Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Tehama County Farm Bureau in my district on their 100th annual meeting. This on the heels of their centennial of being in business in Tehama County.

They are headquartered in Red Bluff, California. They have been an organization very dedicated, obviously, to farming, ranching, and agriculture in all its forms in Tehama County and its neighboring counties as partners as well.

Just last month, it was actually recognized as the Midsize Farm Bureau of the Year, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation Annual Meeting.

The Farm Bureau is very important and very involved in the fiber of rural communities with ag production, farming, ranching, hay, and all those operations that make what agriculture needs go round, as well as the activities at the fair with the kids, and with their future. The Farm Bureau, indeed, is an important part of the future of agriculture and feeding people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, again, I congratulate Tehama County Farm Bureau's membership, board, and leadership for hanging in there and serving that group of people for 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. But it isn't just a day for all of us; it should be every day. They are on the front lines protecting our families, our lives, our homes, and our values. We need to keep that in mind: to appreciate them every day.

When you see them in the community, they are not someone to be afraid of. They are our neighbors. They are doing the same things we are: raising their kids, sending their kids to school, going to the park, and enjoying life, just as we do.

With all of the misunderstanding about law enforcement these days, it is really disheartening to see what some of our law enforcement officers have to put up with in order to do a job to protect all of us.

Each year, we lose many officers. At least 125 were lost in the line of duty last year, including eight in my home State of California.

I want to tell them that we do appreciate them: from the California Highway Patrol that keeps an eye on our offices, the Capitol Hill Police here, our city police, our county sheriffs, all of them. We do appreciate them because we know they are on the front line and they are just like us. We want to honor them constantly for stepping forward to do a very difficult task that is sometimes misunderstood and unappreciated. The vast majority of us Americans and northern Californians do appreciate them. God bless them all and may they be safe.

Mr. Speaker, today there is an estimated 11 million Americans working for small businesses who lack employer-sponsored health insurance.

The reality is that families across the country are struggling to afford coverage; they are priced out of plans and left with few options.

Last week, President Trump's Department of Labor proposed a rule to help these 11 million Americans, a move deserving of ample support.

The rule would enhance the market leverage of small groups, as well as individuals, by giving associations a meaningful role on the same playing field large corporations enjoy.

For example, a farmer will be able to buy insurance through the national Farm Bureau plan, or a restaurant manager could let his employees buy insurance through the National Restaurant Association.

Association plans are able to reduce costs by sharing risks in a larger pool, allowing flexibility to design plans to meet workers' needs, increasing negotiating power to lower prices with providers or drug prices.

It is not a complete fix for ObamaCare, but it is certainly a big leap in the right direction, allowing workers that are in small businesses to have more choices, better than what they have now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in light of the passage of once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation tax relief for millions of middle-income families, including the vast majority in my district.

Some, however, are not satisfied with cutting taxes for every income level and are unnerved at the thought of seeing more money in their own monthly paycheck.

I am here to tell those people today that there is a very simple solution to their problem.

As you can see here--outlined on page 92 of the IRS handbook, those individuals who feel right now that they are undertaxed and want to pay more of their income to the U.S. Government can do exactly that. When filing their income tax return, one can simply include a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

The best part is they can help pay down the debt without raising taxes on everyone else--America's hardworking families who deserve a tax break.

So just a reminder, no one is stopping those who are feeling undertaxed from paying as much additional money to the government that they would like. I am sure Uncle Sam would appreciate the Christmas present.

So don't complain about what your neighbor is paying. If you are feeling guilty about it, when you have the opportunity, feel free. Send it in.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of one of my constituents who has been severely impacted by the rising costs under the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Watts, from Chico, California, was recently notified by his insurer that his health coverage will shut down at the end of the year. In its place, he was offered another plan that ``may meet his needs'' and that he will be automatically enrolled. That is right. They just sign him up for one.

The problem is, this plan, which covers an adult and two teens, sees his monthly premium skyrocket to $2,067 per month, an increase of $831. That is a huge increase, 67 percent, costing him upwards of $9,900 per year in new costs, bringing his total costs for health insurance to nearly $25,000 per year.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Watts is no longer able to afford his insurance, and many in Northern California and across the country currently find themselves in the same position.

Sadly, my office staff and I have heard this story countless times. Many in my district were pretty happy with their insurance before ObamaCare, and now, under the individual mandate, they are forced to pay for insurance they can't afford.

