, I get it. In the majority, we are sitting here, and we have more closed rules. Do we want open rules? Then what will happen when the Democrats are in charge? Do you want resolutions of inquiry? What do we do to bind the hands of a future House on those points if not us agreeing to respect each other's ability to do that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a couple quick points on the resolutions of inquiry. I won't waste a whole lot more time on it.

The fact is, one, we have extended this through September 30 only at our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through reconciliation.

Two, my colleagues want to blame COVID. Committees were still in full operation. The fact of the matter is my colleagues didn't want to answer questions that we were asking about the border because they were unanswerable. The border was wide open. Americans were getting killed. Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, Americans like Laken Riley, Americans like Rachel Morin, and Americans like Kayla Hamilton. I can keep going down the list of dead Americans at the hands of the foolish, incompetent, and dangerous policies of the Biden administration that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to answer. That is the simple truth. When we wanted to get data about the border, they didn't want to answer it. It wasn't because of COVID.

Mr. Speaker, I note with respect to California that California's mandates effectively take away America's ability to buy new gas cars. As I mentioned earlier, California gets some special treatment. It is the only State allowed to seek waivers for its own vehicle policies due to a provision in the Clean Air Act crafted to allow California to address Los Angeles area smog, and so they have an outside impact on our ability to get affordable vehicles, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which would be unnecessarily impacted by where California wants to go and which we want to try to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I also note that California, as KTLA reported in a January 30 article, continues to lose more people than come into other States because of the tragic and unfortunate policies of the State of California.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that neither the GAO nor the Senate Parliamentarian get a vote. It is sort of a shocking news revelation I recognize, but they don't get a vote. We do. The Senate does. We can decide what we think ought to apply.

Number two, if my colleagues want to talk about the high price of vehicles, how about the extent to which the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

According to the latest data from Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric vehicles is $55,273, 3.7 percent higher than last year. For context, the median household income for the gentlewoman's district is $62,000.

The fact of the matter is, EVs are expensive. EVs are driving up the price of vehicles. The mandate is taking the power out of the hands of the American people to decide, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which allow individuals to have more efficient vehicles while being able to travel long distances, as I know the gentlewoman has constituents who need to do so in New Mexico as we need to do in west Texas and throughout the State of Texas.

Additionally, the trucks that are required under California's unrealistic mandates cost two to three times more than a new, safer, and more reliable diesel truck. The fact is, we are driving up the price of goods and services. We are making it more expensive for the American people to live. We are making it almost impossible for people to fix their vehicles and be able to afford their vehicles with every new thing we add to it to make it more complex in the name of safety or the environment.

The fact is, we can't be blind to those realities. That is exactly what is happening. That is why the American people are suffering from the inability to afford to live in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am always amazed when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that these EVs require power. Somehow they get charged from the magic fairy dust of the magic energy tree? I mean, what are we talking about here?

How do you power up an electric vehicle? It is done by burning coal, burning gas, or the nuclear plants that we are not actually permitting or building in the United States, while China builds two coal-fired plants virtually every week. We are building none. Well, good for us.

The vast majority of the world is producing power with coal and natural gas, and it is growing exponentially. Meanwhile, we are crushing our grid, the reliability of American power, making it more expensive for the average American and doing really nothing about worldwide CO2 production. That is the truth. China and India are pumping it out.

Meanwhile, my colleagues love to ignore the slave labor in China to produce the batteries that they drive around in their EVs while they pat themselves on the back and go to cocktail parties talking about how fantastic it is that they drive their EVs and how enlightened they are.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three articles: `` `Like slave and master': DRC miners toil for 30p an hour to fuel electric cars'' in the Guardian; ``EV makers' use of Chinese suppliers raises concerns about forced labor''; ``U.S. says Chinese lithium-ion batteries are made with child labour as trade war spills into EVs.''

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to parade around EV mandates like they are somehow going to magically create power out of thin air, ignoring the fact we are empowering China, ignoring the fact we are empowering Chinese child laborers while we destroy the cost of living for the average American family, take away choice, take away the ability of an American citizen to be able to go out into the market and buy a hybrid vehicle or another vehicle that they can use to travel long distances, do their job, whether they are a plumber, an electrician, or carrying goods and services in a truck, and then they wonder why the cost of goods and services go up. Then they want to blame tariffs when we are 90 days in, and we had massive and rampant inflation under the Biden administration as a direct consequence of the regulatory policies and the failed policies of the previous administration.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that with respect to wind energy, yes, Texas is one of the leaders in wind energy. I worked for Governor Perry when the Governor was embracing wind power, and the fact of the matter is, as it has become a larger percentage of the grid, the reliability of Texas' grid has suffered, and now the consequences of having embraced wind as a significant portion of the grid are now coming to roost.

We are now having to deal with what happens when these need to be shelved. Where do they go? They fill landfills. How much oil and gas goes into the production of said windmills? How do you get the power from the wind farms in west Texas to the various facilities where we are making power? How reliable is it during ice storms or during the heat of the summer? When you have a cloudy, windless day, how are you getting power? Who is making the parts for the solar panels? What happens to the solar panels in the environment when you are finished with the solar farm?

