Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, thank you to my colleague from Washington, Mr. Reichert, for this opportunity and, really, privilege to be able to speak about those in law enforcement that are really on duty for us every day and being able to support and show my gratitude for them across our country because we know that they are there daily to keep us safe and secure in our communities.

They have an incredibly important role and a vital responsibility to uphold our rule of law, which is the core of our Constitution and ensures everyone is accountable under the law. Everyone needs to be accountable under the law. That is a huge responsibility.

It is up to us, whether it is in Congress or at the State legislative level or local government, to make sure that they have the tools that they need to do their job. In the time of budget cuts and other constraints put on them, their job gets that much harder; indeed, sometimes, they feel handcuffed in their ability to do their work.

When you speak to the officers sometimes--they always have an air of professionalism about them, but when you

really get down to it, sometimes, they don't feel very appreciated and that they don't have the tools to do what they need because of things sometimes the government does or frivolous lawsuits, for example.

We even sometimes see our elected officials participating in vilifying our people in law enforcement. That is really, really irresponsible because we are all in this together, us as lawmakers and those in the executive branch down to our beat officer that has that responsibility. We are supposed to work together in upholding the law and making sure they have the tools, as well as providing oversight.

We want to make sure everybody is behaving the way they should, but as we see so hyped lately with a tiny, tiny minority of incidents out there compared to the contacts--I heard a statistic the other day, much less than 1 percent of contacts that officers have with the public results in any kind of physical action needed, much less than 1 percent; yet you would think, from all the hype, from all the media, it was a much higher number than that.

The vast majority of it is an officer helping you out. You have brushes with the law here and there, but they are very professional in what they do. What you really need to do is step into their shoes for a minute, think about where they have come from to get where they are.

They had to have a very clean record to get through background to be accepted into academy and be accepted into whatever force that they are working in. It is a high bar. You can't have a bad record in your background. They have chosen to come forward and put themselves at risk.

Look what they go through each day in their jobs if they have made it through academy and were brought on to a force. If they are called into a situation, they don't really have the option of saying: No, I am not going to go.

If someone has called from a home, they have a domestic problem, what have you, they have got to get to a solution because someone's lives may be at stake inside that home, even though there might be something outside that would make you or I uncomfortable, a mean dog in the yard or some characters hanging around outside that you wouldn't normally want to deal with. They have to get to a solution on that because somebody called them, somebody dialed 911, and we expect that they are going to get to a solution.

Officers have to go into every situation prepared for the worst because it could mean their life, maybe their partner's life, or someone else in a vulnerable situation that has called upon them.

If you think about being in their shoes, we all have a responsibility to make their jobs simpler. It could even help us in not being in a mistaken situation because they have to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

I can certainly feel for them in that they might be a little stressed on every call, every car they might pull over for speeding or a broken taillight or having to answer to someone's household or even a bigger deal like a bank robbery.

They have to be prepared every moment because it is their life or the other lives around them. They have to have the protocol and the training to know how to handle that situation just right.

When you look at that high bar, you look at the amount of stress that they are going through to do that, they do an amazing, remarkable job of getting it right; so we need to give them a little grace, a little room to do their job as best they can.

Then we have a responsibility as regular citizens to make their job easier. If they ask for your driver's license and ID, just give it to them. If they ask you to stay in the car so that they can see where your hands are and stuff--they don't know who else is in that car--make it where they can do their job, and you are going to have a heck of a lot better interaction with them.

Use basic common sense. There are instructions out there how to get along with that. I have even seen comedians out there saying how not to get in trouble with the police.

Pay attention to the common sense on that because we need them more so than ever in a country that is becoming less and less safe, it seems, from outside threats, as well as people within that don't seem to understand the rule of law and sometimes governing officials that don't seem to care about upholding it. We all have the responsibility as citizens.

Those costs have been high because, in the previous year, well over 100 officers have been lost in the line of duty--and that is tragic-- trying to defend us.

