We heard the term NIMBY thrown around to describe opposition to this bill. This NIMBY term, not in my backyard, is used to describe local residents, oftentimes very wealthy residents, who oppose development in their neighborhoods, but…

When we were in the majority, Democrats, we passed H.R. 1. What was that about? It was not about elections. It was about our democracy. It was about protecting that democracy. After January 6, that became urgent. Now, some might want to…

We shouldn't have to wait for a crisis to make good decisions. We should be proactive.

If we want California agricultural production and the associated food security that accompanies it, we need to meaningfully invest in our infrastructure.

We need to identify the best projects and avoid over-studying, undue delays, and build a better system.

We need storage and better conveyance capacity for agricultural water supplies, for drinking water, for recreation, and for the environment.

I think both bills address existing barriers to tribal economic development and were previewed at the Subcommittee's first oversight hearing earlier this month.

This is a very important one and a step addressing the paternalism of the Federal Government with regard to tribes, amplifying tribal self-determination and amplifying the very critical issue of sovereignty for federally recognized tribes.

The obligation, the trust responsibility, every stakeholder should be at the table.

We don't have to guess what these states will do.

I'm glad that after nearly 20 years of debate in Congress on trespass cultivation, we're finally moving toward a long-term solution.

What happened then? Well, Idaho authorized the killing of 90 percent of their 1,500 wolves.