All of these questions get brushed aside in a quest to say that we can have magical ``green, clean energy,'' when we have clean-burning natural gas in Texas and throughout this country that is producing a significant amount of economic benefit and power for our country and has done more to drive down CO2 production and for clean air than virtually any other innovation we have had over the last century.

Yet, we are impeding the ability to have more reliable power by virtue of mandates. That is the whole point of the problem with the Inflation Reduction Act. That is the whole point of the problem with the rules and the rulemaking done by the Biden administration that we are trying to reverse under these CRAs, so that we can make things more affordable for the American people. That is it. We are trying to help the average Texan, the average New Mexican, the average American be able to afford to live, trying to be able to figure out how to get power, get a vehicle that they can afford to be able to carry out their job. That is it.

On the issue of healthcare, the issue was raised, as is often the case by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to try to scare the American people that somehow raising questions about the inefficiency, the ineffectiveness, the waste, the fraud of a government healthcare solution, that somehow that is taking away benefits.

When you have a trillion dollars of improper payments, when you have the State of California openly and publicly stating that they are gaming the Medicaid system and the provider tax and the Federal match rate to provide funds to illegal aliens and for their general budget to game the system at what best can be called money laundering, as was editorialized in The Wall Street Journal last week. When that is what is happening, when you have people on Medicaid who are getting a higher subsidy than people on Medicare, who have paid into it their entire lives, into the tax on Medicare; when you have people who are able- bodied who are getting a higher subsidy than the vulnerable population for whom Medicaid was originally created, then someone explain to me why we don't have a duty to fix that.

That is what we are putting forward, to try to deliver healthcare that would actually have a doctor and a patient relationship rather than a corporate overlord or government bureaucrat telling you what your healthcare is. That is the system that has been created. That is the system that we are living with now under expanded ObamaCare. That is what that is, expanded ObamaCare. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about the expansion of that population into the able-bodied who could be and should be working at a higher rate of return by the Federal Government than is going to the vulnerable population, while California games the system to give money to illegal aliens. That is expressly and openly being acknowledged by California leadership.

They don't want to have those conversations. They don't want to talk about how you manage that problem, how you get more people to be able to have affordable care instead of what they currently have, which is a broken system that insurance companies run, forcing individuals onto an exchange so they can get like my constituent who passed away last year from cancer, who wanted to go to M.D. Anderson and could not go because she was on an

ObamaCare plan and couldn't go to the best cancer hospital in the world because she was covered under ObamaCare.

The failure of our healthcare system cannot be overstated. Both parties need to step to the table to get government out of the way and to allow doctors and patients to be able to go get healthcare from a provider of their choice--not some insurance bureaucrat or government bureaucrat--in order to deliver outcomes that the American people want us to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, number one, Congress has an important role to play in repealing the Biden-Harris administration's EV mandates and other rules that are damaging the lives of the American people.

When the administration transmits an action to the House and the Senate for review under the CRA, then it is Members of Congress, not the GAO and not the Parliamentarian, who decide whether and how we proceed under the CRA.

The fact here is California mandates, which is what we are dealing with here in several of these Congressional Review Act actions, effectively take away Americans' ability to buy new gas cars, a hybrid vehicle, or the vehicle of their choice. It raises their vehicle and transportation costs.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the former Speaker of the House, came down and described that somehow we are not factoring in the price of clean air. With the vehicles that we are producing today, the fact is we have the cleanest air we have ever had.

There is no problem with having EVs. It is the mandates that are the problem. It is mandating the American people must convert that is the problem. In fact, worldwide, the extent to which coal-fired plants in China, coal-fired plants in India, and other countries around the world are producing CO2 and other particulate matter that is bad for the air is rising.

Why would we undermine our own economic well-being to pursue a negligible impact on the overall global emissions, while driving up the price of goods and services for the average American family? They have to live for today. They have to pay their bills today.

All the subsidies in the world aren't making those things economically viable for them. Whether you are talking about wind farms or EVs without the mandates, what is clear is the American people aren't buying these things because they are still not able to function and carry out their livelihoods effectively under the mandates.

Higher costs and fewer choices for consumers hit low-income and disadvantaged communities the hardest. There is a reason why, when I drive around Austin, Texas, I see it is the rich folk driving around in their Teslas. It is the rich folk who are getting their EV tax credits. I see it. They are not in east Austin. They are out in the rich parts of Austin.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that is an accident? Do you think the hardworking plumber I represent in San Marcos, Texas, in New Braunfels, Texas, or any other part of Texas is going to go out and get a battery- powered truck to drive across 10 counties to carry out his job or his livelihood? As I said before, the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

Mandates disrupt the free market. We have talked about the impact these mandates can have on the reliability of our power grid.

Is the Nation's grid even up to the mandates we talk about? No, it is not because then there will be more mandates on what the grid has to look like. Suddenly, we are Spain. Suddenly, we are wondering why the grids are failing.

Importantly, California's move empowers China, which dominates the EV market and uses slave labor and coal-powered plants to produce EV batteries. That is just the truth.

Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of the world's electric vehicle batteries are manufactured in China. China owns 80 percent of the industrial cobalt mines in the Congo and controls 15 of 19 of the primary cobalt mines in the Congo. These mines are operated by trafficked child slaves. Since when do we not care about that?