I am glad to be able to stand here today with my colleague from Washington to recognize their bravery, their devotion, and for all of us to remember how to make their job a little bit easier.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, today, I am glad to be a Californian who is in favor of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

Indeed, we have heard some interesting debate on this today, deflecting issues like higher pay or building more infrastructure, which we desperately need in California, as well as the water supply, and even entering the word ``child care'' in when we are talking about paying for abortions. Interesting. Even words like ``access.'' Well, abortion has been certainly accessible for 42 years, millions of times.

The central point is, Are the taxpayers going to be compelled to pay for it? Are the American people out there--those 68 percent, in the latest poll--going to be compelled to pay for something?

Jefferson said:

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the

propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and

tyrannical.

People who are pro-life, as well as many that are pro-choice, might agree with the idea that abortion should be available--on the pro- choice side. But many, many disagree, a supermajority. The number of people who disagree with this would override a veto in these two Houses in the Capitol.

Yet what we are finding in my own State of California is an interpretation of ObamaCare--which is one of those job-killing, non- infrastructure building items that is hurting our economy in California and in this country--where we are being compelled, whether you are a church or religious charity, employer or individual, to have included in your insurance plans these provisions paying for abortions.

Where is the freedom in that? Where is the conscientious objection to that? Where is the freedom of expression that I hear a lot from the other side of the aisle--until recent years? Our First Amendment?

This bureaucratic mandate, which includes their opinion on what it would be under ObamaCare, largely done quietly, in the middle of the night, out of the public eye, is now being put on Californians. We need to send the message back that Californians should not be compelled to have to provide this in their coverage.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the President drove right past the Phoenix VA hospital, the facility at the center of the biggest scandal plaguing our Nation's veterans, without taking a second to stop.

Last night in his hour-long speech, the President hardly skimmed the surface in addressing the major challenges our veterans are facing, but he did mention we need to do more to provide our veterans more job opportunities.

We agree. In fact, on this same floor just a few weeks ago, Members of the House passed legislation that would do just that: encourage our employers to hire more of our heroes.

Astonishingly, though, our President failed to even mention one word about the excessive wait times, second-rate care, fraudulent records, destroyed files, and complete incompetence that had been brought to light last year in the VA.

He made no mention on the appeals process or recommendations to improve the lengthy process our veterans face to access the care and treatment they deserve, a topic the House is scheduled to have a hearing on tomorrow.

Fixing the VA is difficult but not impossible. We are here to provide solutions, but we need our leader to be ready to work with us, to be ready to help us so we can finally give our veterans a system that works for them, not against them, in a timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for leading this Special Order today, and also for the comments started out by the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), very heartfelt, that reflect the importance of this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the sanctity of human life and to recognize those who will be in Washington, D.C., tomorrow for the March for Life. I am pleased to join my colleagues and individuals who have traveled from near and far to be in solidarity to protect the rights of the unborn. I applaud those marchers who come here year after year despite snow, rainy conditions, and cold conditions to stand up for such a vital cause. It is their efforts and determination which gives substance and meaning to this year's theme, ``Every Life is a Gift''--and to march for the truth.

As a parent, I wish all parents would understand what the gift is that the Lord has bestowed with one of these young lives upon you. That is part of our mission, to help them understand, to educate. That is part of the mission of the March for Life, to appreciate that these are gifts, even through the hard times. We have struggles in all matters of our lives, and that is an important one we have to get through as well. To understand these blessings that these lives are.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you to convey to these marchers that their voice will be heard and will continue to be heard as we fight for the dignity of human life.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation's Constitution is clear. Congress holds the power of the purse. There are no exceptions. There is no asterisk, and there is no fine print. The Founders designed our government in order to prevent these exact circumstances--a President who ignores the law, refuses to work with Congress and intends to govern unilaterally.

Whatever your views on the President's plan, it is the responsibility of every Member of this House to support this amendment, to maintain our representative government, and to uphold the framework of our Republic.

