Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the American people sent a strong message to Washington, one that was apparently not received by the President. His latest threat to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants would not only serve as a massive abuse of power, but also make clear the unprecedented disconnect between this administration and our citizens.

The American people deserve a government that can demonstrate both

the ability and the commitment to enforcing our Nation's laws, not a President who continually sidesteps Congress and the American people to advance an agenda which appeals exclusively to one side of the aisle.

I urge the President to end the political ploys to go around the laws we have on the books and start working together toward an immigration system that is in the best interest of the U.S.--not one that endangers our citizens, even takes some of their lives and some of the lives of our law enforcement officers, but truly one that secures our borders, respects the rule of law, stops violent criminals at the border, and prevents future illegal immigration.

I call on the President to work with Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, 227 years ago, our Founding Fathers signed the U.S. Constitution establishing a nation united around the principle that our rights as citizens come not from the government but from our Creator.

Today we recommit ourselves by choice to upholding and defending these fundamental principles recognized in this document, including liberty, freedom, and rule of law of our great Republic. Indeed, our first act as newly elected Members of this House is to swear an oath to uphold and protect this document.

These principles have guided our Nation well over the last 227 years, both in times of prosperity as well as discord. Now, perhaps more than ever, it is our duty and it is the duty of every American to ensure these liberties and freedoms can be passed on to our children and our grandchildren.

I am honored to stand here today and commemorate the works of these 39 brave and wise original signatories to our Constitution.

Thank you. I appreciate my colleague from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) for your efforts on this.

When you become a Member of the House of Representatives and you start receiving those calls from veterans in your district on the difficulty they have with what they thought they were promised by their government when they enlisted, when they went into the military, it really, really hits home. It really affects your heart to see these veterans who have struggled to at least be heard for their claims, for their health care, by the VA, by the treatment centers.

We have to do better than that. To see the suicide rate among veterans the way it is, to know that they felt like the government has turned their backs on them, is appalling. We have to give them the hope.

My office, I know my colleagues that have spoken here tonight, have turned towards helping as much as they can. So my message, just a brief message, for our veterans out there: Do not give up. Know that we are trying to reform the VA system, trying to reform through the measures that have been brought up the way the VA treats and gets the help for veterans who have served us.

They made a promise to us. We need to keep the promise to them. For them to go feeling hopeless and that nobody cares about them, that they can't get treatment, is one of the biggest shames we could have as a country. We have asked them to do a lot. We will continue to do so in the future. We need to be prepared to take care of them properly, if they need it, when they come home.

I appreciate, again, you having this time here tonight, Ms. Sinema, here in the House to put a spotlight on this as you have. What I have tried to do in my office and the hard work by my own staff is to have our veterans be treated respectfully but also feel hopeful that someone hears their message, hears their plea, and then will address their needs timely and respectfully. They should not be homeless, they should not feel to the point of hopelessness that suicide is an alternative for them.

Thank you, Ms. Sinema.

Madam Speaker, last night, in the town of Weed, California, which is in my own First Congressional District, over 100 of my constituents' homes were destroyed or damaged by fire, along with an elementary school and a timber mill, one of the area's largest employers. Thousands of my constituents are under evacuation orders, and the fire is not yet contained.

Aside from this tragedy, hundreds of thousands of acres of northern California forests have burned so far this year. In fact, the combined impact of the fires is already larger than last year's Rim Fire near Yosemite.

Unfortunately, while the Rim Fire received nonstop coverage, most of America is probably unaware of this year's calamities. The unfortunate truth is that rural California and much of the West experience massive wildfires like these every year. Over the past decade, wildfires have only grown in size and severity.

Madam Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. We know why our forests are burning. It is because of decades of mismanagement caused by Federal bureaucracies and excessive regulations and red tape. They have an attitude at the Forest Service in many cases of just let it burn.

We suffer from road closures, inaccessibility to our forests, poor management, and, certainly, the ability to stop fires once they are started because of these policies.

The simple fact is our forests are not just mismanaged or even poorly managed. They are entirely unmanaged. As a result, they are overgrown, unhealthy, and ready to burst into flames at any time. I am supporting several measures to address the crisis in our forests, and last night's events create even more urgency for Congress and this administration to act.

Chairman Hastings' bill, H.R. 1526, which was passed in this House and I am a cosponsor of, would restore common sense to forest management, requiring the Forest Service to actively manage public forests to reduce fuel loads and improve forest health.

It is high time that the Senate act on this measure or, at the very least, produce its own forestry measure in the Senate so we can negotiate a final product. This would be part of the now 384 House bills that are languishing over in the Senate that need action.

Chairman Simpson's bill, H.R. 3992, another measure I am supporting and cosponsoring, will end the diversion of forest management funding to firefighting by treating fires like other disasters, allowing flexible wildfire disaster funding.

The Forest Service's increasing use of forest management funds for wildfire suppression means that we are no longer in the business of managing forests and, instead, just putting them out--or trying to-- when they burn. This measure deserves a hearing in

committee and action on the floor before this session ends.

Madam Speaker, without action on these bills, our forests will continue to burn. Our constituents will continue to see their homes and livelihoods destroyed, and rural communities across the West will continue to suffer.

In the House this year, we hear about this being a do-nothing Congress and how it has been the least productive. The House of Representatives has been doing its job.

When we have 384-plus bills sitting over in the Senate languishing, waiting for action, then it is a misnomer that action is not going on in this House; indeed, it is a do-nothing Senate.

The people of the West in the line of these fires are suffering and demand action of their government. When they are not getting it, they are the victims.

Madam Speaker, before the end of this year, we need to take serious action on the management of our forests by allowing timber to be cut and processed in order to achieve forest health. We have an overload. We have an inventory in our forests.

There is much more that can be sustainable, on the number of trees per acre, on what is safe and healthy for the trees as they compete for limited water supply underground, therefore, stressing the trees, causing them to be susceptible and more in danger of insects that weaken and kill the trees; it is, thereby, a self-perpetuating prophesy of forests that are weak and then burn.

Madam Speaker, my constituents in Siskiyou County and last night in Weed, California, have suffered from this mismanagement--the nonmanagement--the incompetence and even what some people feel is criminal treatment they are getting from their Federal Government because of inactivity.

Madam Speaker, it is high time we pass these measures and do what we need to do to make our forests healthy and safe, as well as help the economy for those people. Certainly, in Congress and our government, we use a lot of wood and paper products. Why should they not come from California or from our Western States?

I appreciate the chairman yielding me time here today on this very important measure.

We have seen the EPA now trying to claim jurisdiction over virtually every body of water in the United States, puddle or not, navigable or not, manmade or natural, year-round or just even seasonal. In order to protect these waters, the EPA claims it needs to control vast amounts of land surrounding these waters.

Now, the residents of my district in northern California are already familiar with this type of regulatory act. In California, the EPA is already ignoring clear exemptions for farming activities that have been going on for years and years and are even in the law as exempt; this, in order to pursue massive fines against family farmers simply for changing crops or maintaining their already manmade irrigation systems, thus, in the process paralyzing farmers who are waiting months and months or even years for EPA or their cohorts in the Army Corps to decide these legal activities can continue to go on, otherwise they will be subject to huge fines.

This is form of tyranny that is a gigantic overreach and needs to be stopped. That is why I support H.R. 5078 as a way to limit EPA back to the proper role of actually watching out for clean waters, not regulating to the last drop every water drop in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, this bill brings a portion of the Endangered Species Act back in to the 21st century and much-needed transparency.

Under this bill, the public will have access to data used to determine which species are listed as endangered. Backroom decisions made by regulators at the behest of nongovernment organizations with secret data is the sort of policymaking you might find in the Soviet Union or communist China, not in the United States.

Astoundingly, you will hear arguments that this data should remain secret. This is the data used to decide whether Americans can build a home on their own property, farm their own land, or simply going hiking in their national forest.

The bill includes also much county data used in ESA decisions, which is key. It is important that all economic information is available so locals get a fair shake. Had this bill been in place, my district would have had more input in an ESA listing that will hurt the economy across the Sierra Nevadas.

This measure also tracks and caps attorney fees paid in ESA lawsuits. Of the 75 Federal agencies surveyed, just 10 even tracked their payouts to lawsuit factories like the NRDC and the Center for Biological Diversity.

Mr. Chairman, I happen to think Americans deserve to know how their government makes their decisions. Let's pass H.R. 4315 to bring transparency and fairness back to the ESA process.

Mr. Speaker, 5 million Americans have given up on their search for a job. For 59 months straight, invisible unemployment has remained above 10 percent. The number of long-term unemployed Americans is double the prerecession figure.

Mr. Speaker, among the 294 bills the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to act on are over 40 House-passed bipartisan pro-jobs bills that would help put Americans back to work. We have passed legislation to help the long-term unemployed get training for new jobs, a measure to restore hourly wages cut by the 30-hour workweek mandate, and regulatory reform bills to cut the red tape holding back key energy and construction projects that will help create jobs and boost our economy. These measures are commonsense solutions that our country needs right now, policies that reward hard work and provide opportunities for Americans to be self-sufficient.

Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs bills? We hear that over here on the other side of the aisle. You can find them over in Harry Reid's dusty desk drawer waiting for action in the Senate. However, the Senate has refused to vote on them, has refused to take action to help our economy, and has refused to consider any approach but bigger government.

It is time for the Senate to get to work and take action on the jobs bills Americans need.

Mr. Speaker, the continued attacks by Hamas on our Middle East ally Israel causes innocent Israelis to live under the daily threat of rocket attacks from Hamas at any given moment.

Our closest ally in the region must defend itself against vicious attacks aimed at its civilians. Each rocket attack that Hamas launches to kill civilians in Israel is an act of war. The United States must not underestimate how serious these attacks are and how crucial it is that we continue to support Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the Obama administration intends to continue funding the Palestinian Authority. Their decision to form a new government with Hamas is appalling, and we must respond appropriately.

How can we possibly continue funding a foreign government that has embraced a terrorist group currently attacking one of our closest allies and that has refused to acknowledge its right to even exist?

Our message to the world must be clear: America will always stand with Israel, and America will always punish acts of terror.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about America's southern border and of the infiltration happening by foreign noncitizens into our country.

It is clear to most Americans that the massive influx of new illegal immigrants is due to the proposed Senate amnesty bill and the President's unilateral decree that U.S. Customs will not deport these minors who cross illegally into America.

Today's immigration problems lay at the feet of the President's and the Senate's, who proposed yet another round of amnesty in America in response to continued illegal border crossings.

Honestly, what does this administration think will happen when it offers another 12 million illegal immigrants amnesty and does nothing to secure the border? Does it think there will not be more to come?

Mr. Speaker, what the American people want to see is a strong fence and a truly secure border, where we as Americans determine who is let into this country. This is not rocket science.

The American people want a government that works--one that builds the border fence, one with a gate that we control.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to address the crisis occurring along our southern border, which is a direct result of the President's failure to uphold the laws of our Nation.

Illegal aliens apprehended in Texas are being shipped and flown to California, which is my home State, as well as to other States, on the taxpayers' dime. Allegations state that approximately 420 Central American illegal aliens, mostly women and children, were on the first three flights into San Diego.

Flooding our State with these illegal aliens not only creates a humanitarian crisis that must be dealt with, but it crosses a line that the American public will not and should not tolerate.

We cannot continue to stand by and allow this administration to continue to pick and choose what laws will be enforced. These policies have resulted in what we are facing now--unlawful immigration, especially children and their families. They are getting a mixed message and a mixed signal from this administration, that of believing they may receive some form of amnesty from this administration or will at least have a chance to stay in this country, regardless of the laws of our Nation.

Unless this present administration starts upholding the laws of the land and ensuring our border is secure, this crisis will continue to get worse and worse, affecting our children and our economy very detrimentally.

The President's demand--the solution he is proposing--of $3.7 billion in additional funding isn't a solution at all. It does nothing to address the border problems we have in the enforcement of the border.

We need to find real solutions, and this flood of illegal immigration is just going to be a bigger detriment to our Nation.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, we have heard quite a bit about the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' overreach regarding waters of the United States. In a preview of just how little regard these entities have for Congress and the law, they have already drastically overstepped the limits Congress has placed on their power.

Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act explicitly exempts certain activities from regulation, including normal agricultural activities like plowing fields, planting and harvesting crops, and maintaining irrigation and drainage ditches. Congress made these exemptions clear when the act was passed.

Unfortunately, the EPA and Army Corps are, as usual, using creative interpretations of the law in an effort to regulate activities that are clearly exempt from their control. We have seen Federal agencies go after farmers simply for changing crops or improving their irrigation systems, with absolutely no authority to do so.

The exemption on ag activities, in section 404(f)(1) of the Clean Water Act, reads as follows:

Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, such

as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting

for the production of food, fiber, and forest products or

upland soil and water conservation practices is not

prohibited or otherwise subject to regulation.

Madam Chair, this is as clear as it can be. These activities are exempt from regulation. However, according to the corps permitting guidance to farmers and ranchers, to qualify, these exempt activities: must be a part of an established ongoing farming, silviculture, or ranching operation. An operation is no longer established when the area on which it was conducted has been converted to another use or has lain idle.

Again, the Army Corps' own words:

If the current use of a property is for growing corn, the

exemption does not apply if future activities would involve

conversion to an orchard or vineyards.

Nowhere in the law does a requirement that farm work be ``ongoing'' or ``established'' exist. Nowhere in the law is a prohibition on changing crops mentioned.

Madam Chair, my amendment simply directs the corps to follow the law as Congress has written it, to stop attempting to expand its reach based on fictional authority. This House unanimously passed similar language to rein in the corps last year.

Let us remind these agencies that we write the law, not unknown Federal bureaucrats, and that the law applies not just to average Americans, but to the Federal Government as well.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, how much time is remaining?

I appreciate the comments and thoughts from my colleague from Virginia there.

That said, on this amendment, not the catchall on the whole bill here, we are sticking to the exemptions that have been provided for in the law by Congress for farming activities, and we do have the need for this amendment because the enforcement by the Army Corps is happening out in the field in my own district, even on these issues.

We have a screen shot right here from the Army Corps' Web site that lists some of the things I mentioned earlier, as I said, that these activities must be part of an ongoing operation or that there cannot be a crop change without requirements put forth by the Army Corps, giving you permission or denying that permission.

So it is, indeed, necessary because there is overzealous regulation and enforcement of something that doesn't exist in the law as passed duly by the Congress representing the people of the United States.

As I mentioned a bit earlier, once again, this House did unanimously pass similar language on this issue last year, so I would ask to have that support of the U.S. House once again to simply allow farmers to do what they would be doing ongoing and planning to do and have done for many generations all over this country except for a reinterpretation by, in a lot of cases, out-of-control bureaucrats that have a different agenda.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this language in this amendment will hold the Sacramento River settlement contracts in place until issues associated with the litigation or renewal of the contracts are settled. Maintaining these contracts is critically important to the effective operation of the Central Valley Project and efficient delivery of water north and south of the delta.

The settlement contracts are foundational to the CVP and provide vital stability that benefits the Bureau of Reclamation, agricultural and municipal and industrial water users, the environment, the California State water project and its beneficiaries.

The language does not prejudice the disposition of the ongoing litigation; it simply ensures stability until such issues are resolved.

The settlement contracts, originally entered into by the Bureau in 1964 and renewed in 2005, allowed the United States to properly distribute the Sacramento River water rights and provide operational stability for the CVP. Without these contracts in place and full compliance with their terms, the underlying right to divert water from the Sacramento River will be called into question, potentially creating instability statewide. The settlement contractors would continue to divert water under their historic rights, but will begin to do so earlier in the year and during critical months. In addition, they would not be required to compensate the United States for any of the water they divert. This would cost the Treasury approximately $12 million in lost revenue.

Moreover, the settlement contractors would no longer be obligated to schedule their water diversions with the U.S. This would result, at a minimum, in an inability to operate the CVP in an efficient manner, causing uncertainty and instability throughout the Central Valley Project and the State water project, which serve a combined 23 million people.

Finally, the contract supplies available for diversion under the existing SRS contracts were assumed in all base and future studies used in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2008 biological opinion pertaining to the delta smelt.

The Ninth Circuit recently confirmed the validity of that biological opinion, as urged by the U.S. and NRDC. Accordingly, continuing these contracts under their existing terms pending the final outcome of the NRDC v. Jewell litigation would have no adverse effect on delta smelt.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield, upon the heels of the statements by my bay area colleagues, 2 minutes of time to my colleague from the valley, Mr. Garamendi, who represents much of this area.

Madam Chair, what time do I have remaining?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate my colleague additionally adding to that.

I think in response to the amendment not being needed or setting a bad precedent, the stability that is so desperately needed for water delivery to the whole project is why we are doing this. It will have effect for 1 year or until the case is settled. These are ongoing contracts. We are not changing anything. It is not moving in any new direction here. But the instability that can be caused by an impending ruling or maybe a change of mind by the Bureau of Reclamation would cause much chaos, as my friend had suggested. This isn't an unreasonable amendment to add to maintain the stability we need for an additional year.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, I do.

Madam Chair, I would like a ruling in opposition to that, because I think what we are talking about here does not change law. It changes nothing other than maintaining the direction we have. It is not requiring any action by the Bureau or Department of the Interior or any other government agency, nor prejudicing anything by the court, simply keeping what we have in place with the contracts and the stability that is needed.

So I think the point of order is invalid with what the intention of this amendment is.

Offered By: Mr. LaMalfa

Amendment No. 24: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. LaMalfa

Amendment No. 25: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I mentioned how the EPA has overreached on making every drop of water that basically falls in the United States under its jurisdiction. Whether it falls on your field, on your driveway, or on your roof and is collected in a rain barrel or in a puddle, they seem to want to be in control of it.

Before our Independence Day holiday, they added another rule into the Federal Register where they seek to be the judge, jury, and executioner on deciding what the fines are going to be and how they are going to carry them out without jurisprudence or oversight by an independent party. They seek to, instead, be the ones that collect the fines after finding somebody guilty of a possible alleged violation.

EPA has already nearly tripled the amount of fines it has taken in since 2009, so is this really about the environment or is it about revenue generation and putting the people that are out there trying to make a living and make things happen in the United States on the defensive?

I think they need to pull back this rule and hear from the American people, Mr. Speaker, about how devastating this is for the economy and for the well-being of Americans.