The idea that California can do this unilaterally is preposterous. They are the only State allowed to seek waivers under a unique policy. They should not be able to determine policy for the State of Texas or any other place.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendmentto H. Res. 354 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation

measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program, and for other purposes. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on

any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 2753.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Representative Roy for acknowledging the tremendous loss that Jim McGovern and his wife, Lisa, suffered this weekend when their daughter, Molly, was taken by cancer, a disease both of us have battled, as well.

With the Speaker's indulgence, I will read a few sentences from the McGoverns' own statement because I think this captured a lot of who Molly was:

``Molly radiated pure joy. She lit up every room with her beaming smile--full of laughter, endless warmth, and a sharp wit that could disarm you in an instant. She was unbelievably funny, fiercely loyal, and wise beyond her years. Molly had a rare gift: She made everyone feel special because she genuinely believed everyone was special. She treated people with compassion and kindness--always standing up for the underdog, and making fast friends wherever she went.''

Molly was deeply loved by Jim and Lisa, and because of that love, Molly was also loved by many of her colleagues in this House. She grew up here in Capitol Hill with other children of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have been exchanging and I have been watching these beautiful pictures of Molly growing up with those kids from when she was young to just last August at the convention.

Lisa McGovern dedicated herself to helping families deal with cancer at Prevent Cancer Foundation. Lisa knows directly what it is like to see that terrible disease impact a young and promising life and how it, therefore, impacts the entire family.

Jim has one of the biggest hearts I know. He stands up on this floor every week to ask us to end hunger now because he deeply feels the pains of hunger that too many young children in America suffer from.

Given that huge heart, my colleagues can only imagine the love he poured into Molly. We don't even have to imagine it. We all saw the love he poured into Molly. He worried about her as she sought to live a normal life, studying in Australia and traveling, but he always said ``yes'' and never missed being by her side for key appointments and scans.

We cry for the things we love, and love always comes with pain. With a love as profound and deep as what Molly had, we know the McGoverns' pain will be immeasurable.

To Lisa, Jim, and their son, Patrick, please know that your colleagues on this House floor on both sides of the aisle are in pain with you. Our tears are flowing with yours, and your congressional family stands with you in prayer and support.

Now, standing in Jim's place, I will turn to the business before us.

Representative Roy and I agree on how we opened this, but not on much more this morning because we see a different view on this 100th day that is marking Trump's service in office, 100 days of chaos, corruption, and economic sabotage. After these 100 days, House Republicans are wasting time on cynical Congressional Review Act resolutions instead of addressing the economic and constitutional crisis facing American families.

One hundred days of economic pain, as Trump's on-again, off-again temper tantrum of tariffs tank the dollar, drive up prices, destroy the markets, and threaten a recession.

One hundred days of chaos in the White House, where Secretary Hegseth texts war plans to journalists, and the administration belittles allies while embracing dictators like Putin.

One hundred days of corruption, as billionaires like Musk and DOGE take Americans' personal Social Security data and fired the employees we need to process those Social Security checks. They fired the auditors and inspectors so no one is there to sound the alarm when Musk steers contracts to his own companies. Talk about self-dealing.

One hundred days of courtroom drama, with courts--district, appellate, and even the Supreme Court--saying Trump's actions are likely illegal, unconstitutional, and must be paused to avoid irreparable harm to the American people.

While Trump defies the law and damages our economy, what are House Republicans doing? This week and into the next couple, Republicans are plotting to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans to fund tax cuts for 759 billionaires. Republicans will sacrifice healthcare for 72 million children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to give tax cuts to the 759 richest people in America.

When they destroy Medicaid, they destroy rural hospitals, and they destroy healthcare centers that everyone in the community uses, not just those on Medicaid.

Trump and Republicans want to give tax cuts to the biggest corporations, as well, so they have to cut funding from low-income college students trying to get ahead and steal food from the mouths of hungry children, and that hurts our farmers and ranchers, too. These are the hungry children that Ranking Member McGovern fights for every day.

Millions of Americans will suffer so the billionaires and the biggest corporations can get more--more power, more money, more control, and more influence in Washington, D.C.

Americans are tired of how the system is rigged against working- and middle-class families. They know the rich are winning and regular Americans don't seem to have a chance.

The Republican budget ends their reconciliation bill. Their tax cuts are going to make sure the rich always win.

Now, Trump's approval ratings are the lowest of any President in the last 80 years. In the latest poll released today, Americans give him F's. He is getting F's on the economy. He is getting F's all over the place.

Americans disapprove of Trump because he is destroying our economy, and he is betraying his promise to lower costs from day one.

Americans are demanding we put an end to Trump's tyranny. Republican voters are showing up at the few townhalls that Republicans are brave enough to have, and they are yelling at their Representatives. They are saying: Do something.

While Americans want us to have the courage to stand up to Trump, House Republicans are doing the opposite.

Hidden in the rule we are debating today is a provision that will cover up Secretary Hegseth's texting of classified war plans. Republicans won't even let Democrats ask for information about what is happening at the Department of Defense--no courage, just capitulation.

Today, instead of helping lower costs for working families, Republicans are pushing partisan bills to overturn environmental laws that protect our air and water. It is ridiculous.

Costs are going up, markets are tanked, court orders are being ignored, and we are talking about a rule that we will hear about later today that we are going to spend all of this time on the floor of this House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate. We are wasting the precious time that we have on this House floor to do something.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a resolution of inquiry--Congress wants to know. Give us some answers.