Our immigration system isn't broken. It is just not being used.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. Speaker, late last year we saw the President knowingly act to ignore Federal immigration law, claiming to grant legal status to millions who entered the country illegally--which looks a lot like amnesty to many Americans--an action done in complete defiance of our Nation's rule of law.

This week the House will act to defund the President's plan. Some have claimed this plan is funded by fees and fines and that Congress can't prevent it. I have one answer for them:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

consequence of appropriations made by law.

These are words straight out of Article I, section 9 of the Constitution. There are no exceptions, no asterisks, and no fine print.

The unilateral attacks on our rule of law and unprecedented power grabs from this President need to end. These measures included in H.R. 240 are important steps in doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will stop the President's executive overreach and defend the will of the American people.

Madam Speaker, today I once again will speak about California's high-speed rail system.

Now, just this last week, they had a symbolic groundbreaking for this system in the context of getting started. California has been, since 2008, anticipating the start of high-speed rail. What do we have instead? Empty promises, a lot of waste, and a lot of money going down the tubes.

What we see is that when the plan was first put in place, the voters of California approved a $33 billion link from Los Angeles to San Francisco. What they are now being given is something that has tripled in price. What they have now been given at this groundbreaking, which is symbolic, what you saw was a mound of dirt with about an 8-foot section of ties and rails on that. That is very symbolic for those doing the groundbreaking, but also for those of us that will be paying for it.

What this high-speed rail system will turn into is several links of rail between north and south California that aren't linked up, that have no way to power them, and no trains will be running on them for several years.

So instead of the $33 billion plan that they saw on the ballot in 2008--which, by the way, it was on the 2006 ballot and, before that, on the 2004 ballot, but those involved knew that they would have, politically, a hard time selling that to people in California--it has ballooned to a $100-billion plan until they revise it again downwards by taking away part of the high-speed system in San Francisco and L.A., where they will instead be using local transit to link to the center section that runs through central California.

That is not even legal under Prop 1A. What Prop 1A spells out is that it has to be a high-speed system that will make it from San Francisco to L.A. or reverse in 2\1/2\ hours at speeds of 220 miles per hour. This promise will not be upheld.

Now, why is this important to a national audience, to Members of Congress, and to people in other States? It is because, after the stimulus package was passed in 2009-2010, some of that Federal money is going to go for the high-speed rail system in California. Indeed, several other States were recipients of those initial grants. After they looked at their own ideas for high-speed rail and saw the costs involved and the infeasibility, they turned that money back into that pot of money. California, of course, stepped forward and said: Hey, give us all of that money. So they have received, at this point, about $3.5 billion that they can spend, dollar for dollar, for the bond money they spend themselves, the State money.

So what that means for Americans is that we know Californians will be back at the Federal well once again trying to get more money for their high-speed plan. What we see is that their down-sized plan will still cost $68 billion. They only have identified $13 billion for the whole system. No private sector money--which is what we were told when the ballot measure passed--has stepped forward to be part of this. The plan is $55 billion short. The Federal Government, so far, has offered about 3\1/2\. Did they think they would get the other 52 from the Federal Government since no private sector money wants to come forward for this? Will they get it out of the California taxpayers? Nobody knows.

Indeed, the Governor, at the groundbreaking the other day, said: Don't worry about the money; we will get it. Well, part of their measure has been to impose a cap-and-trade program on the people of California which so far has generated about $250 million per year. At that rate, it will be how many centuries before they can catch up and get enough money just to pay for high-speed rail which cap-and-trade wasn't even intended for anyway?

Folks, we have a giant problem here. High-speed rail in California should not be the Federal taxpayers' burden. It shouldn't even be the people of California's burden. They barely passed it by 52-48 percent on that 2008 ballot after two previous ballot delays. Delay, delay, delay is what you see with this system.

So what really needs to happen is the people of California need to step forward, put this back on the ballot, and have a vote once again on this. And the Federal Government doesn't need to be giving signals that they are going to send even more money for this boondoggle which has been failed, flawed, and deceptive since day one.