But with the repeal of the individual mandate, as in H.R. 1, which passed today, individuals like Mr. Watts are not punished for failing to purchase unaffordable insurance. Instead, we will seek to allow affordable choices for Americans to choose themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to offer a hearty congratulations to the Shasta High School Wolves of Redding, California, for their football championship this year. They won the north section. They won the Northern California Championship and made their first ever visit to the California State Championship, where they played down in southern California over the weekend.

Though they came up a little bit short, they did have an early lead in that game after all that travel. So, indeed, congratulations to that program at Shasta High School and to the Wolves of Redding, California.

It is teamwork that really makes this happen, and that is exemplified by the north State's leading rusher, Vince Smith, when he was quoted: ``The thing that was different about this season was that we actually really cared about each other and we were family. Every play, we'd use our hearts and fight for each other.''

That is teamwork. That is the spirit. Congratulations, Shasta High School Wolves.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to commemorate Bill of Rights Day. Initially, this was passed by Congress in August of 1941 as a joint resolution, signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt on November 27, 1941, where, in his words: ``I . . . do hereby designate December 15, 1941, as Bill of Rights Day. And I call upon the officials of the government, and upon the people of the United States, to observe the day by displaying the flag of the United States on public buildings and by meeting together for such prayers and such ceremonies as may seem to them appropriate.''

The Bill of Rights was first introduced by James Madison, who later became the fourth President. Initially, 12 amendments were proposed. Two were not ratified. One did become ratified later on in compensation of Congress in 1992.

There were 14 original copies produced of the Bill of Rights at the time,

one for each of the 13 States and one for the National Archives. Twelve of them survive today.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed that proclamation on December 15, 1941, he had no way of knowing what was coming. Just 9 days later, those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them. They come in time to take these rights for granted and to assume their protection is assured. We, however, have seen these privileges lost in other continents and other countries.

Indeed, prescient words for the time.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that there was 25 percent more tree death this past spring and summer after near record precipitation last winter.

We are seeing the beetle kill and the tree die-off at amazing rates. You can see the forests that are devastated in the West each year. They aren't necessarily all forested areas, but you see what the effects look like in communities on the east side of the State and in the north.

The devastation must end. We must manage our forests. We have, again, the beetle kill. We have trees dying off. There are billions of board feet of trees dying off that are assets of the American people. We should have our forests managed so they are sustainable, healthy, and good for the wildlife.

We need action taken by the USDA and the U.S. Forest Service. We are meeting with those folks to try to get a new direction. Under the previous administration, we got a lot of talk and a lot of smoke. We need action that is going to be positive so that the West doesn't have to burn every year, leaving negative effects to air quality and the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the issue of FCC Chairman Pai's Restoring Internet Freedom Order.

The narrative out there is that this decision by the FCC will destroy the internet as we know it. I am here to say that simply is not true. The internet was free and open before the Obama administration implemented heavy-handed regulations in 2015, and it will continue to be free and open after these confusing regulations are repealed.

Chairman Pai's plan would simply roll back these regulations that stifle innovation and broadband investment. There are over 4,000 internet providers in this Nation. Do we want more to join or not?

From 1996 to 2015, a light-touch regulatory approach to the internet preserved the free market and private investment soared to the tune of $1.5 trillion. This created the communications

infrastructure we have in the United States today and opened the door for entrepreneurs to make America's internet economy the best in the world, not by using 1934 regulations that probably regulated telegraphs.

This decision will not take away anyone's privacy or hinder their access to the internet. Instead, it will stop the confusion between two governing bodies: the FCC trying to get in on the action of the Federal Trade Commission, which has always governed internet privacy.

This levels the playing field and keeps competition, instead of the censorship we are seeing on the internet by very few providers. I think this opens the door back up for these wrong-headed regulations of 2015, and gives us all more choices.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Taylor Force Act, offered by my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn). This bill is named after Taylor Force, who was killed in Tel Aviv last year by a Palestinian terrorist wielding a knife.

As part of the Palestinian Authority's ``pay-to-slay'' policy in which families of terrorists are rewarded for murdering Americans and Israelis, relatives of Force's killer now receive a $400 monthly stipend. The average monthly income for Palestinians in the West Bank is only $150. This policy doubles, or even triples, a family's earnings overnight.

This policy directly encourages terrorism and incentivizes the murder of Americans and our allies. Payments to families of terrorists have reached $355 million in 2017. The Taylor Force Act ceases any continued U.S. aid to Palestinian interests until these so-called martyr payments are permanently ceased.