It is not that big of a deal, except that, right now, I think they just don't want to have to vote. They don't want to have to vote on Signalgate. They don't want to have to actually take up an issue that they know is controversial, and they don't have a reason to present to the American people of why to shut this inquiry down.

I will acknowledge that we also had resolutions of inquiry, and there was a reason that we explained to the world: There was a pandemic going on. People were dying. The United States Government was in an emergency, and we were trying to save lives. We were trying to make sure that people were safe, not just here but in every single State. In New Mexico, it was devastating. We were trying to deal with this worldwide pandemic.

They have not offered any explanation for shutting down resolutions of inquiry at this time. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why? Last night, we had an amendment to actually remove this, and we said: Why? Just explain to us why. They could not answer.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee were set to take up these inquiries about the Secretary of Defense using unclassified Signal chats to share sensitive information about military strikes with his family, his personal lawyer, and a journalist.

They don't want to vote on Signalgate, so they are rigging the rules to block us. They are hoping maybe this issue will pass over. Maybe we will forget about this lapse of judgment, this utter failure, this TV personality who, I guess, still wants everybody to know what he is doing, but when you are Secretary of Defense, you are not supposed to be letting everybody know what we are doing and putting our servicemembers at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member and top Democrat on our Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned the fact about a vehicle's expense. Now, let's recognize that used car prices have gone up for the first time in 30 months not because of what California has done but because of Trump's tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Used car prices just rose for the first time in 30 months. Here's why and what it could mean for consumers in 2025.''

Mr. Speaker, if they wanted to actually address the rising costs of cars, maybe they would be willing to address the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is true in New Mexico, we have all that beautiful land. We have our ranchers. We have our farms. We have those mountains. We love our trucks, but the problem is, Trump's tariffs are making all of that more expensive.

He is raising the cost of trucks. Remember, there was like a $20,000 hike after one of his first attempts at tariffs before he started flip- flopping. We never know where he is at, right?

His tariffs are raising the costs of housing. In New Mexico, the firing of Federal employees and the domino effects of the economic uncertainty because of his tariffs are making jobs harder to find.

Mr. Speaker, Trump promised to lower prices on day one. Instead, his tariffs are crashing our economy, making those trucks more expensive and houses more expensive. People are out of work. Retirement accounts are destroyed.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and impose tariffs. It is Congress' duty to review whether what he is doing is accurate or not. Even though it is our review, this is another area where Republicans don't want to have the debate on this floor. They are hiding behind these things they stick in these rules.

They actually thought they stopped time. Republicans passed a rule that stops time for the purposes of voting

on whether or not we should have these tariffs. They actually passed a rule that said this: ``Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment last night. I offered an amendment last time we met in rules. We will keep offering amendments to say you can't stop time. If you believe in these tariffs, be willing to debate them, to stand up on this floor and say we think the tariffs are good, we think the tariffs are bad. Make Trump defend those tariffs.

Why is he doing this to us? Why is he creating this disaster? This is a disaster of Trump's own creation. We are seeking four Republicans to join us to stop this. They already have some Republicans over on the Senate side. We have some that might be moving here. Let's stop this craziness of the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker emerita.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asks where would we get this electricity. In New Mexico as well as in Texas, we have amazing wind power and amazing solar power. There are many ways of generating electricity. The problem is that with a policy of ``drill, baby, drill,'' they don't want to look at all of the opportunities, even though Americans know that looking at energy independence means looking at all of the beautiful ways in which we can generate power in the United States.

However, a more important question that is before us is: What is happening with Medicaid and SNAP? Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which will prevent the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans are continuing full-speed ahead with their disastrous plan to cut the social safety net and blow up the deficit to give billionaires tax cuts. It is shameful. It is wrong. Under their plan, they will have to cut $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion in food assistance just to make the math work.

Mr. Speaker, what is worse is they continue to argue they are not doing that, but the math doesn't lie. They can't reach the levels of billionaire tax cuts they want without completely

gutting vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP, programs that the most vulnerable in our country rely on.

Republicans claim they won't make these cuts, so today I will give them a chance to put their money where their mouth is and vote to ensure those devastating cuts can't move forward in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this issue of the Clean Air Act and the fact that Republicans often say they believe in States' rights, but when a State like California actually chooses a policy they don't like, they throw that principle out the window.

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it gave States that had standards before 1966 the right to apply for a waiver. Congress decided that. For 50 years, California has used that waiver to clean up its air. It is not just California. Other States have chosen to adopt these standards, too.

Across America, we can breathe cleaner air. That is why our children can go out and play in the park and can run around. They don't have to stay indoors like they have to in Beijing or New Delhi or other countries that are polluted from the cars that clog their cities.

Clean air isn't just about the environment. We heard the Speaker Emerita talking about the cost, the cost to the children, but it is also about economic prosperity. When people breathe clean air, they miss fewer work and school days, companies are more productive, kids learn more, families save on healthcare costs because fewer people go to the hospital for asthma and heart disease.