Madam Speaker, it is a massively flawed project that leaves taxpayers at all levels on the hook for many, many years to come for something that may not even run in our lifetime. So we, as Federal legislators, need to put a stop to any idea--as my colleagues have been doing--for more money to go forward for high-speed rail. And we need the people of California to wake up to that idea and demand that it be placed back on the ballot, this money go instead for other projects that could be helpful for their transportation corridors, for their highway system, and for the normal mode of rail which can be made to be enhanced to drive 125 miles per hour, which would be beneficial.

Madam Speaker, we need to get on the ball and get back to reality on what high-speed rail will really cost Californians and the American taxpayer and urge that it be placed back on the ballot and give the people that choice once again.

Madam Speaker, last week on the evening of New Year's Day, I had the honor and privilege of being invited to attend the Fallen Officers Memorial in Chico, California, where I joined members of our community in paying tribute to members of our law enforcement who had made the ultimate sacrifice in the previous year.

In the U.S., we lost 118 officers nationwide, 14 in California. We are still mourning and feeling the sting of the loss of Officer Davis and Officer Oliver in a horrific crime spree in Placer County in northern California.

Yet what we hear in the news isn't really consistent with how we value our law enforcement--at least, how we should. Nearly 50,000 officers in 2013 were physically assaulted in the line of duty, but all we hear about is the other way. Madam Speaker, less than 1 in 1,000 contacts officers have result in any kind of physical need with the public. Indeed, that is less than half of 1 percent of an estimated 44 million contacts our officers have.

Now, in light of what we saw in Paris yesterday where their officers, in many cases, are disarmed, and what it looks like is happening in America, we are disarming the confidence in our officers and our law enforcement, we better change our attitude really quickly and value what our men and women in blue do for us so we don't have a worsening situation like we see going on around the world.

I stand today in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in law enforcement and ask that all Americans do the same as we do our business.

I appreciate it. Thank you to my colleague from North

Carolina. You are very gracious in yielding to me, and it has been a pleasure to work with you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank those assembled here tonight. I just want to talk a little bit about some of the issues we have going on in the West, in northern California.

First of all, the excitement we have of coming in--it is a new Congress, it is a new direction for our country, I think. We have a stronger majority in the House of Representatives, of the Republican House. As well, it is a different majority over in the Senate. A lot of people aren't too concerned with what party it is or what partisan issues are; they want to see results. That is what I am looking for as well.

Many bills were sent out of the House last session and languished on a desk over on the Senate side, and I think we will now see action on those commonsense measures that are going to help jobs in America, help our economy rebound, and help people get out from under the grip of government power and government regulation that is just killing their hopes and killing their ideals.

We are looking for that in this new session, and we expect we will be held accountable to make that happen. It is not going to be a miracle. We are not going to get all the results we hoped for, but at least there are going to be things on the Record now that have gone through this House and have gone to the Senate that will be showing the American people what our agenda is and what it has been about.

Bringing it back home to California, I represent the First District in the northeast portion of the State. It is a beautiful district. I am very proud to have been elected for a second time to represent the First District. It is an area that has a lot of great resources that benefit our whole State, even our whole country.

To be able to have my family here with me in Washington attending the festivities, the honor of being sworn in and getting started, getting a fast start, going to work here in this new 114th has just been a real delight.

What we need to be happening in California is a better and wiser use of our resources. You may have seen, at the end of the last session, we were working towards better management of our water supply. Now, we have a deluge of rain once in a while, even when we are suffering drought for the last few years in California.

The water seems to all come at once. If it isn't being saved in snowpack, it will come quickly via rain through our streams, and that is an opportunity for us that we should be retaining that behind the dam, so that we have as well the water that gets down the Feather River and the Sacramento River and can be transferred and put somewhere to be used later.

