Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the dedicated career and public service of Yuba County Supervisor Don Blaser.

Don was born and raised in the Yuba-Sutter region. He proudly attended Sutter Union High School where he would meet his future wife and childhood sweetheart, Lavina, Don and Lavina were married in 1968. Upon graduating, Don would attend college at the University of California, Davis earning a degree in Agricultural Business.

Don would use his degree to help on his family's farming business in Sutter County for many years. Don would then go on to work with the Yuba City Steel Products Company, where he would work for the next 30 years.

Don and his family would visit Hawaii and become inspired by a local coffee shop known as ``Badass Coffee from Hawaii''. Don's son Adam and wife would later open their own coffee shop in Roseville known as ``Bad Ass Coffee''. Soon after Don and his wife would purchase The Brick Coffee House Cafe in Marysville. This venture would initially need a major overhaul and clean-up; while starting as only a local coffee shop, it would expand to become a thriving place to visit with great food and desserts and be known for their great catering service. The cafe would stay as a family business for the next 20 years.

Don was elected to the Yuba County Board of Supervisors in 2021, where he represented District Two. During Don's tenure on the Board, he would additionally serve on many other governmental organizations, working to represent the rural interests of Yuba County. Don has served on the Area on Aging Area 4, California State Association of Counties (CSAC), North Central Counties Consortium (NCCC), and many others. Don also served as Chairman of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors in the year of 2024.

Don and Lavina have been married for 56 years and have two children, Adam and Kricia, and four grandchildren.

We thank Supervisor Don Blaser for his term of service on the Yuba County Board of Supervisors and commitment to the citizens of Yuba County. We wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the courageous public service career and rural advocacy of Colusa County Supervisor Gary Evans.

Gary is a fourth-generation life-long resident of Colusa County growing up in the Stonyford-Lodoga area. Gary proudly attended Maxwell High School graduating in 1973. Upon graduating, Gary would work for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service in Fire Management for 12 years. He would then go on to open and manage a small sawmill, logging and contracting business in Colusa County for many years.

Gary decided to run for the Colusa County Board of Supervisors in 2004 earning his first term on the Board, since then he has been reelected four times serving 20 years on the Board. As Supervisor, Gary would stand as a stanch defender of the Constitution and the Civil Rights of local citizens, businesses, schools, churches, and organizations. Additionally, Supervisor Evans served as Chairman of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors during the years of 2009, 2012, 2017, 2018, 2021 and 2024.

Gary has played a pivotal role in bringing the Sites Reservoir Project to reality and has made a point to see the project to completion which would help provide the larger region and agricultural community with the essential water it needs.

Over the years, Supervisor Evans fought directly for the residents of Colusa County. During the statewide Stay at Home Order in the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Supervisor Evans moved to allow those who choose to reopen for business and recreation to do so as they saw fit. This action would save many local businesses and allow for a quicker recovery.

Gary's leadership on the Board has proved instrumental as he personally introduced and coordinated a variety of projects in Colusa County that have included County, State, Federal agencies, and numerous private landowners working towards common goals with a positive. ``we're all in this together'' attitude.

We thank Supervisor Gary Evans for his twenty years of service on the Colusa County Board of Supervisors and commitment to the citizens of Colusa County. We wish him all the best in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, California Democrats are at it again, doubling down on their radical green agenda and threatening personal freedom.

A State-funded study has suggested a ban now on gas-powered classic cars from public roads, claiming they are too harmful to the environment. We are talking about parade cars. We are talking about hobby cars. We are talking about the stuff people enjoy. We are talking about the stuff politicians like to ride in parades in when they are running for reelection.

Let's be clear, classic cars are a lot more than just vehicles. They are pieces of our history, symbols of culture, and a source of pride for countless Californians.

It doesn't stop there. These same people trying to do these bans, these green policies, could hike gas prices by as much as 85 cents, 90 cents a gallon. They want to force you into an electric vehicle while our power grid can't even handle a summer heat wave.

Meanwhile, the elites pushing these bans are still flying private jets off to meet-ups overseas and cruising on their big yachts, which spew far more emissions than they want to outlaw.

It is not about saving the planet. It is about control. We need to call out this hypocrisy and stand up for the freedoms of individuals, for their automobiles, for what have you.

I can speak for a lot of them, knowing that you will pry my 1968 Mustang gearshift out of my cold, dead fingers.

Mr. Speaker, this being Rural Healthcare Month, I will point out how critical it is that we pay attention to rural healthcare issues, such as in my district and so many around this country.