It doesn't stop there. To meet California's emission standards, carmakers have built more fuel-efficient vehicles. That means we are saving money at the pump. Republicans love to talk about energy dominance, but for them, as I noted, it is just ``drill, baby, drill.'' Improving fuel efficiency is cheaper, smarter, and better for the environment and economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stop this political theater and focus on the real issues that matter to the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, after 100 days of Trump, the verdict is clear: We are living through a campaign of economic chaos, constitutional contempt, and corporate greed. The American people see what is happening, and they are not fooled by the chaos. They are not happy with the chaos. They are watching this body to see who will fight for them and who will fold to Trump.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. This administration isn't governing. It is looting. Trump's cronies are lighting the house on fire so their billionaire friends can sell the ashes for profit.

With this issue of cutting Medicaid and addressing healthcare, yes, our healthcare system is not working. We need to address some issues in Medicaid. Let's be honest. The CMS itself said that there is less than 1 percent of fraud in the system. It is an incredibly lean system. It pays out less than any other system.

Still, even with it as it is, 40 percent of pregnant women in the country rely on Medicaid so they can give birth to healthy babies. They would strip that away from those women. It is even higher in rural areas, and those hospitals in the rural areas rely on that.

With regards to prices, Trump's tariffs are raising prices. At the same time that prices are going up, they are slashing food assistance. At a food bank I went to last week, they have more people showing up and less food because Trump literally stopped the trucks from delivering the food that was in the trucks. How cruel is that?

They are wrecking our national parks, not out of necessity but to fund tax cuts for 759 of the richest people in America. They are bleeding rural hospitals, stripping students of opportunity, and polluting our air, all to line the pockets of the ultrarich.

This isn't policy. It is plunder. House Republicans won't stop it. I say we stop it by voting against this rule. Let's defeat this rule today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This resolution, H.J. Res. 78, continues a very familiar pattern that we are seeing from this Republican majority: distractions and scapegoats instead of dealing with real crises, real

problems, and solutions to the challenges that are facing working families, including American farmers and rural communities all over this country.

Today, they are bringing us a resolution that tries to blame an endangered fish, the bay-delta longfin smelt, for California's water problems and shortages. They are doing that instead of addressing major problems that are actually impacting farmers in rural communities.

Let's be clear. Removing protections for the longfin smelt will not make it rain. It will not rebuild California's snowpack. It won't refill our reservoirs, not even the reservoir that President Trump recently drained in a public relations stunt that had nothing to do with fighting fires or water supply.

California's water shortage is driven by climate change and also prolonged drought, aging and outdated infrastructure, and overallocation. It is not the fault of some tiny fish.

Meanwhile, farmers, including those in my district, are grappling with worsening droughts, wildfires, floods, extreme weather, and now the fallout from President Trump's disastrous trade policies for agriculture.

All the while, Republicans won't talk about any of those things. Instead, they bring us here to debate whether a small fish should be allowed to go extinct or be protected under the Endangered Species Act. All the while, the significant damage that their policies are causing continue to pile up in rural America, including President Trump's tariffs.

Trump is treating not just our adversaries, but some of our neighbors and our best friends in the world, like they are enemies. He is turning them into adversaries. Tariffs on key trading partners have already cost farmers tens of billions of dollars in lost exports. Markets are shrinking. Input costs are soaring, making it hard for farms to stay in business.

We see the sweeping budget cuts and mass layoffs at critical agencies like NOAA and the Bureau of Reclamation, threatening the services that farmers depend on: water deliveries, weather forecasting, climate data, and much more. Farmers need that stuff. They don't want to go back to the ``Farmers' Almanac'' in order to make key business decisions.

We see hundreds of millions of dollars in water supply infrastructure projects suddenly in limbo because of DOGE, while our colleagues across the aisle say nothing.

We see the entire rural healthcare safety net, including nursing home care, including services that anyone who has a person with disabilities in their family, depend on. All of that is in limbo as we brace for catastrophic cuts from Republicans as they try to fund their tax cuts for billionaires.

If this Republican majority were serious about helping farmers and rural communities, they would be working to reverse these harmful policies. They would be standing up for rural America right now. Instead, they are wasting our time. Just because we are debating a 3- inch fish today doesn't mean we need to think like one.

Now, about the impacts of these policies that my friends don't want to talk about. You don't have to take my word for it, you can listen to farmers across America.

Here is Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association, who says: ``Our grave concern is we could permanently lose another big chunk of our export market that we are dependent on for our production. . . . And the U.S. farm economy is in a tough spot, and we just don't have any room for error right now.''

Here is Chris Harner, owner of Harner Farm in Centre County, Pennsylvania: ``We did get a letter from our one supplier that once the tariffs kick in, they will be passing on the costs.''

Paul Krueger, a corn and soybean farmer from Bladen, Nebraska, says: ``Any time our country gets involved with any sort of tariffs that affect the agriculture industry, every farmer just kind of groans about that. We're powerless to do anything except take what comes out in the wash.''

Here is Travis Johnson, who farms cotton, sorghum, and corn in Texas' Rio Grande Valley. He says: ``There's a lot of uncertainty around, and I hate to be used as a bargaining chip. I am definitely worried.''

Moving to California, here is Ryan Talley, vice president of Talley Farms in San Luis Obispo: ``We don't have months to wait something out. We have to continue our operations at the intensity that we currently farm. We're going to have to take those rising prices and deal with it the best we can.''

This is what Republican agriculture policy is doing right now: losing export markets, raising costs, telling farmers to just deal with it. They are complicit in the dismantling of rural healthcare, in the freezing of funding for rural infrastructure, in the threat to programs like SNAP that many families across rural America depend on.

It gets worse. President Trump, Elon Musk, and their enablers are gutting critical Federal services that include scientists. They are hollowing out NOAA and weakening the Bureau of Reclamation. They should listen to the people that these decisions are actually hurting.

I know I am quoting a lot right now, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make sure my colleagues across the aisle are listening, since they are not having any townhalls these days. They need to hear from farmers and the folks in these rural communities that their policies are hurting.

In response to mass firings at NOAA and the National Weather Service, Andrea Young of Hidden Creek Farm in Fauquier County, Virginia, said this: ``I cannot bring the animals to safety. I cannot cover up those tender plants. I cannot know that a rainstorm is coming and so I shouldn't water. I cannot function as a farmer in an indoor environment.''

The general manager of 14 California Central Valley Project irrigation districts, in a recent letter to the President about layoffs at the Bureau of Reclamation, said this: ``That elimination of Reclamation staff will not further the goal of achieving significant cost savings to the American people.''

In other words, they are harming the agency that these irrigators depend on, and they are not even saving money for the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the damage from all of this is real. There are real farmers, real communities, and this is real harm caused by failed leadership. While all that is happening, we are here debating whether to strip protections from an endangered fish. They are turning a small fish into a very large scapegoat, pretending it will somehow provide real support to farmers.

The truth is, the listing of the bay-delta longfin under the ESA is both scientifically and legally sound. The longfin population has declined over 99 percent since the 1980s. Think about that. In just a few decades, only about 1 percent of the population is left. That is like the number of environmentalists left in the Republican Party these days.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service followed the law, the data, and the science, just as a bipartisan Congress intended when they passed the ESA back in the 1970s, just as Republican President Richard Nixon intended when he signed it into law. The system is supposed to work that way.

Protecting species like the longfin is not just about a single fish, but it is about protecting the ecological health of the entire bay- delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. This delta is the heart of California's water system. Its health underpins clean drinking water for millions, healthy soil for agriculture, and waterfowl populations that hunters depend on.

It is so important, and it requires a broad ecological balance to sustain the farms, fisheries, entire ecosystems, and so many communities and millions of people that depend on it. You can't destroy an ecosystem and expect farms, cities, and wildlife to just thrive. These things rise or fall together.

This resolution takes us in the wrong direction. Let's actually do something real for farmers instead of deflecting and debating distractions. Let's repeal the mindless tariffs on our allies and top trading partners. Let's protect the Bureau of Reclamation and NOAA from these disastrous sabotage cuts. Let's protect rural families and communities by opposing cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution that merely distracts and deflects and scapegoats instead of solving the pressing challenges facing farmers and the rest of rural America.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the question has been posed about whether this ESA listing of the longfin smelt is supported by science. I guess this Congress, in all of its infinite mastery of science, has decided to superimpose itself over the scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service who went through a very public and deliberative process to reach this determination. We are going to now get, I guess, a different scientific interpretation from the great minds across the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, the first Trump administration, back when there was still at least a few people around who followed the law and told the truth, agreed that the longfin smelt was a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans slow walked that listing because of politics. That is why the administration was sued. That is why the Biden administration had to comply with the law and follow through with that science-based process. That is how we got a listing.

Let's not pretend that there is no scientific foundation for this listing. Even my friends across the aisle know better than that.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the Sacramento Valley has suggested that we live in parallel universes. If that is the case, I will choose the universe where Members of Congress face their constituents and answer hard questions instead of running off to Mar-a-Lago or other people's districts or having distractions about fish in the delta and scapegoating them as the cause for all of our problems.

Answer some hard questions from constituents. Talk about facts and reality of California water instead of all of this scapegoating.

With California water, it is always a challenge not to break the fact-check machine across the aisle. It has been suggested that all of this water is wasted out to the ocean for fish, and you have to explain again how the delta system works. That water that flows out to the ocean, almost all of it, the vast majority of it, is for one reason: to make sure that the saltwater in the Pacific Ocean does not intrude far enough into the estuary that the whole system that tens of millions of Californians depend on and that all the farmers in my friend's district depend on doesn't salt up and cease to function.

The Speaker doesn't have to believe me about it or choose between two parallel universes. Ask any California water manager how this works. This is basic stuff, but we have to explain it over and over again because of the fog of political theater that we always hear across the aisle.

It is a little bit like the President of the United States right now who says that there is a magic spigot in the northwest and in Canada that, if we could get past all of the radical environmentalists and just open up this spigot, unlimited water would flow to southern California, and they would always be able to fight fires.

It is absolute nonsense. Then he pretended to open a magic spigot, and he dumped and wasted a bunch of water a couple of months ago into a dry lakebed.

Our friends across the aisle retweeted all of these totally fake narratives, and now half the world, the world in that other parallel universe, believes this stuff.

It is a constant challenge just to bring the subject back to facts and reality. Talk to water managers. Do a little bit of basic research. This is how the California water system, especially the delta estuary, actually works. Politics is a poor substitute for understanding basic hydrology and facts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a colleague who actually represents the amazing delta region of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE continue dismantling Federal agencies, shredding constitutional norms. Meanwhile, House Republicans refuse to lift a finger to rein in rogue actors or defend the rule of law.

In the face of all of this, American farmers and rural America are paying the price for all of this chaos.

Right now, the real threats to rural America and to water security and the livelihoods of America's farmers are trade wars that are hammering agricultural exports. It is not this endangered fish.

They face a shrinking Federal workforce hollowed out. The very agencies responsible for permitting and delivering water to farmers and communities are being dismantled.

Congressional Republicans are threatening to rescind critical Inflation Reduction Act investments in drought resilience and water delivery.

We also are facing this administration's efforts to block and cancel key funding that Congress has already approved to support drought resilience and repair vital water infrastructure, support that rural America needs right now in the face of extreme heat and weather from the climate crisis and the burning of fossil fuels.

These are the urgent challenges that farmers and communities are actually facing. Instead of confronting them, House Republican leadership devoted this entire week to voting on performative Congressional Review Act resolutions that are meant to deflect and distract from the real problems created by this administration and the complicity of this Congress.

Passing a rule to actually abdicate Congress' own oversight powers when it comes to our Article I trade authority all the way through the rest of this fiscal year is shameful.

Let's be honest. The longfin smelt didn't cause California's water challenges. This resolution won't solve them. It won't improve drought conditions. It won't help farmers one bit.

Yet, here we are, debating a symbolic resolution that is designed to distract, deflect, and scapegoat rather than talking about and trying to solve real problems affecting farmers and rural communities.

This isn't legislating. It is grievance politics.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 78.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 78 offered by Representative LaMalfa of California, which would undo the listing of the longfin smelt in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment under the Endangered Species Act.

The listing was based on flawed science in response to an ESA-related lawsuit and adds yet another piece of regulatory red tape preventing water from reaching California's Central Valley and communities further south.

California's Central Valley is one of the most prolific agricultural regions in the world, growing hundreds of crops that feed millions of people. However, this region faces continual water uncertainty due to drought and ESA-related regulations.

The Central Valley Project, or CVP, transports water from wetter areas in northern California to drier areas further south, including the Central Valley. It is subject to ESA biological opinions that mandate water that would otherwise go to communities and farms be diverted to the San Francisco Bay.

The effects of this can be seen at this very moment in California where Federal reservoirs are almost full, yet many farmers are only receiving half of their water allocations. This is in large part due to restrictions imposed by the ESA, which will only be exacerbated by the listing of the longfin smelt.

Unfortunately, the rush to judgment that ensued from the lawsuit resulted in a listing based on flawed assumptions and bad science.

First, by solely focusing on the bay-delta rather than the longfin smelt's entire range, the service ignores the fact that the species has been found in dozens of locations, including in and around every tributary of the San Francisco Bay. Meaning the longfin smelt is not at risk of extinction and does not meet the statutory definition of an endangered species.

Instead of being based on science, this listing comes from the common radical environmental playbook of suing for a predetermined outcome.

Radical groups have litigated for years trying to get the longfin smelt listed under the ESA, with a 2024 lawsuit compelling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a listing decision being the latest example.

Unfortunately, as with many ESA-related lawsuits, the species is rarely the true motivation. The leader of the organization that filed the lawsuit in question said the not-so-quiet part out loud when he said that protecting the longfin smelt going forward would require taking more water away from farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this CRA and roll back this misguided listing, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), the sponsor of the CRA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for all of his efforts on this. He is a farmer. He knows about agriculture. He knows about the water issues in California.

This is an issue that is important to our whole country. It is not just important to California because most of the fruits, nuts, and vegetables grown in this country are in the Central Valley of California. Without water, you can't grow any of them.

If we are taking water away from the Central Valley for unnecessary reasons, that means that the rest of the country is going to suffer when we go to the grocery market.

Mr. Speaker, I think, if truth be known, there is one reason why the longfin smelt got listed. It is because it would divert water away from the Central Valley, and I don't understand that. I don't understand why groups would be so adamant to be taking water away from the breadbasket of our country and shifting it to a purpose that is not accomplishing anything.

There are a lot of myths about the longfin smelt. There is a myth that, if they are listed, it will have no effect on the farmers in the Central Valley. I will read a quote from the science director who was involved from the San Francisco Baykeepers when the listing was finalized:

``Preventing further decline and extinction of longfin smelt will require reducing California's diversion of fresh water from the Bay's watershed to supply unsustainable industrial agriculture. . . .''

If water is taken away from agriculture in the Central Valley, it is unsustainable. You can't grow anything without water.

We need to get back to the science, as Mr. LaMalfa stated, and it is unfortunate that we have to do a CRA on an

endangered species listing, but that is what happens when administrations make bad decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first, I acknowledge and agree with my friends from across the aisle. Mark Twain was correct. The more I learn about water, the further west you go, the more it is for fighting. We can agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to try to help them solve the issue about parallel universes from an outsider's perspective. I would say that most people who live in States that are east of California, maybe some that are north and west of California, if you go to California, you realize it is a very beautiful State, a very blessed State, wonderful resources, beautiful beaches, beautiful forests, the most productive farmland in the country, some of the most unique trees in the world, wonderful weather, good fishing. Everything nice, it seems like California has it.

I think we all love California, but we all realize somehow it is kind of a different universe than the rest of the country that we live in. Maybe they embrace that and like that, the good people of California.

When we look at this legislation, H.J. Res. 78, it is a serious thing. The ESA listing in question was based on incomplete and bad science and will further complicate the delivery of water in California communities. It is already complicating the delivery of water.

Passing this resolution will further the priorities of President Trump, who has signed two executive orders aimed at removing unnecessary regulations that prevent water from being delivered to southern California.

The current paradigm of having full reservoirs in California while many farmers are only receiving half of the water they are supposed to be getting is unacceptable, and it is unsustainable. It takes away the myth that this is all due to drought conditions. It is not drought conditions in California right now, yet farmers are still only getting half the amount of water they were promised to get.

This resolution is cosponsored by the entire California Republican delegation. I thank each Member for standing up for their constituents and tirelessly fighting for additional water resources in the face of Federal and State government overreach and radical decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate the opportunity to present and to carry this Congressional Review Act that is, indeed, trying to keep some reality involved in the listing of species, as well as the overall operations of government and forming of regulations.

Mr. Speaker, in support of H.J. Res. 78, we want to block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's misguided decision to list the San Francisco Bay-Delta population of the longfin smelt as being endangered.

What we have is actual evidence. Former director of Stanford's Center of Conservation Biology wrote a piece on this listing, including these highlights:

The Fish and Wildlife Service abandoned its allegiance to

using the best available scientific information.

The proposed listing ignores salient information gaps and

shrugs off technical peer-reviewed criticisms that go to the

heart of the argument for listing the species.

To list this species, the Fish and Wildlife Service

employed unreliable data, presented results from analyses

that cannot be justified, and made troubling predictions for

the fate of the fish that are built on flawed assumptions

akin to a house of cards.

The Fish and Wildlife Service used piecemeal data to try

and establish population trends and size of this using

detection methods not even designed for longfin smelt to

justify its action.

Basically, there is no science, and this has long been sought by environmental groups since they have run out of the regular smelt after tens of millions of acre-feet of water have flowed out to the delta.

Indeed, they need to be looking more at the issues going on with the effluent coming out of bay area cities from underpowered sewer systems that affected the delta so negatively and not some idea that farmers are getting too much water.

At a point where farmers have now just gotten bumped up to a 50 percent allocation here the other day by State and Federal water managers, we are seeing that it is going to negatively affect the food supply not only for California and its production but for the whole country.

Mr. Speaker, we have statistics that show that the amount of water flowing into the delta is hardly being tapped. Indeed, 80 percent of it goes right on out of the delta into the Pacific Ocean.

It is interesting to hear my colleague from the north coast talking about rebuilding infrastructure as part of a solution that we should be talking about here.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about it a lot, and hopefully we can move the ball on it. We have an opportunity to build Sites Reservoir, which would provide 1\1/2\ million acre-feet of new storage; and raise Shasta Dam by 18 feet, which would provide 600,000 acre-feet of new storage.

If we would operate the pumps in the delta, we would fill the San Luis Reservoir that would be available to the Central Valley. It came up 200,000 acre-feet short this year, which is about the same amount as what they are predicting this listing will cause to short the Central Valley farmers down there if this listing is allowed to happen.

Instead, we get more and more water being demanded for environmental purposes, which really doesn't fulfill an environmental purpose. Instead, the blame gets shifted to something else: talk about tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, we are tariffed so heavily, almost 300 percent, on our dairy products that are going into Canada. Something needs to be done for a reset. Rice into Japan will be up to 700 percent at some point. Tariffs need to be looked at, but that is not this conversation.

The longfin smelt is being used as the latest weapon to take water away from farmers and take water away from people. We grow some of the richest crops in the great Central Valley of California--tomatoes, pistachios, and almonds--and they will be denied to the whole country. They will not come from somewhere else unless we import them with lower quality standards, et cetera.

We have, indeed, a lot going on here that is not really truthful. It is sad to hear my colleague from the north coast. Although we are in parallel districts, the First District and the Second District, it seems like we are in parallel universes when I hear him starting to talk about defending agriculture because it is these policies: introduction of wolves; not rebuilding water infrastructure but tearing down dams on the Klamath that now causes people to be subject to flooding; the water allocation of the Scott and Shasta Valleys being taken away by some emergency drought declaration at the same time as they are being flooded; and one thing after another being taken away from farmers and given to wolves instead.

My Democratic colleagues want to introduce 1,700 new grizzly bears into California as one of their ideas, which would devastate livestock. The ideas that are coming out of this building and the regulatory buildings here are the ones that are choking off agriculture, making food more expensive, and taking away options for people to buy great California-grown products instead of having to import them.

It is coming from here. It is certainly not the fault of what the Trump administration is trying to do in addition to building more water reservoirs and having more water available for people.

Why was it that delta pumps were able to fill San Luis Reservoir 2 years ago to the brim, to the full mark, and they can't for the last 2 years?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the additional time.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of additional water flows that are demanded by the environmental left and certain Representatives in this building. A lot of times, they get them. It seems that the courts are stacked against farmers against this, but we have to fight back.

One tool that we have is H.J. Res. 78, to review what government does and hold it accountable for when it does last-minute, unscientific pronouncements. In this case, it is yet another species that my Democratic colleagues use as a weapon against agriculture and against people's needs.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time on this.