We have the ability to have the water allocated as needed for fish, for habitat, but there is excess water that needs to be stored. I don't know why that isn't the automatic protocol, but Congress--a bill I cosponsored with many of my other colleagues put forward reminding the Bureau of Reclamation and others that they need to retain this extra water.

It isn't needed for fish, and it isn't needed for the normal runs, so we will have more stored later.

That is what we will continue to work for. But I still go back to the vision that people before us had that have given us Shasta Dam, Lake Oroville, and the whole State water project and the Central Valley project that we have in our State that we have benefited from for so many years, that everybody benefits from, whether you are an environmentalist, a farmer, a person who lives in a city, or if you just have a tap in the country. If you are not on a well, you are probably benefiting from these projects because we had the vision in the past to build them and we didn't have nearly the roadblocks.

Now, of course, we have great environmental concerns and environmental awareness to do things better than we did in the 1850s or the 1880s or what have you. We know how to do these things. But it doesn't mean that, because of a handful of people who don't want to see things happen, we stop the progress for all the rest of us.

So that is what we will be pushing for in this new Congress, to build more water storage. We can do that in northern California. Sites Reservoir, and there are other projects that can be enhanced to retain more water, and there are smarter ways to keep the water that we do have to make the water go further because it is necessary. The way California is suffering from droughts, agricultural land is going to be the first thing to go. Any time an emergency can be declared to switch whatever water does get to agriculture to meet other needs around the State, we have to take care of people first and we have to take care of cities, but when we see so much being run out through the Golden Gate that could be saved, or for questionable tactics on fish that really haven't been proven for that kind of habitat, then we are missing the mark.

So we will be working very hard to add to our water storage and to be smarter with the water we have available to us because we can't count on a record rainfall this year. We are very thankful and we have been blessed with good rainfall in November and the early part of December, but it has tailed off lately. We will need record rainfall the rest of the season up through the spring to have the kind of water we need to get through a good crop year. In the meantime, we should be doing everything possible in government to enhance, to retain, to be smarter with the water we have.

When we hear ideas of removing dams in the north part of the State, part of my district, that produce hydroelectric power because of dubious studies that might benefit fish, we are hurting our region of the State. We are hurting our grid by taking enough renewable electricity off the grid that would somehow need to be replaced with other green power to manage 70,000 homes in the State because of dubious lack of science. We need to battle through this and have smarter use of our resources.

Another thing that we are very rich in in our part of the State is timber. Each summer we see the crisis of nonmanagement of our timber and what that looks like. It is in the air. It is in our brown skies. We get to breathe that. The people within those communities are wondering why their mills are shut down and why their storefronts are boarded up and why they don't have jobs and why they have things like domestic violence increasing because people don't have work in those communities sometimes because their industry has been taken away from them.

I sit on the Natural Resources Committee to get after both of these and other issues--our water, our timber use, and other resources--that are so necessary to the rural part of the State, the rural West that has been languishing for many years, ever since the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973, for good reason at the time, to save the bald eagle. We have bald eagles in our rice fields where I live at home. But we have gone so far beyond that rural America is suffering from this type of regulation that it isn't even proven to help recover a single species. Indeed, somewhere around 1 percent, at best, of species have been recovered after 40-plus years of the Endangered Species Act. That is pretty deplorable for what the cost has been to the people, to the jobs, and for the communities and their values.

But I am still optimistic that America is turning the corner and seeing things a little bit differently and that the job needs to come back home. And the jobs at home need to be revived once again. As a grower of grain myself, we look at our alternatives. Do we want to be in a situation where in the past we were dependent on oil from people who don't like us much? Do we want to be in a position to have our grain crops, the breadbasket of our Nation, do we want to become more dependent on that from people who maybe aren't always a reliable ally overseas? Wheat from Russia and rice from China, do we want to rely on that, or do we want to do the best we can?

My fellow farmers across the country and in my area, they are good stewards of the land. Many have been there for many, many generations. Some of the ranchers I know, their families have been farming and ranching for 160 years in northern California, my own family 80-plus years. We know how to take care of the land. We know what needs to be done. It is sustainable, to

use that buzz word that goes around a lot these days. If it wasn't sustainable, the land wouldn't still produce.