You have the challenges of rural residents living pretty far from sophisticated healthcare systems, good-sized hospitals, et cetera, so the local clinics are pretty critical. Also important is the continued expansion of telehealth, with more broadband reaching into rural areas, to make it so that local clinics can get images, get x-rays, other methods of getting information, and send them off to the urban centers that can analyze those tests and see what really needs to be done before maybe something more extreme such as transporting a patient a long way to a hospital or even in some cases where they send a helicopter to move them around.

We face these issues in northern California and so many places across the country that are rural. Such things as teaching health centers help keep people on site. They can learn as well as serve. I appreciate those objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would echo, too, following Buddy Carter, that we did an outing over the weekend down along the Georgia and Florida area. As a Californian, we have our own disasters typically, but it is very devastating.

We talked to a lot of farmers, ranchers, and timber people there. Immediate help is needed for them. They will be gone if something isn't done. They will be out of business, and the next generations won't have that option. We will miss that giant hole in the economy in that area and that food supply chain, as well as the lumber.

Something must be done immediately in whatever package that comes out of here.

I did want to speak about energy and energy policy a little bit. We have suffered as a nation these last 3\1/2\ years because we haven't really had a coherent energy policy.

A lot of things go hand in hand with a strong economy, with energy and some of the byproducts it takes to put into it. We have to have the wherewithal with our natural resources to produce energy, the inputs that are required, and the equipment.

That means mining, and that means hydroelectric power. We have to be able to build water storage to make electricity.

People right now are suffering from inflation, and it keeps ramping up. Two of the main drivers we have seen from this streak of inflation the last 3-plus years have been driven by the cost of energy and profligate spending by this government above and beyond what we should have been doing.

I know we had to go through that COVID period, and it was tough, but the spending within that and also on top of that was the so-called infrastructure bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, they call it, and other angles. It is just pathetic. It hasn't been focused.

The true infrastructure we need is water storage. The true infrastructure we need is enhancing our transportation, whether it is our ports, highways, or trains, what have you. Instead, we get more mandates.

As a Californian, the mandates come down the pike from CARB, as it is known, the California Air Resources Board, and it is emulated by about six other States. Even EPA looks at how California does it, trying to foist that on the whole country to force requirements for, for example, locomotives that don't even exist yet. It is the equivalent of what would be called tier 5, as we haven't really perfected the tier 4 locomotive yet as far as cleanliness.

The diesel engines we produce these days are so much cleaner than anything just 20 years ago or much longer

than that. If we allowed trucks and trains to be replaced by attrition over time with the clean technology, we would see dramatic gains.

If we achieved 99 percent in cleanliness from, say, 1950 or 1960 to now, that last 1 percent is the one that is acutely hard to achieve and hyper-expensive to get that last 1 percent, but the regulators are hell-bent all the time on trying to get that last 1 percent.

Why can't we move toward having everything hit that first level at 99, whether it is clean engines or what have you, on that, and achieve that goal and see where we are?

That is because the more we export our industry and the more we export agriculture to other countries, they do it much, much dirtier, if you want to put it that way, than us. Coal, for example, used to be a cornerstone of our energy grid in this country. It is dissipating, yet China builds more coal power plants every month, and they don't really care about environmental stuff like we do.

We are looking for reasonable environmental regulations, and sometimes it goes too far. They don't care.

Remember when they had the Olympics? They shut down the country for about 2 or 3 weeks beforehand so the air would clean up enough and it would look good on TV and the athletes wouldn't choke to death, but then right back to business as usual afterwards.

A coherent energy policy means, yes, we need to be extracting oil and gas from the lands we have, whether private or Federal, and it can be done ecologically soundly. We don't have to be scared to death.

The ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, is the size of South Carolina. It is massive. The area where they want to do the extraction is a tiny postage-stamp size compared to that. Yet, we are going to ruin the whole thing, so it is disingenuous.

Energy policy will help bring things back in line costwise. Coupled with restraint on government spending, that is how we can solve a whole bunch of the inflation problems for regular Americans who are struggling.

Look to a better energy policy, whether it is oil and gas, whether it is not tearing out our hydroelectric power--there are aspirations to tear out dams all the time these days--or building more nuclear power plants. Small modular reactors are really going to be the way to go.

Guess what? With hydro plants, no CO2; with nuclear plants, no CO2. If you are worried about CO2, those are good ways to not have it.

Instead, for example, in the San Joaquin Valley in California, where they are taking away so much of the water and the land values are deteriorating rapidly because they are covered up with what they are calling solar farms. There are acres and acres and acres of these plastic panels out there that will have maybe a 20-year or 25-year life, at best. Maybe you should call it a half-life like nuclear. Then they all have to be disposed of.