The U.S. currently sends $300 million in aid to Palestinian interests. We shouldn't send a penny more until this heinous policy is abolished for good.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of negative about the tax reform bill that is moving through. Gladly, tonight, we have moved to conference committee, where we can continue the process and the conversation. We can now take more and more opinions people have on how to make the bill better. It has been getting better as we go.

In my own district, the First District of California, when all is said and done, this will simplify the Tax Code for more and more tax filers. Already, 70 percent of taxpayers do not use the method of trying to itemize every single item. Instead, they use the standard deduction. That will save time in tax preparation, netting them a better tax situation for their families.

I see a direct guaranteed tax cut for most people in rural California, rural America, and those who earn $100,000 or less. That is the middle-income folks we are targeting and who we need to help. That is what this bill will do. It will also create more jobs by the job creators in this country.

This is a good step and a good direction for America's taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, as a Californian who lives in a very rural part of the State that is economically in huge pain, when I see an opportunity for people in rural America to prosper, to do well, I see, in H.R. 3905, again, this opportunity for the people in Minnesota.

The MINER Act, introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), will put it on the right track toward being able to extract the minerals that are needed for production of taking raw materials and making them into finished products here in the United States.

This bill addresses a 230,000-acre mineral withdrawal from Superior National Forest in Minnesota, which, really, it is about jobs and economic growth, while also maintaining clear standards for all projects across the Nation.

Indeed, this is a very narrow bill. It explores the possibilities, which is only a small step. Indeed, if mining was to occur, there is a litany of permits, years of process required to take that following step.

Indeed, the arbitrary decision, the day before President Obama left office, halted a $400 million project, jeopardized 17,000 American jobs, cut $3 billion from K-12 schools, and slashed $2.5 billion annually from local governments and the State.

These types of effects I feel in my own district where our industries have been taken away. Any time there is a proposal to do anything like that, whether it is timber harvest, mining, or whatever, you then hear about how the whole zone is pristine and unique, never been touched. These operations can happen environmentally correctly, environmentally soundly, and that is the standard for which we have in this country, is that we will do things correctly now, and we will put them back when we are done.

Though a 20-year moratorium was imposed on the area, similar plans for mining have previously been approved by Congress twice. Mining operations across the country already commit to a strict environmental review process to ensure the public safety and the protection of natural resources, as we all expect. You mine an area under the strict guidelines, and you reclaim it.

In most cases, mining companies must also put up bonds to pay for cleanup, sometimes for billions of dollars before a single shovel is ever turned. In this case, we are talking about exploration of the area to see what the potential is.

This bill does not overturn existing Federal, State, or local environmental reviews. Instead, it ensures all projects are held to clear, consistent requirements, not arbitrary political decisions. Allowing politicians to prohibit one project or another, based solely on a whim, goes against American ideals of fairness and equal opportunity.

These minerals are essential to our economy. To those claiming that mining will damage the environment, I would ask you this: Where would you prefer that these minerals come from? Do you want the mining to occur here in America, under these kinds of strict guidelines, bring American jobs to the front; or do we want to do it elsewhere in the world, places like China and others that have little respect for the environmental process or review or operations that are sustainable?

I think we should have it here. Where would you have us get our minerals? Where would you have us get the rare earth materials that are needed for production of new technologies?

H.R. 3905 protects Minnesota's economy, schools, and State budget; it protects the rule of law; and it protects the domestic access to these important materials and minerals we need to have our economy get stronger--a very narrow scope; it is sound legislation and sound policy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to highlight the rising severity of illegal marijuana grows on Federal lands.

In 2016, the DEA Cannabis Eradication Program found a 60 percent increase in the amount of assets seized from marijuana raids compared to just the previous year.

The same year, the Forest Service eradicated nearly $1.5 million worth of marijuana plants from over 240 sites on National Forest System in the Pacific area alone.

Local sheriffs from my district have expressed to me their great concern for public safety, environmental destruction, a lot of time which farmers end up getting blamed for for water quality and the chemicals and stuff that get left behind, not the farmers' fault, but indeed these illegal grows, and even human trafficking gets caught up in all this.

What is currently being done to address the amount of marijuana grows on our public lands? Not nearly enough. People feel endangered by going out into their public lands, whether it is adjacent private property owners or what have you.