So this is the type of thing we are fighting for. If we don't have a breadbasket in this country, what will America rely on to keep us fed? With the unrest we have in the world, ultimately, if we can't fuel our own Armies if it becomes necessary, what kind of position will we be in to defend ourselves or our allies, like in Europe, like in Israel, like in Japan, or others we have great relations and great trade with? We are in great peril right now if we keep our head in the sand on these issues. We need to look at the resources we have.

As I look at the young people in the audience tonight, one of the first things that I am reminded of is that we are running an $18 trillion national debt. We have lived for the future in the present on someone else's money. And so every dollar we have, every dollar that comes in, we have to be good stewards of, much better than in the past. So every dollar has to go for the type of infrastructure that will improve our transportation system, our water system, our flood control system, and keep our communities safe, and not on frivolous things.

I am reminded in California, instead of this water infrastructure that we so desperately need, we have had several years of drought to remind us, they are still pursuing a high-speed rail system in California. As a former State legislator, we were right in the middle of that as it was coming to a head. What will the rail cost? Voters were told then $33 billion to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles at 220 miles per hour. It isn't even close to being that project anymore, and the price has tripled, at least. It has gone from $33 billion to at least $98 billion by the admission of the rail authority in a hearing we had in the State legislature back then. They are still chasing this dream. Now they have tried to downsize it to be a $68 billion project. To this day, right now, they have still only identified $13 billion-- $10 billion from the State bond and $3 billion from the Federal Government via the Stimulus Act of 2009. So $13 billion of a needed and downsized $68 billion project. They are $55 billion short, and they still think today they are going to go find that money. From the private sector, they are staying away in droves.

There is no way that it is going to be built anywhere near on time, anywhere near on any kind of budget, or that the riders they would have will ever be able to afford to ride it. Why don't we take a fraction of that money, of the $13 billion or the $68 billion, or whatever number it is, and put it towards the water storage we need?

We could build two really nice dams with $68 billion, especially with private sector money that wants to come in and be a partner on this. Let's get it done, because this is the infrastructure that will help our State and help the people and help bring jobs back to rural California and rural America.

I am looking for help from my other colleagues from other States, especially other Western States that have water infrastructure needs they are looking at themselves. Let's work together on this. That is what made us great back in the day.

We have had these huge projects that have made so much hydroelectric power. We like green power. We like renewable power. When it rains behind a dam, you have renewable power and it is reliable. And it is low cost, much more so than windmills and solar panels that require government assistance to put them in and keep them going. Let's do the right thing here and allow these things to happen, all that private sector to happen.

I am optimistic in this Congress that we can make that case and put it in front of the American people. I ask the President to join with us and help on that, whether it is that or the further development of energy that we need in this country to stay ahead of the curve. We are seeing prices coming down, amazingly. Hydraulic fracturing has played a big part in us seeing the price of fuel in some areas--not in California, but other States going below $2 a gallon. In California, we are still taxing ourselves and thinking up cap-and-trade measures to drive the cost up so we will be our own island of high costs. But the other 49 States, God bless you, you have it pretty good.

The vision that we have had to do these things is what we need desperately going forward in 2015 because when we are productive, like what we can produce in northern California with agriculture, with timber, with our mine resources, all of the other things that come from the land, that sets the table for everything else across our district and across our State and across the whole country. That puts us back to work again.

We have trillions of dollars offshore that would love to be repatriated back to this country if we had any kind of constant as to what the tax burden would be for those dollars, for those businesses and investment that needs to be here, any kind of consistency for what our regulatory burden would be so they could predict. If they are to put 30-year loans and 30-year infrastructure in place, will they be able to do business 5 years from now? We would be bringing American jobs back if we could repatriate that money back here. So let's get it done.