Agriculture has been displaced. The best breadbasket in this country has been displaced by having a noncoherent energy policy, but whatever feels good.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to solve these problems for American consumers, middle-income and lower-income American families, these are what we need to attack.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, recently Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has been raising concerns that a lot of people have been thinking about for a while, about what is in our food, including yellow dye No. 6, or its chemical name, Acid Yellow 23, commonly found in many snack products and things like popcorn.

This synthetic dye has been linked to allergic reactions such as hives and asthma and may contribute to behavioral issues like hyperactivity in children. It has also been criticized for potential long-term health risks, including anxiety, learning difficulties, and even possibly cancer risks when consumed in large amounts over time.

Despite being FDA approved, there are growing concerns over the safety of artificial dyes, prompting some companies to remove them from their products. I notice also that in Europe a lot of these products aren't in their foods, but they are somehow for some reason in the United States' forms of it.

Coal tar byproducts, like tartrazine, are found not only in food, but also personal care products like toothpaste, shampoo, and lotions. These synthetic

dyes can cause allergic reactions, skin rashes, headaches, and asthma, and have been linked to behavioral issues in children as well.

It is time we demand more transparency from manufacturers as well as the FDA in checking more closely about them and push for safer, better alternatives or maybe just leave them out. Maybe we don't have to have a perfectly colored potato chip. Instead, let's let it be a little more what it is. Let's support companies that prioritize health and choose products free of harmful synthetic dyes. Our health is worth it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the continued deception that keeps being fostered by government and by those who would tax us, by those environmental groups that want to corral us into their idea of where we should live and what their utopia is.

That keeps coming back to the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that some believe actually is the greatest existential threat to the U.S. and to mankind. I have to continue to point out to folks that hear this and are scared into it, that the government does a good job and the media does a good job of scaring people into things like a good percentage of the COVID situation and then climate.

So what are we talking about here?

Here is my handy chart. When I ask people, what percent of the atmosphere is CO2--you hear all this hype--I even ask it in committee hearings where we have expert panelists coming in to tell us about how they think we should shift our vehicles, even trucks and trains, to all electric, things like that--experts. They already know the number.

It makes me wonder: What is the baseline we are working from?

What are the goals going to be?

If you don't even know what the baseline is, how the heck do you set a goal?

Here in yellow--again, when I ask people, they think, wow, it must be somewhere between 20, 50, 70 percent, right? No. No.

It is here on the chart. We show that the yellow portion is nitrogen in the atmosphere, 78 percent. That is nitrogen gas.

Number two, oxygen, is 21 percent. Well, that is 99 percent right there.

Okay. Third place is argon gas, right there in that skinny sliver of green; that is 0.93 percent. Then you finally come in amongst trace gases here and here, the remaining portion of 0.07 percent. CO2 is contained in that. The number is 0.04 percent of the atmosphere is CO2.

It is not this existential threat as pronounced by those who want to regulate you and control you; control where you go, how you drive, even so far as to what you eat.

They are banning cattle, banning beef. There are actually less beef and dairy cattle in North America than there were buffalo before the European intervention happened 300 or 400 years ago. There are a lot of misnomers that are put out, just flat out lies and deceit about this in order for the government to control things.

So given the small fraction, they are trying to attribute major climate shifts to CO2 which is really disproportionate and deceptive. Beyond current levels, additional CO2 has a negligible impact on global temperatures.

Water vapor is the primary so-called greenhouse gas accounting for most of whatever greenhouse effect we do have. Its immediate and powerful feedback effects overshadow CO2's influence on whatever level of warming we may be having.

Earth's history shows significantly higher CO2 levels back then, even going as far back as the Jurassic period without catastrophic warming. Ecosystems flourished with abundant plant and animal life. Climate models often overemphasize CO2's role while ignoring key natural drivers like solar activity, ocean currents, and other factors.

The medieval warm period occurred without significant human CO2 emissions from the Industrial Age that everybody seems to criticize from that side of the aisle, which highlights a natural variability in our climate.

CO2 is vital for photosynthesis, which is the process of plants growing and producing, the process through which plants convert sunlight into energy, releasing oxygen as a byproduct. This process also occurs when growing the food that we consume. Without CO2, without carbon--we are all carbon-based--without it, life on Earth would actually not exist.

Let's say we are really too good at reducing the number, that level of carbon dioxide from 0.04 percent to somewhere around 0.02 percent, then plant life starts dying off. Now, I don't think we could be that good at reducing CO2 and getting it down to that level and maybe the sanity would prevail, we would stop producing it at that point, but that is what we are talking about.

Plant growth is actually boosted by CO2. You have seen hothouses, greenhouses, et cetera. They introduce extra CO2 and will speed plant growth so we can get more crops or better, stronger plants.

Satellite imagery shows that the increased CO2 has contributed to a greening of the planet, with vegetation cover expanding in many regions.

We all like green, right? Forests and grasslands, which rely on CO2, play a crucial role in supporting biodiversity and absorbing other environmental pollutants that may occur.

Elevated CO2 levels in controlled ag environments, such as greenhouses, as I mentioned, are intentionally increased in those greenhouses to enhance our productivity. Yet, it seems CARB in California and the EPA want to take away our vehicles, take away our lawnmowers, take away our leaf blowers, and make us all fit in some narrative.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks National Apprenticeship Week. I recognize the dedicated apprentices and those who are training them in my district of northern California, especially.

Apprentices are a crucial way to good-paying jobs that don't require a 4-year degree, allowing folks to earn while they learn.

My district is home to the Quanta Services Northwest Lineman College, where over 750 apprentices were trained last year alone.

One in five students there happens to be a veteran, which speaks to the strong commitment to the service they have in our region and others.

When hurricanes and wildfire and other disasters hit, linemen are often the first responders working around the clock to get power back on for homes and businesses, under very unfavorable conditions, such as in one case we had a very deep ice storm that knocked out power.

Many of these linemen start out as apprentices in places like the one in our northern California district. The work they do is essential for building and maintaining the strong, resilient energy grid we have and hope to have, as well as broadband networks that keep our country moving forward and strong.

It is important we continue supporting this kind of workforce development to meet the challenges of our supply chain and security. I am grateful for people like these folks at the college that value the skills these apprentices bring to the table.

Madam Speaker, California has had this boondoggle since 2008 known as high-speed rail. Now it might work good in other places-- Europe, Japan, places like that. Given California's topography and the nature of the people there, they are not going to use it.

Then what do we have? What was approved back in 2008 by the voters was a project costing $33 billion, of which $9 billion would be done by bonds, and the rest would come from the private sector. The private sector stayed away in droves because it is a big money loser.

They have instead had to go to other methods of getting funding including cap and trade, which is taxing people basically on fuel. As you see, California fuel prices are going up more and more, a buck and a half a gallon, maybe two bucks a gallon by the time the next round of taxation hits drivers in California.

They still have ideas about coming back and getting more Federal money. In the so-called stimulus act of 2009,

they got about $3 billion out of that. They want to come back for another $3 billion on top of the $3 billion they already got out of the so-called Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

So this thing continues to be a rathole for money. We should not send any more Federal dollars there. We should not send any more State dollars or cap and trade or automobile driver dollars towards it because it isn't going to work.

Instead, let people invest in their highways and their airports, something that people actually use and can afford.

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss for a moment a recent report of a FEMA supervisor--and maybe there is more than one-- instructing workers to skip over certain homes with particular political signs or affiliations at their house. It really shouldn't matter what your political affiliation may be, but the idea of skipping over certain homes in a hurricane-ravaged zone or any other disaster is pretty offensive.

What we are hearing is that at least 20 people in this example in Florida--20 different homes--missed out on critical aid they should have gotten just the same as anybody else.

We know FEMA's mission is to assist any American that has been in a declared disaster area and help them through that difficult time regardless of any political affiliation or any other type of affiliation.

Under the Biden administration, the agency's priorities, at least with some staff, have shifted away from disaster preparedness and instead has shifted toward political discrimination.

We need to focus FEMA once again--and they have done a lot of good work on a lot of things, but if this is happening under an organization, not only should resignations or firings happen, but those that do such a thing should be prosecuted for this kind of discrimination. That needs to happen because people need to have confidence that FEMA is doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, what do we know about copper? It is extremely important to move forward with any of the technology that Americans are going to require, or certainly what government is likely to require, on electric vehicles and electrification of everything.

At a time when the demand for copper is going to skyrocket to be exponentially more, the U.S. is actually producing less copper than it has been.

If my colleagues want to talk about a process of trying to get more copper on line in this country, if it takes over two decades to get a mine from an idea to operating and to get through the permit process, certainly it is not like China or someone else is going to come in and just run roughshod over people to get the permit process done because it is hard to get a copper mine open in this country.

If that can't get done, then how in the heck are we going to meet any of these standards for electrification or CO2 reduction by 2045 or 2050 if it takes over two decades? We have already missed the target on just producing the copper if it takes that long to open a copper mine.

Simply harmonizing two lists--we are not even talking about the same bill--between DOI and DOE, it is crazy.

Mr. Speaker, to harmonize these two lists on whether copper is important or not between DOI and DOE, it is silly. We are not even talking about the same thing here. This is a simple bill to at least get the copper into the conversation so we can meet these extreme environmental goals people seem to want in California and on the other side of the aisle. It is crazy to not at least harmonize that and have a better conversation about how to produce copper in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about energy yesterday and the prices going up in California due to a CARB rule raising prices by 47 to 65 cents per gallon, as projected.

So now what happens? The Biden administration decides to do the same thing through the EPA. Through what is called the waste emissions charge rule, EPA will raise prices on fuel for all Americans if this rule is allowed to stand.

Did they not learn anything from last Tuesday when the people across the country said we are tired of the high prices and inflation--energy is a big driver of inflation--along with profligate spending in this place?

Do they not get that people are already overburdened by the high price of energy, whether it is going directly in their car or truck fuel tank, to the cost of delivering anything, to the cost of growing crops, or to the cost of mining minerals?

All those things are related to the cost of energy, yet the EPA blindly is pushing forward, not listening to the people, not listening to the results of an election, but making even more rules that drive up the costs.

The Biden anti-energy agenda will soon end, but how much destruction will there be in the next 2 months? We have to stop this rule.

We have to stop EPA from running amok and doing things to basically chase this ghost of CO2. Carbon dioxide is only 0.04 percent of our atmosphere. This is not a big climate change deal. It is basically a political science drill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the agriculture impacts and public service career of Sutter County Supervisor Mat Conant.

Mat is deeply rooted in California as a fifth generation California farmer, including three generations of farming in Sutter County dating back to the 1920's. Mat is a lifelong resident of Rio Oso where his family farms.

Mat's early education was in Sutter and Yuba County where he proudly attended East Nicolaus High School and Yuba College. Mat would further his education at California Polytechnic State University (CalPoly) in San Luis Obispo earning a Bachelor's Degree. Mat also joined the California Agriculture Leadership Program furthering his interest and advocacy for the agriculture industry.

Mat is a 21-year veteran of the East Nicolaus Fire Department, where he served in many different capacities during his tenure working to keep Sutter County firesafe. He is a Eucharistic Minister of the Catholic Church and an over 30-year member of the Knights of Columbus.

Mat has served as a board member for the California Farm Bureau, Yuba-Sutter Farm Bureau, South Sutter Water District, East Nicolaus High School, Brown's Elementary School Board, South Sutter Little League, and as a Committee Member on the Diamond Walnut Advisory Committee.

Mat with his wife, Lorene, have two sons one of which works with Mat and continues the strong Conant family legacy of farming in Northern California.

We thank Supervisor Mat Conant for his many years of service and advocacy for the agriculture industry while on the Sutter County Board of Supervisors. We wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, once again, California Governor Gavin Newsom is prioritizing political theater over solving California's real issues.

While he is busy here in Washington touting his so-called Trump- proofing efforts, Californians are struggling under the weight of his failed policies.

He claims his latest moves on guns, climate, housing, and healthcare are about protecting Californians, but let's get real. Newsom's high- cost rail project, the high-speed train, is costing four times what it originally was projected. It is over budget and many years behind schedule. He is pushing for more taxpayer funding for that.

The California Air Resources Board, known as CARB, is coming down with even more rules that are driving the cost of fuel.

California is already about $1 per gallon higher than the rest of the country, maybe even $1.50. They just added rules the other day that will raise it anywhere from 47 cents to 65 cents per gallon or even more because of some climate change rule.

Are they tone-deaf to what just happened?

Not to electioneer here, but the people of this country spoke loudly that they are tired of unnecessary pain being inflicted upon them by governments. The State of California is stepping up to do that even more so, and they want the Federal Government to help them with EPA and more waivers to do this kind of stuff that will hurt families and hurt industry.

Mr. Speaker, I frequently make speeches trying to have the American people know and understand just what we face, especially in our Western States. Every fire season it is pretty much the same thing.

As you see depicted here, Mr. Speaker, this is just one of many fires we would have in California or Idaho or Oregon or Arizona or Montana. In many of our Western States, this is just a microcosm of what we see each year.

Mr. Speaker, you see these smoke plumes. Not only does it affect the West, but when you get a really, really large fire in the six digits or one in my district 3 years ago known as the Dixie fire which ended up being just under 1 million acres, that smoke plume actually got up into the jet stream and affected the East Coast where there were low health days declared in places like New York City, Philadelphia, and even in