Timber harvest needs to be done, forest thinning needs to be done, taking care of the environmental needs for our wildlife, all that, and it can't happen due to these illegal grows and the danger they bring. They should be able to enjoy them, and we should be able to stop this illegal practice. We need many more assets poured into our Western forest lands to eradicate this illegal grow.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very pleased to speak on this bill here tonight. I am so proud of the effort to work in a bipartisan nature with my colleague and friend, the ranking member, Mrs. Torres, as well as all the members of the committee. We have had such overwhelming support to move this bill along.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is a culmination of a lot of strong, bipartisan effort here in the committee as well as the community itself, which sought consensus during the several years that I have been involved with this legislation and now as chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs. We have seen the local consensus that has been built with the local government, the Tribe, and my colleagues on the committee.

With the inclusion of language referencing the local agreement, the bill is supported by the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians; the County of Santa Barbara; and the region's representative, my colleague, Representative Salud Carbajal, and was reported out of the House Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent on September 17, 2017.

Located in Santa Barbara County for thousands of years, as was pointed out by my colleagues, the recorded history of the Chumash reaches back to the earliest arrival of Europeans in California, when Spanish explorer Cabrillo recorded his encounters with the Chumash in 1542. They had a long and unbroken connection to the Camp 4 parcel, which is located very close to their current reservation.

In the early 1800s, the Chumash became wards of the Spanish mission in Santa Ynez, which included Camp 4, and later, the Mexican Governor granted lands to Chumash members, which also included Camp 4. The commission created by the Mission Relief Act of 1891 recognized that the Tribe continued to reside in the Santa Ynez and Camp 4 area, though only 99 acres were ultimately taken into trust for the Chumash at the time, which is a fairly common problem for many Tribes.

With the various things that have happened to them, such as derecognition and decertification over the years, tribes end up on very small, narrow parcels of land that make it very difficult for them to grow and prosper. So today, partly because of that, the Chumash face a significant housing crisis, as was pointed out, and fewer than 17 percent of their members and descendants are able to reside on

the Tribe's existing reservation, which consists largely of hillsides, wetlands, and streambeds unsuitable for housing.

To address the housing shortage, the Chumash used their own resources to purchase the Camp 4 parcel, with the intent of constructing homes for their members. They applied to take Camp 4 into trust administratively, and after conducting a thorough public process, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a decision in December of 2014.

The Department of the Interior then completed the fee- to-trust process in January of 2017. Indeed, this is ongoing.

On October 31, the county ratified an agreement with the Chumash, ensuring that any impacts of Camp 4 housing on local infrastructure and other resources would be addressed, and the Department of the Interior approved this agreement on the same day.

In order to enable the Chumash to address their housing crisis and ensure any impacts to local governments are addressed, H.R. 1491 takes the following actions:

It affirms and ratifies the action of the Department of the Interior to take the Camp 4 parcel into trust on January 19, 2017.

It codifies references to the Chumash-county agreement ratified by Santa Barbara County on October 31, 2017, addressing impacts to local infrastructure and services.

By request of the Chumash, it prohibits the operation of gaming facilities on the Camp 4 parcel.

It protects and respects rights-of-way also held by local stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents, again, the culmination of years of effort on the part of the Chumash, the county, the committee, and Congress to ensure that the concerns of all stakeholders were addressed fairly through a local process and reaching a consensus with the Tribe and the county that we sought from the beginning. Indeed, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs, I believe this agreement is the outcome of good faith negotiations by all parties and should be considered a model for maintaining positive working relationships between tribal and local governments.

I urge all Members to support this bipartisan, noncontroversial measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Korean war veteran Jack Tolbert, who passed away this month at the age of 94.

He was a long-time resident of Redding, California, for over 50 years, and was originally a Texas native. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his heroism in Korea.

In 1953, his outpost came under attack. A Chinese soldier hurled a grenade into Sergeant Tolbert's bunker. In an incredible moment of selfless bravery, Jack hurled himself on the grenade to shield his fellow soldiers from the explosion and injury or even death. Jack lost both his legs, among numerous other injuries.

Though he would never admit it himself, Jack truly was a hero for having protected his brothers in arms. I knew him personally. It was always a joy to see Jack at events in the Redding area. He was always full of joy. He had a joke and slap on the back. He never let his condition get him down. He was always one of the most positive people in the room and a joy to be around.

We will miss Jack dearly, but we are all blessed to have him in our lives, whether it was his service in Korea or his time as our neighbor in Shasta County.

God bless him and his family.