We don't come here in Congress--at least I haven't--because it is nice to wear a suit and tie. We come here to get results. To be results oriented, we need to use real facts, real figures, real budgets, real numbers to get to the core of what we are supposed to be doing as to what the Founders had set for our government. The government is doing a lot more things it has no business doing and it can't do well. Let's make sure that we are doing and we have the economy, we have the engineering to generate so we have a functioning school system, it has the funding it needs at fair and proper levels; for our law enforcement, so they are not left wanting for the equipment and backup they need; and for the folks deployed overseas defending our borders as well as helping our allies. We shouldn't leave them wanting while they are deployed; and certainly with the mess that the VA system is, when they come back home, the promises made to them are broken and the shame that we should all feel when our veterans, so many are left homeless or simply begging to have their claims processed.

I am confident in this new Congress that the House and the Senate can work together and put these ideas forward. We can put them out in front of the American people, have the accountability, have the oversight that our job demands. We will get there.

So whether it is now or 2 years from now, I challenge the President to look at these things from a commonsense way of thinking. Think about America first. That is what we will be doing in this House and over in the Senate.

So from northern California to the rest of the country, help us all to be productive and to live the lives we choose to give our kids a chance to live at home, to find jobs and opportunities in their own communities--farming, ranching, mining, whatever it is, or related industries in those small towns that so many are boarded up now. Let them have that chance to live at home, not have to go someplace else, go to a big city somewhere, a different State, or even overseas to try to find good employment so they would have the dream they see fit and the one that their parents would like to pass along to them.

My colleague from North Carolina, I appreciate the time tonight and the opportunity to talk about my district and the things we need to do there, as well as what we need to do for our country. I bid you a good evening, and thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in sadness to acknowledge the loss of a dear friend from Ord Bend, California, Robert Koehnen.

Bob is a guy who loved life and loved sharing it with his family and his friends. He could be happiest out in one of his orchards or at his apiary forming new queen bees in their little queen cages, or on the back of a Harley-Davidson or under the hood of a Dodge or Ford hot rod. He loved sharing that with everybody.

He was a humble man, but he was a real innovator, with harvesting equipment, orchard practices, and beekeeping practices that really put him at the cutting edge, even the humble man he was. You could see how humble he was in some of the things he said. One of the funny ones was that he didn't want to have a big birthday or big event on a weekend because, as he would say it, ``I don't want to screw up a guy's weekend.'' Indeed, in that humility, his family held his memorial service yesterday, on Wednesday at noon, maybe so it wouldn't screw up a guy's weekend.

Bob was a great man, a pillar of the community, a pillar in agriculture. He will be severely missed by his wife, Yvonne; his sons, Kalin and Kamron; brother, Bill; sister, Cleone; and a whole bunch of family and a whole bunch of friends who call him family, call him a dear friend.

God bless him.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a very rural district in northern California which has been greatly impacted by the drought. The town of Redding, for example, has had its water supplies cut to 50 percent this year. Farmers along the Tehama-Colusa Canal received no water at all from the Central Valley Project, leaving thousands of acres of productive farmland fallow.

After the third year of historic drought--the worst drought in 1,200 years, historic in California--it is imperative that we act immediately to prepare for another dry year.

H.R. 5781 by David Valadao takes immediate action to store more water and start on this remedy. This legislation is just 18 months in duration, giving us time to continue working with the Senate on a longer-term solution.

H.R. 5781 has two simple components: creating flexibility so we can store more water in preparation for the coming year; and preserving the most fundamental water right of all, the idea that those who live where water originates should have access to it.

We also protect northern California to ensure that those who live where our water originates do not have to have their water cut off while other areas of the State receive deliveries. Under this measure, northern California will be guaranteed access to the water that rains on their communities.

Mr. Speaker and Members, we have worked in good faith to negotiate a bipartisan bill to address California's drought. Nothing in this measure is controversial. It leaves the Endangered Species Act intact, it respects water rights, and it helps every region of California. Twenty million Californians will benefit in some fashion or another.

After several years of drought, it is imperative we get on the ball and prepare California for the coming year. We are prepared to continue negotiating, but there is no water to waste, and there is no time to waste. California needs us to act today by passing this measure while we continue to work through the process.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with me in this committee on this important topic.

Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer in northern California, and when I hear talk of the water wars being reignited, it has been a one-sided war, with the amount of farmers and people that work in the Valley. They haven't had the bullets to be in a water war because we have been losing for a long time.

Hundreds of thousands of acre-feet that have been diverted already in the past adds up to millions over the years for other uses, besides what has been going in the North Valley, South Valley, and Central Valley.

I heard this comment a while ago. Powerful, small people were how legislators looked at us in the valley--powerful, small people. Do these folks

standing in the unemployment line look powerful to you? Do the farmers who have been fighting against this for years and years look powerful when we keep losing these battles one after another? To build more storage, we would have water for everybody in California.

This measure here today would help everybody in California that is part of State water projects or the Central Valley Project. Twenty million people in California would see additional benefit by taking-- and here's the concept here, folks--excess water during high flows that now would be just flowing out to the Pacific.

We are not taking water during the middle of the season any more than what would already be in the established regime. This is the excess water you would see during flood periods or the high flows that do happen when we have rainfall and water thundering down the Sacramento River, the Feather River, and San Joaquin River during those high flows. We are taking that excess water and reprogramming it, so it can benefit more people. It doesn't take anything from the fish regime or any of that type of concern.

We hear the stuff coming from the other side of the aisle that has continued, whether it has been for 40 years or just recently, to distort what we are trying to do here to make more water for California, which is in its third year of a huge drought--as Mr. McCarthy said, what looks like a 1,200-year record for droughts--and about stopping this temporary measure that would help to cause a little bit of excess water be retained to help the people like this to have jobs.

We hear we need jobs in California. We are talking about immigration bills. Let's help people have jobs to live the dream. What about the people that are already here? What about the people standing in that line that have conditions that look like this, with the crops in our State being left fallow, these trees and these vines being stumped or completely pushed out because we can't have a vision, all because we have the typical rhetoric, which I have been listening to as a farmer when I was outside of this place and now today on this floor--and probably many more times--that says we can't build any storage because of this?

It is a new regime which respects the already-established protocols. This doesn't take away the power from the State water board or the other boards in place. If you would actually read the bill, you would see in it those provisions are kept in place by the Governor and by the water boards. All the entities that have authority over it can step in and say, ``We think this is going to affect the fish, the water regime, or any of the others.''

I urge that we support this measure today, and I ask that we listen to what is in the bill and not listen to the rhetoric and the lies.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in memory and honor of Placer County Sheriff's Detective Michael Davis, Jr., a peace officer, brother, husband, father, son, and hero.

A resident of Roseville and a graduate of my alma mater, Butte College, Michael dedicated his life to public safety.

Having first come to the Placer County Sheriff's Office as a reserve deputy in 1996, Michael was hired as a police officer with the Auburn Police Department, and in 1999, he began working for the department in many capacities, including as an impact weapons instructor, an emergency driving instructor, an adviser to the youth Explorer Program, and as a homicide detective for the past 10 years.

Recently, on October 24 of this year, during a horrific crime spree, Michael Davis, Jr., was one of two northern California sheriff's deputies, including Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver, who lost their lives in the line of duty. As a detective, he may not have normally been on this type of call, but he answered the call during this crime spree when a twice-deported criminal was running and gunning all up through two different counties.

Michael died while protecting his community, and, indeed, he helped stop this crime spree. It is a tragic loss felt deeply by many in the community, including by myself, with the sadness that it brings for all. He was protecting the people of Placer County in that line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in recognition and honor of Detective Michael Davis for all of his service to our community, and I stand beside his family, including his wife, Jessica, and their four children in their time of sorrow and profound personal loss.

God give them strength, healing, and peace.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 523, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Stated against: